HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSe'
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. O AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 18, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department
SUBJECT: Declaration of Surplus Property
Recommended Action:
Declare the attached listing of property SURPLUS so that the
items may be offered for sale to the public.
Report Summary:
Each year the Maintenance Director and the Finance Director
identify personal property owned by the City which no longer
has a useful value for the City. The items are offered for
sale to the general public.
Fiscal Impact:
Some limited cost recovery is expected from the sale of the
surplus property.
Attachment:
Surplus property listing.
Motion and Vote:
C. K
J
QI O&MZ
February 28, 1990
MEMO TO: Patricia Shriver
FROM: Dan Trinidad - --�
SUBJECT: INVENTORY OF SURPLUS FIXED ASSETS
COUNCH, MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stotzman
As directed, staff inventoried surplus fixed assets for the annual
City property surplus sale. The list is as follows:
Printed on recycled paper
Amount
1)
Chair - orange seat /back
4
2)
Chair - brown with arms
5
3)
Monitor - HP 125 Series 100
2
4)
Computer - HP 9122
4
5)
Monitor - HP 150 Series 100
7
6)
Computer Jet Printer
2
7)
Keyboard HP
7
8)
Chair - Secretary - brown
1
9)
Chair - Secretary - black
1
10)
Printer - HP 2602A
3
11)
Computer - HP 9133
4
12)
Computer - HP 9121
1
13)
Calculator - Royal 244PD
1
14)
Chair - Secretary - yellow
2
15)
Chair - green
9
16)
Chair - yellow
2
17)
Chair - office - green w /wooden arms
2
18)
Printer Cover - HP 921770
2
19)
7900 Ericson Typewriter
1
20)
Desk, Metal
1
21)
'81 Chevy 1 ton dumptruck 1GBJC34F19VB142366
1
22)
'82 Toyota Corolla 4 -dr JT2TE72E5C0712226
1
23)
'84 Dodge Aries 1B3BD26COEC192330
1
24)
'84 Dodge Aries 1B3BD26COEC190867
1
Printed on recycled paper
7�-
SARATO?
G,4,ciTY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. ( O
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: . 4/18/90 CITY MGR. APPROVAL %6W
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Approval of New Emergency Plan for the City
Recommended Motion: Approve the new emergency plan as proposed by
staff.
Report Summary--L The City's Emergency Plan governs how the City
will function during times of an emergency. Common emergencies
include earthquakes, major fires, hazardous chemical spills,
significant storm activity, and other similar occurrences which
require the City to substantially change its normal operating
procedures in order to effectively respond to the event. The
Emergency Plan outlines how those changes in operations will occur,
and prescribes new roles and reporting relationships so that the
existing staff can effectively manage the emergency in cooperation
with the City's two fire districts, the Sheriff's office, and other
public agencies.
The proposed Plan would replace the existing Plan which was
approved by Council in 1986. The most significant change from the
old plan is that the new plan is based on the "incident command
system" which allows for the interchangeability of the staff
positions based on the type and nature of the emergency, and the
resources at hand. Checklists of responsibilities allow critical
functions to be handled by available personnel until senior
personnel arrive to assume their predetermined functions.
The staff of the City, together with Public Safety
Commissioners and volunteers from the community have spent
considerable time in developing the attached document which is far
superior to anything the City has had before.
Fiscal l Impacts • None
Attachments:
1. Report from Community Services officer Reeve
(emergency preparedness planning officer)
2. Summary Critique of July 13 Emergency Exercise
3. Draft Emergency Plan
Motion and Vote:
MEMORANDUM
CITY of SA�ATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
TO: Todd Argow, Community Services Director
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
FROM: Paula Reeve, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
SUBJECT: Approval of Draft Emergency Plan
In response to your request, I recommend that the City Coun-
cil approve the attached draft Emergency Plan. Staff is now
recommending this draft plan for City Council approval for the
following reasons:
The most recent draft has been revised and updated to a
point where it can now be used as an effective guideline to train
and assist city employees in understanding their roles in an
emergency.
This plan will enable the city to respond and recover from an
emergency with speed and efficiency.
The plan assists the city in protecting the lives and property of
citizens and provides for the continuance of city government in
case of an emergency.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, the City of Saratoga hired a consultant to revise
its Emergency Plan which had been in existence since 1986. The
main purpose of the revision was to adopt the Incident Command
System. This structure improves interfaces with higher level
agencies who also use such a system. Included would be state and
county agencies and local police and fire departments.
ANALYSIS
Because the revised plan had not been implemented, it was
decided by the City Manager to utilize the county -wide emergency
exercise of July 13, 1989, to introduce and test the plan with
our local staff. The exercise was an orientation and training
activity involving all cities and the County. During the exer-
cise, section chiefs were called upon to give status reports of
1
Printed on recycled paper.
their activities, resources, and needs. Individuals were expect-
ed to describe conditions falling within their area of functional
responsibility, and in many instances to identify another section
or unit who had responsibility for the situation involved.
Staff's critique of the exercise showed the Incident Command
System to be effective.
However, the exercise uncovered several weaknesses in the
Emergency Plan. Most notably, the lack of a medical section to
deal with seriously injured people. The latest revision to the
plan incorporates a medical section to organize city and county
medical resources. This section is important since there are no
hospitals in Saratoga and limited ambulance response.
The exercise also raised questions of responsibility assign-
ments. It was noted that the section chiefs must assume more
responsibility and leadership for their function. In the future
more emphasis will be placed on understanding section responsi-
bility and teamwork through training sessions and exercises. The
latest revision incorporates refined checklists and position
descriptions to assist personnel in clarifying responsibilities.
The Incident Command System's flexibility was also demon-
strated during the October 14, 1990, earthquake. The Emergency
Plan restructures the city's day to day organization into an
emergency response operation. Many staff members had departed
from work when the earthquake occurred. The plan provided the
flexibility for remaining staff members to take over an emergen-
cy function and direct an appropriate response.
CONCLUSION
If approved by Council, the proposed Emergency Plan will go
into immediate effect. It will be used as a guideline and train-
ing document to assist city employees in understanding their role
in an emergency. By adopting the Emergency Plan and following up
with appropriate training, the City of Saratoga will demonstrate
a responsible position in emergency preparedness to the communi-
ty and other municipalities.
PREPARED BY:
Paula Reeve
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
REVIEWED BY:
Todd W. rgow
Community Services Director
2
SUBMITTED BY:
2
"Harry if. Peacock
City Manager
i
4
CITY OF SARATOGA
y
13, 1989 E""ERCENTCY EXERCISE R_ °PART
BACKCRCUNr`
_9�8 `_' ^e C_ *y �f Saratoga undertook to reV4 t'^
E.T:eryencv Plan wh_ch had been in ex,stence since _984. The e r
- ma;, o
purmcse of the reV =S40n WaS
to adopt the in en Command System
structure and `hereby improve interfaces with other - M -_gher '_eve'_
agencies such as the state and county and also to _J=ro-�e
interfaces with other agencies such as the Sheriff and Fire
Districts which are members of the Saratoga Emergency Response
Team.
"_or to t -e exercise the revised plan was in draft form. By
=action of the City Manager and the City Council a decision.had been_
Wade to ut_'ize the new, but not yet completed version, for any
emergency that may arise. Copies of the draft were distributed to
responsible parties and d_scussiors were conducted to the extent
that the various participants understood the new approach and their
roles.
Because the plan was new and unpracticed it was decided by
the City Manager, to utilize the county exercise of July 13,.1989,
as an introduction of the revised plan. The City Manager further
decided that the Saratoga participation in the County Exercise
should be of a "table top type" and should follow the county wide
scenario' where ever possible. It was decided that the City would
limit its involvement in the county exercise to responding to the
five preplarned messages that the County would relay to each City's
EOC during the exercise.
PREPARATION FOR THE EXERCISE
During the planning phase three information Bulletins were
drafted and distributed to the members of the emergency response
team. These bulletins are attached.
The first bulletin set forth the goals of the exercise. It
also told the participants how the exercise would be conducted and
what was expected of them. In particular it advised the
participants that they were expected to use their detailed
knowledge of Saratoga in applying the impact of the county scenario
to Saratoga.
The second and third bulletins were follow up on the first and
gave more details on goals and the procedure and scheduling of the
exercise, including suggestions for the Section Chief Reports.
Since the exercise was to be an orientation and training
activity associated with a newly revised Emergency Plan,. the City
Manager played a major role in planning the table top exercise.
He studied
the planned County
e:�:ercise, : ^e adopted the ccunty
scenario *_o
specific conditions
in the City
of Saratoga, he mace
job
assignments and he
participated
in EOC room layout,"---
sbecific
Section
Chiefs close to
hi: so that
'. ^_e could consult with
wanted
_ em without
having al'_ .00 part_ ipa :ts i__ clued) .
prior to the exercise the City Manager directed that tests be
_-nd-•c led of the emergency power to t :tee °_OC , and the EOC telephone
s °-stern. Two weeks prior to -l-e exercise the City Manager _n%J_ted
3?l dh0 would part_c_pGte in the e erc_se - a training sess =on
.e -_ond-.-_ted t0 demcnStra e now Organizec group action can
s.-- .7e d_ff__.lt �or o' lems. This was very yenefic -a2 __ ^_ that started
the "recovery spi_ _t ' of ~'tee exercise, -mot oeoo_e ac _.fainted an
at ease in a gro'_;J environment. This was- im'oortant in that it made
all of t_ ^_e participants fee'- dart of t? e team, especially those who
were not City employees.
e City Manager also reviewed t_ "_e oro=csec' messages to be
4 zed. Mary of these were ident ica_ with those to be used '..y
the county. He selected 50' of these, revised therm as needed for
Saratoga and ir'entff`ed whic :: member of the EOC response team
should be given that message during the exercise. He arranged for
all members to have at leas` one message.
-RST TWO DAYS AFTER T'_ ?E EARTHQUAKE
At 8AM on July 1", and 12 a memo from the Director of
Emergency Services ;City�Manager) was delivered to the work station
of each member of the emergency response team. These bulletins are
attached. As vsu w'_,1 note they follow the County Scenario ___ as
far as it impacts Saratoga. The numbers of injured, dead, etc are
the same as the County plan.
DAY OF THE EXERCISE
At 8 AM a memo from the Director of Emergency Services was
delivered to each participant. It gave further details of the
scenario and instructed all to report to the EOC at 9 AM. It
requested all agencies to be prepared to report on current
conditions in their area of responsibility.
At 9 AM, the City Manager opened the exercise. He called upe-
each of his Section Chiefs and some of the Unit Chiefs to make a
brief, report of the status of their area of responsibility. He
asked them to define their problems, what they intended to do about
them and where they needed help.
The City Manager controlled the discussion and questions that
arose as a result of these reports. He requested details when
needed and straightened out any confusion.
When all reports were completed, the City Manager announced
that several messages had been received and needed to be answered.
The Communications Unit Chief delivered the messages to the
preassigned individuals one at a time. The individual_ read t e
message to the group and prc fded an response. The individuals had
_c prior knowledge of t'-ese messages so they had to draw upc. ^.•their
knowledge of the Emergency Plan to determine what action to --ake.
T� ;zany _nstar_c'es the response req- _red them ident_`y another
�ectio or Un` who had va responsibilit'- for the s_tuat o_
-- vo' -ved. As expected this pertion of a exercise raised
:-uest ns of assigned The city Manager directed
°- S.__--C S and C -2,r -led �Ob = °C JO S�b2S
-he c_nal one _3-- hour of the time al_ct_ed was devct °u tC
_.,..men +s and s- _-ggest_cns -from th,e part_C _Jants. Again the _
Manager 'lead t.__s pert_on of the exercise.
SUMMARY O-' EXPERIENCES.
All who participated or observed agreed that the exercise was
a very. worthwh_'_e effort. .he Coals were achieved and exceeded.
The C_`v Manager felt that all had taken the exercise
se_ - _'ously, had prepared properly and had participated i.^. a:.
enthusiastic manner.
The _evolvement and part_,_ c' ration of the City Manager was most
i_ ^.fluentia, in the success of the exercise. His leadership and
exa-n.16 _naressed a21 involved -__ the y- portance he attached to
emergency preparedness.
The exercise uncovered several_ weaknesses in the Emergency
?!an. Most notably being the lack of responsibility definition in
the area of Medical "not First A d) for seriously injured people
there are no Hospitals in Saratoga,.
More work is needed in Emergency Preparedness. The Section -
Chiefs must assume respo risibility and leadership for their function_
vice expecting t'_^e Emergency Coordinator or someone else to do
More emphasis on definition and understanding of Section
responsibility. More emphasis on improving the Section "Before _ e
Emergency" Checklists. More work on developing Section tea- wcr'_ :,
through small training sessions, development of ".How" books, m_ni-
exerc�:ses or drills, inventory and audits of equipment, materials
and supplies.
WE ARE MAKING LOTS OF PROGRESS
BUT
THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO 00 TO GET EACH SECTION
TO ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR EMERGENCY FUNCTICN
6 /-/
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��? AGENDA ITEM _
MEETING DATE: April 18, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL .•�
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Amendment to Resolution No. 2622 regarding Velinsky appeal.
Recommended Motion: Adoption of Resolution No. 2622.1.
Report Summary: On January 3, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2622 granting the application by Mr. and Mrs. Velinsky for a front yard variance. The
amended resolution slightly revises the language in paragraph 2 in order to more
exactly correspond with the findings articulated by the Council at the time the matter
was heard on December 20, 1990. The amended resolution is discussed in more detail
in the memorandum from the Deputy City Attorney submitted herewith.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: (a) Memorandum from Deputy City Attorney
(b) Portion of transcript from Council meeting on 12/20/90.
(c) Resolution No. 2622, as adopted on January 3, 1990.
(d) Proposed Resolution No. 2622.1.
Motion and Vote:
PAUL S. SMITH
LEONARD J.
SIEGAL
HAROLD S.
TOPPEL
ROBERT K.
BOOTH, JR.
STEVEN G.
BAIRD
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(415) 967 -6941
M E M O R A N D U M
Saratoga City Council
Steven G. Baird
Deputy City Attorney
April 5, 1990
J. M. ATKINSON (1092 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
Resolution No. 2622 Granting Velinsky Frontyard
Setback Variance
On December 20, 1989, the City Council held a public
hearing on the Velinsky front yard setback variance appeal. At
that hearing, Mayor Clevenger stated the findings necessary to
grant the variance, and the Council voted to conditionally grant
that variance.
A Resolution memorializing that decision was prepared and
presented to the Council at its January 3, 1990 meeting. That
Resolution was adopted and designated Resolution No. 2622.
However, after reviewing a verbatim transcript of the December 20
hearing, it has come to the attention of the City Attorney that
Resolution No. 2622 as approved by the Council may not state with
sufficient specificity the findings made on the record at the
December 20, 1989 hearing. A copy of that portion of that verbatim
transcript regarding the findings made for the variance, a copy of
Resolution No. 2622 as approved on January 3, 1990, and a proposed
amended Resolution No. 2622.1 are attached for your review and
comparison. The proposed amended Resolution is the same as the
original Resolution except that paragraph 2 has been changed to
state the verbatim findings made and approved at the December 20,
1989 hearing.
Therefore, it is requested that the City Council approve
and adopt the proposed amended Resolution No. 2622.1 in order to
more clearly state the findings made by the City Council at their
December 20, 1989 hearing.
Steven G. Baird
Deputy Saratoga City Attorney
1 ' maybe to the Commission, is if there has to be some adjustment on the
2 size. What we are talking about is the average slope of the entire lot,
3 bear in mind."
4 Clevenger: "All right, Mr. Moyles, do you have something?
5 Alright, so I think what we have heard is that the Council wants to have
6 as much information as possible - this has been a very controversial
7 application. We want to make sure that we have not allowed a larger
8 house than would be allowed if we had a full ground survey. So we are
9 going to require the applicant to provide us with a full ground survey.
10 Then, and we also are, some of us are prepared to address the findings
11 issue tonight so that if the ground survey does in fact not make any
12 difference, then these variance findings will hold. Dr. Stutzman ?"
13 Stutzman: "Mayor Clevenger,, I think one point that we bypassed
14 and that was, who is going to do the survey? Frankly, I would like to
15 see an independent surveyor do this because if the applicant has made
16 an error on the first one, I do not know how we could trust a second
17 one.
18 Clevenger: Mr. Peacock says that the ground surveyor will be one
19 which is recommended by the City, so the City will select one. "
20 Karen Anderson: "It will not be the applicants, in other words,
21 the applicant's engineer."
22 Clevenger: It will not be the applicant's."
23 Peacock: "I didn't say recommend, I said the City will retain."
24 Clevenger: The City will retain a surveyor, alright? So that
25 issue is addressed. Now, we need to talk about whether we can make the
26 findings. If we can't make the findings, there is no reason for him to
27 go out and get this survey done."
28 Karen Anderson: "Oh sure there is."
29 Clevenger: "OK. I will move that this application, the applicants
30 be upheld, and that the Planning Commission be overturned on this
`31 application, dependent on the ground survey upholding the number of
32 square feet of house that is allowed on this lot. And the findings that
33 the City has to determine are - that the variance is necessary because
34 of special circumstances applicable to the property including size,
35 shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the
36 specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
37 by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
38 `same zoning district. The finding is that due to the unusual
39 topography -a 40 foot deep ravine which bisects this property -the
40 suitability- unconstrained building site lies in the northeast corner of
41 the property which requires a setback variance in order to develop the
42 home comparable to others in the neighborhood. I can make that finding
43 because the Council denied Mr. Velinsky his application when he applied
44 and did not ask for any variances because we felt it was more suitable
45 to move the house in the direction of Mr. Haggland's house. The second
46 finding is the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
47 special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
48 in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district because other
49 property owners in the zoning district enjoy single family homes on
50 properties similarly sized, the applicant is merely enjoying a property
51 right commonly seen throughout the neighborhood. The variance is
52 required to enable the applicant to locate a home comparable in size by
53 Saratoga standards in the most unobtrusive location. The third finding
54 is the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health
55 safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements
56 in the vicinity. The variance is to a front yard setback which is
57 adjacent to the easterly neighboring parcel. Because the adjacent home
58 is setback a substantial distance and the adjoining yard area is a level
59 pad substantially lower in elevation, the visual impact of the reduced
60 setback is minimal. So that is my motion. Is there a second ?"
19
RESOLU'T'ION NO.: 2622
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA REVERSING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, IRA VELINSKY and MAYUMI VELINSKY, the applicants, have
applied to the City of Saratoga for variance approval to allow an 8 foot front yard
setback where 35 feet is required for a new single family residence to be constructed
upon property located at 15839 Hidden Hill Road, such application being identified as
V -89 -043, and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga conducted a public hearing on said application, and following the conclusion
thereof, the Planning Commission denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 1989, the City Council conducted a de novo
public hearing on the appeal, at which time any person interested in the matter was
given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff reports,
minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to said
application, and the written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support
of and in opposition to the appeal,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga at its
meeting on December 20, 1989, by a vote of 3 -2 with Councilmembers Moyles and
Stutzman dissenting, did resolve as follows:
1. The appeal from the Planning Commission was upheld and the
decision of the Planning Commission was reversed.
2. The City Council was able to make the findings required for granting
the variance, based upon the following circumstances:
(a) A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that the
property is bisected by a ravine which restricts the buildable
area necessitating the granting of a variance in order to
construct a residence which does not adversely impact this
natural landform.
(b) Exceptional or extraordinary phvsical circumstances exist that
are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property which do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zoning district in that the usable building pad is
located in the extreme northeast corner of the site which
-1-
i
i
j
greatly limits the area suitable for building a residence that
conforms with City setback standards.
(c) Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in
the same zoning district in that other owners of properties in
the HC -RD district are permitted to construct similarly sized
single family homes on portions of their properties not
constrained by topographic features such as a ravine.
(d) Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity in that the residence nearest
the front yard encroachment is substantially below the subject
property and is separated by a large level setback area which
minimizes visual intrusion to this adjacent property. A unique
circumstance also exists in that the front yard of the subject
property abuts the side yard of the neighboring property. A
distance of 180 feet will separate the proposed dwelling from
the existing structure on the adjacent property. Further,
landscaping to be removed by the proposed construction will be
replaced by the applicant as a condition of this variance
approval.
(3) The variance is granted, subject to all of the following conditions:
(a) All conditions contained in Resolution No. DR -89 -013 are
incorporated herein by reference and shall remain in full force
and effect.
E (b) In accordance with conditions of DR -89 -013, the applicant shall
include appropriate landscape material in the required
r
landscape plans to compensate for the removal of the two
ordinance size trees.
(c) A topographic survey shall be made of the property by an
independent civil engineer selected by the City. The cost of
such survey shall be paid in advance by the applicants. Based
upon this survey, the engineer shall determine the average slope
of the property, in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Such average slope shall then be utilized for
the slope adjustment required under Subsection 15- 45.030(c) of
the Zoning Ordinance and the allowable floor area shall be
calculated after making such adjustment. If the allowable floor
area as so determined is less than the proposed dwelling, the
size of the structure shall be reduced to conform with the
allowable floor area and revised plans reflecting such reduction
shall be submitted for approval by the City Council. If the
allowable floor area as so determined is equal to or greater
than the proposed dwelling, no further action shall be required.
: s :
-2- _. _
"he above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Saratoga Citv Council held on the third day of .ianuarv,
1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmerrbe_r-s Anderson, Moyles, Peterson, Stut=an and Mayor Clevenger
N OES: None
ABSENTNone
eyor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
RESOLUTION NO.: 2622.1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA REVERSING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, IRA VELINSKY and MAYUMI VELINSKY, the applicants
have applied to the City of Saratoga for variance approval to allow
an 8 foot front yard setback where 35 feet is required for a new
single family residence to be constructed upon property located at
15839 Hidden Hill Road, such application being identified as V -89-
043, and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1989, the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga conducted a public hearing on said
application, and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning
Commission denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the
staff reports, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning
Commission relating to said application, and the written and oral
evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in
opposition to the appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga
at its meeting on December 20, 1989, by a vote of 3 -2 with
Councilmembers Moyles and Stutzman dissenting, did resolve as
follows:
1. The appeal from the Planning Commission was upheld
and the decision of the Planning Commission was
reversed.
2. The City Council was able to make the findings
required for granting the variance, based upon the
following circumstances:
(a) The variance is necessary because of special
circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape topography, location or
surroundings, strict enforcement of the
specified regulation, would deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the vicinity and
classified in the same zoning district. Due
to the unusual topography, a 40 ft. deep
ravine, which bisects the property, the
suitability unconstrained building site lies
1
in the northeast corner of the property which
requires a setback variance in order to develop
a home comparable to others in the
neighborhood.
(b) The granting of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district. Because other
property owners in the zone district enjoy
single family homes on property similarly
sized, the applicant is merely enjoying a
property right commonly seen throughout the
neighborhood. The variance is required to
enable the applicant to locate a home
comparable in size by Saratoga standards in the
most unobtrusive location.
(c) The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity. The variance
is to a front yard setback which is adjacent
to the easterly neighboring parcel. Because
the adjacent home is set back a substantial
distance and the adjoining yard area is a level
pad substantially lower in elevation, the
visual impact of the reduced setback is
minimal.
3. The variance is granted, subject to all of the
following conditions:
(a) All conditions contained in Resolution No. DR-
89 -013 are incorporated herein by reference and
shall remain in full force and effect.
(b) In accordance with conditions of DR -89 -013, the
applicant shall include appropriate landscape
material in the required landscape plans to
compensate for the removal of the two ordinance
size trees.
(c) A topographic survey shall be made of the
property by an independent civil engineer
selected by the City. The cost of such survey
shall be paid in advance by the applicants.
Based upon this survey, the engineer shall
determine the average slope of the property,
in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Such average slope shall
2
then be utilized for the slope adjustment
required under Subsection 15- 45.030(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance and the allowable floor area
shall be calculated after making such
adjustment. If the allowable floor area as so
determined is less than the proposed dwelling,
the size of the structure shall be reduced to
conform with the allowable floor area and
revised plans reflecting such reduction shall
be submitted for approval by the City Council.
If the allowable floor area as so determined
is equal to or greater than the proposed
dwelling, no further action shall be required.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall
supercede and replace Resolution No. 2622 passed and adopted on
January 3, 1990.
at a
the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
The above and
regular meeting
day of
City Clerk
foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
of the Saratoga City Council held on
,1990, by the following vote:
3
Mayor
e
6&C_
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 8 AGENDA rMM on
MEETING DATE: April 18 , 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIMNATING DEPT: En ineerin
gUBJECr; Re- Evaluation of Mitigation Measures for Route 85
geoommes:dedActian: Approve staff recommendation.
Repw{gummur. See Attached.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report.
Motion and Vote:
C',I`,
%l
1 J
2
� 1
,5S
�.�,'
1: 37771�IZ1 `I "I��'.ALl�;�V'k;Nl�l: • �,A IZ.A" I�O (�,A.('.AL�}�011;�'I,i�);>O7O
4( )8) 567 -:34"N
COUNCIL NIE'NIBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Apri 1 11 , 1990 Francisstutznrm
MEMO
TO: The Mayor & City Council !'
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer
RE: Re- Evaluation of Mitigation Measures for Route 85
DISCUSSION: The Santa Clara Traffic Authority has performed a
supplemental traffic study to look at the impacts of eliminating
the Quito and Prospect Road interchanges from Route 85. As you
may recall, both these interchanges were included in the original
Route 85 plan on which the original traffic studies and subse-
quent Environmental Impact Report were based. The supplemental
traffic study involves comparison of projected 2010 intersection
levels of service (LOS) between the Full Build alternative and
the various (No Quito /No Prospect) project alternatives now being
considered. A total of 39 intersections are considered, based on
those evaluated in previous Route 85 studies.
The attached table provides the projected 2010 P.M. peak hour
volume /capacity (V /C) ratios and corresponding LOS ratings for
each study intersection and each study alternative. Potential
adverse impacts of the No Quito /No Prospect project alternatives
(IX -A, IX -B, IX -E, IX -F) relative to the Full Build alternative
are highlighted in the table in bold italic. These are defined
as locations where the LOS for any No Quito /No Prospect alterna-
tive is unacceptable (E or F) and is degraded by one service
level or more from the Full Build Alternative. Based on this
criteria, there are two intersections in Saratoga that would
potentially be adversely impacted by the elimination of the Quito
and Prospect interchanges from the previously proposed Full Build
alternative. These are:
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. - Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga Ave. - Cox Avenue
One other intersection in Saratoga where the projected LOS of the
Full Build alternative is F and where, although the LOS of the No
Quito /No Prospect alternatives remain F, the projected V/C ratio
is substantially greater for one or more No Quito /No Prospect
alternatives, is at Quito Road - Cox Avenue. This criteria is
also indicative of a potential adverse impact there.
Printed on recycleo paper.
Mitigation measures were identified and evaluated for each of the
three adversely impacted intersections in Saratoga. Schematic
drawings of the proposed mitigations for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Rd. - Saratoga Ave. and Saratoga Ave. - Cox Avenue intersections
are attached. The proposed mitigation at the Quito Rd. - Cox
Ave. intersection is to signalize that location.
Staff has evaluated the proposed mitigations for each location.
A summary of staff's conclusions is as follows:
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. - Saratoga Ave.: Staff does not agree
with the.proposed mitigation measures and further, believes that
no mitigations are necessary. Elimination of parking along Big
Basin Way would probably create more problems than would be
solved. Furthermore, the impacts of eliminating the Quito and
Prospect interchanges on the V/C ratio are relatively small and
the LOS is significantly better than that of the No Build Alter-
native.
Saratoga Ave. - Cox Ave.: Staff agrees with the proposed mitiga-
tions. These measures would improve future LOS to a high E.
Quito Road - Cox Ave.: Staff agrees with the proposed mitiga-
tions. Signalizing this intersection would tend to reduce delays
for vehicles entering Quito Road from Cox Avenue. The City's
General Plan as well as the City of San Jose's traffic
signalization program both include a signal at this location.
Depending on the final design of the Route 85/17 interchange
configuration, the Traffic Authority would most likely be willing
to enter into a cost sharing arrangement for the signal. Also, a
contribution for the signal can be obtained from Dividend Devel-
opment Corp. since the EIR for their Paul Masson project recom-
mended such a contribution as a mitigation measure for their
project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council re- evaluate the
mitigation measures for the Route 85 project as a result of the
elimination of the Quito and Prospect interchanges and:
A) Opppose the proposed mitigations at the Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Rd. - Saratoga Ave. intersection;
b) Support the proposed mitigations at the Saratoga Ave. -
Cox Ave. and Quito Rd. - Cox Ave. intersections;
c) Direct staff to forward the Council's positions on the
above to the Santa Clara Traffic Authority.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approve recommendation.
Printed on recycled paper.
Table 4
Comparison of Intersection Volume/Capacity (V /C) Ratios and Levels of Service (LOS)
Year 2010, P.M. Peak Hour - No Mitigation
--- - - - - -- 2010 with TDM Reduction ------------------
North/South East/West Existing NoBuild IX -A IX -B IX -E IX -F FullBuild
Street Street V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Rainbow Drl
0.63
B
0.69 B
0.76 C
0.79 C
0.75
C
0.68 B
0.64
B
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Prospect Rd
0.92
E
0.94 E
0.87 D
0.88 D
0.87
D
0.88 D
0.92
E
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Cox Ave
0.78
C
0.86 D
0.86 D
0.86 D
0.86
D
0.86 D
0.87
D
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Saratoga Ave
0.88
D
1.02 F
a90 E2
a92 E2
a93
E2
093 E2
0.88
D
Prospect Road
Blaney Ave
0.61
B
0.64 B
0.57 A
0.57 A
0.58
A
0.58 A
0.75
C
Prospect Rd
Miller Ave
0.64
B
0.66 B
0.55 A
0.56 A
0.56
A
0.55 A
0.61
B
Saratoga Avenue
Cox Ave
0.89
D
0.93 E
L03 F2
L04 F2
1.06
F2
L04 F2
0.68
B
Quito Rd
Cox Ave3
1.06
F
1.11 F
1.07 F
1.09 F
1.19
F
1.11 F
1.07
F
Quito Rd
Allendale Ave
0.79
C
0.84 D
0.78 C
0.85 D
0.85
D
0.90 E
1.03
F
Quito Rd
Pollard Rd
0.68
B
0.68 B
0.59 A
0.61 B
0.59
A
0.59 A
0.62
B
Quito Rd
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd
0.62
B
0.70 C
0.57 A
0.60 B
0.62
B
0.64 B
0.62
B
Winchester Blvd
Knowles Dr
0.72
C
0.73 C
1.05 F2
1.08 F2
1.01
F2
0.97 E
0.93
E
Winchester Blvd
Lark Ave
0.78
C
1.12 F
1.08 F
1.00 F
1.17
F
1.16 F
1.09
F
So Bascom Ave
Samaritan Dr
0.50
A
0.67 B
0.59 A
0.59 A
0.70
C
0.68 B
0.60
B
Los Gatos Blvd
Lark Ave
0.69
B
0.93 E
0.75 C
0.67 B
0.80
D
0.80 D
0.76
C
Los Gatos Blvd
Blossom Hill Rd
0.85
D
1.15 F
0.98 E
0.90 E
0.91
E
0.93 E
0.96
E
Union Ave
Camden Ave
1.06
F
1.08 F
0.95 E
0.94 E
0.95
E
0.94 E
0.95
E
Union Ave
Blossom Hill Rd
1.00
F
1.09 F
0.92 E
0.92 E
0.95
E
0.95 E
0.92
E
Camden Ave
Blossom Hill Rd
0.76
C
0.88 D
0.69 B
0.69 B
0.70
C
0.69 B
0.71
C
Santa Cntz Ave
Blossom Hill Rd
0.76
C
1.12 F
1.07 F
1.07 F
1.09
F
1.07 F
1.06
F
Santa Cruz Ave
Saratoga Ave
0.99
E
1.16 F
1.14 F
1.15 F
1.18
F
1.18 F
1.14
F
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd
Fruitvale Ave
0.61
B
0.70 C
0.56 A
0.55 A
0.59
A
0.56 A
0.55
A
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd
Austin Way3
0.57
A
0.65 B
0.50 A
0.50 A
0.53
A
0.50 A
0.51
A
Stevens Creek Blvd
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
0.86
D
0.99 E
0.96 E
0.96 E
0.98
E
0.95 E
1.01
F
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Nbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
-
0.80 D
0.81 D
0.82
D
0.81 D
0.79
C
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
0.77 C
0.78 C
0.76
C
0.77 C
0.81
D
Prospect Rd
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
0.86
D
Prospect Rd
Nbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
0.50
A
Saratoga Ave
Nbd Rte 85 Ramps
0.71 C
0.71 C
0.72
C
0.72 C
0.54
A
Saratoga Ave
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
- -
0.70 C
0.69 B
0.69
B
0.69 B
0.54
A
Quito Rd
Nbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
- -
1.10
F
Quito Rd
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
- -
0.83
D
Winchester Blvd
Nbd Rte 85 Ramps
0.88 D
0.82 D
-
0.58 A
0.90
E
Winchester Blvd
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
-
0.50 A
0.45 A
-
-
0.43 A
0.47
A
Bascom Ave
Nbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
-
0.51 A
0.73 C
0.86
D
0.77 C
0.51
A
Bascom Ave
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
0.39 A
0.63 B
0.56
A
0.55 A
0.39 A
Union Ave
Nbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
-
0.66 B
0.62 B
0.64
B
0.64 B
0.66
B
Camden Ave
Sbd Rte 85 Ramps
-
-
0.89 D
0.92 E
0.88
D
0.87 D
0.91
E
1 Saratoga- Sunnyvale/Rainbow is a four - legged intersection under existing and No Build
conditions. For all
build alternatives, only the
southerly Tee intersection is shown since the northerly intersection has right turn
movements
only.
2 Potential adverse impact relative to the Full Build Alternative, where projected LOS is E or F, and is worse by one service
level or
more than that of
the Full Build Alternative.
3 Currently unsignalized; analyzed as a signalized
intersection.
- Intersection does not exist.
Note: Nbd = Northbound; Sbd = Southbound
22
D/_S Associates
T
BIP
Gas
Sta.
Bank
\ S &L �
Drug
Store
i
i�
Qom,
2.
(j
MODE CALMS
Jm /Vlore crib werf&ily DO 4913P ?s
> JE wy, JE
Z arU3( X walk of acctlr Rd.
j in order & provede an
� add•'tiana/ fr��'c laedt fcr
Q SW hOAWW 8.g Bar4O':j 'WY.
Aor Zao fo30�d'ee%
00 Move •pa a
2 I ,4ae..sO4dhC-4r /y fo pray: t
Q doOr W46 s<o ha ✓e ; /evce twol
� I Z �Fkrax.gl� ss«ct' i��lt f` tisrn
rro�s,
0 ElirunazGC /7 ,ovrlr�q
ffice .rpwcel aipIf9 WYY fide
Fire
B�9 Basin r(/y. A AV E.
S ARATOG
r
Sta.
i
Saratoga - Sunnyvale/
Saratoga Ave. Intersection
DKS Associates
No parking
i� � C
�1
uj
z
w
Q
C7
O
t-
¢
cc
Cn
�4
MODIFICATIONS
• Widen southbound Saratoga, prohibit
parking, and restripe to add right turn
only lane.
• Widen northbound Saratoga and
restripe existing bike lane as right turn
lane at intersection.
• Restripe westbound Cox for 1 left turn
lane, 1 shared left/thru lane.
COX AVENUE
Bike lane
LEGEND
Existing
Proposed
Bike lane
PROPOSED ROUTE 85
MITIGATION
Saratoga Avenue/
Cox Avenue Intersection
DKS Associates
Table 3
Level of Service Definitions
Signalized Intersections
Vehicle Volume to
Level of Delay Capacity
Service (secs.) Ratio Description
A <5.00 0.00 -0.59 Free Flow/Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is
fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than
one red indication.
B 5.1 -15.0 0.60 -0.69 Stable Operation/Minimal Delays: An occasional
approach phase is fully utilized. Many drivers begin to
feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles.
C15.1 -25.0 0.70 -0.79 Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays: Major approach
phases fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat
restricted.
D 25.1 -40.0 0.80 -0.89 Approaching Unstable/Tolerable Delays: Drivers may
have to wait through more than one red signal
indication. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly,
without excessive delays.
E 40.1 -60.0 0.90 -0.99 Unstable Operation/Significant Delays: Volumes at or
near capacity. Vehicles may wait though several signal
cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection.
F >60.0 N/A Forced Flow/Excessive Delays: Represents jammed
conditions. Intersection operates below capacity with
low volumes. Queues may block upstream intersections.
Source: Highway Capacity Manua4 Transportation Research Board, Special Report No.209, Washington D.C., 1985.
20
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
AGENDA ITEM
APPROVAL
MEETING DATE: 4/18/90 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Household Hazardous Waste Drop Off Day
('0 c.
Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution increasing appropriations and
amending the FY 1990 Budget to honor contract approved by Council
on'January 17, 1990 via Resolution No. 2624.
Report Summary: On January 17, 1990, Council adopted Resolution
No. 2624 approving a contract with Safety Specialists, Inc. to hold
a household hazardous waste drop -off event in conjunction with the
West Valley cities of Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, Campbell, and County
of Santa Clara, each of which approved the same Agreement and
agreed to divide costs based on actual participation. On March 10,
1990, the event was successfully held in the City of Campbell.
Saratoga was the largest participant, with 422 households
participating. This exceeded original budget projections which had
been based on State -wide averages. Saratoga's share of actual
costs follows:
Printing of HHW Brochures: $ 314.01
Safety Specialists Charges: $48,183.51
Total $48,497.52
Less Budgeted Amount $25,000.00
Additional Funding Required $23,497.52
It should be noted that the event costs would have been higher had
it not been for donations of labor, materials, publicity, and drop -
off boxes from Green Valley Disposal, the Guadalupe Landfill, and
volunteers from all five of the jurisdictions participating in the
event.
Fiscal Impact•
$23,500 from the unappropriated reserve.
Attachments:
1. Resolution amending the fiscal year 1989/90 Budget
2. Summary of allocation of costs between jurisdictions
3. Contractor Invoice history
4. Actual contractor invoices ( #44910, #44968, & #44982)
5. Summary of participation by jurisdiction
6. Basis for original budget projections
Motion and Vote:
dtL
RESOLUTION NO.
fiRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE FY 1990 BUDGET
WHEREAS, The City Council did allocate $25,000 in its FY 1990
budget to finance a "household hazardous waste drop -off day event
in cooperation with the West Valley communities of Campbell, Los
Gatos, Monte Sereno, and County of Santa Clara; and
WHEREAS, the Council did approve a contract with Safety Special-
ists, Inc. on January 17, 1990, to administer this event along
with the other West Valley communities which also approved the
same contract; and
WHEREAS, the household hazardous waste drop -off event was suc-
cessfully held in Campbell on Saturday, March 10, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the number of Saratoga households actually participating
together with the total amount of material actually dropped off
exceeded original projections; and
WHEREAS, an additional appropriation by the Council is required
in order for Saratoga to honor its contractual commitments to the
other West Valley communities and the contractor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the budget of the City of
Saratoga adopted by Resolution No. 2575 be amended as follows:
Transfer $23,500 from Fund Balance (0001 -2000)
$23,500 to Contract Services (6064 -4510)
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18th day
of April, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
S
MAYOR
CITY OF CAMPBELL
March 29, 1990
HHW Collection Day
Costs By Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction /Percent
Invoiced Amt
Share of Costs
50% Payment
Campbell
27.46%
$138,091.96
37,920.06
18,960.03
Los Gatos
19.62%
138,091.96
27,093.64
13,546.82
Monte Sereno
2.88%
138,091.96
3,977.05
1,988.53
Saratoga
33.79%
138,091.96
46,661.27
23,330.64
County
16.25%
138,091.96
22,439.94
11,219.97
100.00%
$138,091.96 $69,045.99
$4,505 - Estimated Remaining to Be Invoiced
ffm
Amount
Share
Campbell
27.46%
4,505
$1,237.07
Los Gatos
19.62%
4,505
883.88
Monte Sereno
2.88%
4,505
129.75
i
Saratoga
33.79%
4,505
1,522.24 r�
County
16.25%
4,505
732.06
ffm
CITY OF CAMPBELL
March 29, 1990
HHW Collection Day
Safety Specialist Invoices
Received Amount
Invoice #44910 3/20/90 $ 81,650.08
Invoice #44968 3/27/90 16,991.88
Invoice #44982 3/29/90 39,450.00
Total Billed $138,091.96
Estimated remaining 4,505.00
Total $142,596.96
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, Inc.
P.O. BOX 4420
SANTA CLARA, CA 95054
TELEPHONE No. (408) 988 -1111
CI3''Y OF CAMPBELL
City Managers Office
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
INVOICE NO. 44910
CUSTOMER CODE .�
Date March 18, 1990
Customer P.O. Resolution #7874
Safety Specialists, Inc. Project No. 570060
Terms JQkX) WO QW DISCOUNT OFFERED:
3% - 2, 2% - 3, 1% - 5, NET 10
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES:
Invoice for the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day Round up
event held March 10 at Campbells Community Center, 1 West Campbell
Ave., Campbell, CA.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SU14MARY FOR LIST OF CHARGES!
Please note this is only a partial billing, materials pending billing
are:
1) As per Exhibit C Item I Additional Costs;
2) 5 Drums Special Waste for disposal to PSC not yet profiled;
3) Drum #2 Manifest #88308159;
4) 15 drums #134 -148 Manifest #88308156;
5) 33 drums #101 -133 Manifest #88308157;
6) 32 drums #48 -79 Manifest #88308156;
7) 3 drums #1 -3 Manifest #88308157.
INVOICE TOTAL;. $81,650.08
Contact: Barbara Lee
408 - 866 -2103
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, INC.
A FULL SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CORPORATION
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 460905 • FEDERAL I.D. NO. 94- 2156773
DISTRIBUTION: WHITE AND CANARY - CUSTOMER; PINK AND GOLD - SAFETY SPECIALISTS, INC.
AS PER EXHIBIT C
MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS
I. Fixed Costs:
Labor:
$ 4,750.00
Additional Costs:
Pending
II. Unit Costs:
Bulk Oil Base paint:
Manifest #88308156 21 drums
@
$450 /drum
9,450.00
Aerosols /Oxidizers:
Aerosols:
Manifest #13130 17 drums
@
$575 /drum
9,775.00
Oxidizers:
Manifest #IL3222707 3 drums
@
$575 /drum
1,725.00
Bulk Unusable Latex Paint:
Manifest #88308156 16 drums
@
$450 /drum
7,200.00
Bulk Halogenated Solvents:
Manifest #88308156 18 drums
@
$475 /drum
8,550.00
Labpack Acids /Bases:
Manifest #88306699 3 drums
@
$210 /drum
630.00
(drum #k531 -533)
#88307917 5 drums
@
$210 /drum
11050.00
Labpack for pesticides, Insecticides,
Poisons, Adhesives, Resins (landfilled):
Manifest #88306699 79 drums
@
$210 /drum
16,590.00
(drum #k1 -12, 301-324,,401-414,
451 -460, 501 -517, and
521 -522)
#88308031 83 drums
@
$210 /drum
17,430.00
#88308157 16 drums
@
$210 /drum
3,360.00
(drums #1234 -1238, 1247 -1257)
#88308159 1 drum
@
$210 /drum
210.00
( Drum #kASB 1)
Additional Insured 1.4%
1,130.08
Less permit Fees ( 200.00)
INVOICE TOTAL: $ 81,650.08
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, J-
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, Inc.
P.O. BOX 4420
SANTA CLARA, CA 95054
TELEPHONE No. (408) 988 -1111
CIT7 OF CAMPBELL
City Managers Office
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
INVOICE NO. 44968
l
CUSTOMER CODE
March 27, 1990
Date
Resolution #7874
Customer P.O.
570060
Safety Specialists, Inc. Project No.
Terms - NET 10 DAYS
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES:
Secondary billing for the Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Day event held March 10, 1990.
Partial billing for materials pending billing as per our letter
dated March 21, 1990. Items left to finalize this billing are
marked pending.
Please see attached summary,
INVOICE TOTAL: $16,991.88
Contact: Barbara Lee
408- 866 -2103
Ah-
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, INC.
A FULL SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CORPORATION
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 460905 • FEDERAL I.D. NO. 94- 2156773
DISTRIBUTION: WHITE AND CANARY - CUSTOMER: PINK AND GOLD - SAFETY SPECIALISTS. INC.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Invoice Summary #44968
I. Fixed Costs:
Tent (Please see vendor invoice)
Shower
Fork Lift (please see vendor invoice)
Guard (Pending vendor invoice)
Portable Lights (Please see vendor invoice)
Paint Handling
Compactor
Manifest #88308159 1 bag @ $210 /yard
(drum #ASB 2 1 bag equiv to 1/2 yard
billable to nearest 1/2 yard)
Crushed Empty Containers
Manifest #88308156 15 drums @ $170 /drum
(drum #134 -148)
#88308157 33 drums @ $170 /drum
(drum #101 -133)
Cal Regulated Waste /Hazardous Waste Solids
Containing Visqueen & Personal protective Equipment
for Disposal
Manifest #88308156 32 drums @ $170 /drum
(drum #48 -79)
Empty Drums for Disposal
Manifest #88308157 3 drums @ $45 /drum
(drum 1 -3)
Hazardous Waste Solid PCB Ballasts not on
original disposal summary (Please see.
attached backup, this is a 5 gal pail)
Manifest #88308173 1 drum @ $ 75 /drum
Special Waste for disposal not yet profiled
7 drums @ $575 /drum
(pending disposal of special waste to PSC)
Additional Insured 1:4%
INVOICE TOTAL:
750.00
75.00
555.32
Pending
491.96
320.00
650.00
105.00
2,550.00
5,610.00
5,440.00
135.00
75.00
Pending
234.60
$ 16,991.88
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, I-
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, Inc.
P.O. BOX 4420
SANTA CLARA, CA 95054
TELEPHONE No. (408) 988 -1111
CITY OF CAMPBELL
City Managers Office
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
INVOICE NO. 44982
l
CUSTOMER CODE
Date March 28, 1990
Customer P.O. Resolution #7874
Safety Specialists, Inc. Project No. 570060
Terms - NET 10 DAYS
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES:
Additional Billing for extra labor hours and latex recycled paint from
the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day Event Held March 10, 1990.
Please see backup documentation.
Labor Charges:
Total Labor Hours Worked: 1072.25
Less Total Contract Allowance: ( 190.00)
Total Billable Hours: 882.25 @ $40 /hr $35,290.00
Paint Recycled: 13 Pallets 128 gallons each pallet
1664 gallons @ $2.50 /gall.on 4,160.00
INVOICE TOTAL: $39,450.00
Contact: Barbara Lee
408 - 866 -2103
Ah-
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, INC.
A FULL SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CORPORATION
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 460905 • FEDERAL I.D. NO. 94- 2156773
DISTRIBUTION: WHITE AND CANARY - CUSTOMER; PINK AND GOLD - SAFETY SPECIALISTS. INC.
SAFETY SPECIALISTS, Inc.
The Full Service Environmental, Health & Safety Corporation
March 27, 1990
Ms. Barbara Lee, Coordinator
City Managers Office
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Ms. Lee:
P.O. Box 4420, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Telephone (408) 988 -1111
Contractor's License No. 460905
As per the attached copy of Invoice Summary #44968 the only
materials pending billing are as follows:
Fixed Costs:
Guard $160 /day for 3 days $ 480.00
Special Waste for Disposal to PSC
7 drums @ $575 /drum 4,025.00
Total Estimated Pending Costs: $ 4,505.00
Please note the costs mentioned above are only estimated
amounts. If you should have any further questions please feel
free to contact me at (408)988 -1111 ext 383.
Sincerely,
Safety Specialists, Inc.
(2Y A�6��
Marie G. Rodriguez
Project Cost Analyst
Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Services
MGR /mr
cc: Dulce Ledo, Program Manager
Accounting
MEMORANDUM
EZ
To: Distribution Date: March 22, 1990
From: Barbara Lee
Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: HHW Collection - Cost Allocation
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Listed below are each Agency's total households figures and the
corresponding percentage of total households. Additionally, we know that
a very small number of "unknowns" were served on March 10. By applying
the following percentages to Safety Specialists bill, we will each share
in the costs associated with the "unknown households" based on our actual
participation figures.
Jurisdiction Households Percent
Campbell 343 27.46%
Los Gatos 245 19.62
Monte Sereno 36 2.88
Saratoga 422 33.79
County Unincorporated 203 16.25
Total 1,249 100.00%
BL:ab
Distribution:
Regina Falkner, Los Gatos
Rosemary Pierce, Monte Sereno
Todd Argow, Saratoga
Sharon Dowell, County of Santa Clara
Tony Pacheco, County of Santa Clara
Basis for Original Budget Projections
State -wide, the average participation rate in a city- sponsored
household hazardous waste drop -off event is 8 /10ths of 1 %,
or .008. For Saratoga, this would have equaled 240 households.
The average cost per household state -wide is $105, which would
have meant $25,200 for Saratoga; hence the $25,000 budget alloca-
tion. The actual cost for each household participating on March
10 was $114.92 determined largely by the nature and quantity of
the materials actually dropped off, and their associated disposal
costs. Saratoga had 422 households actually participating com-
pared to the 240 which had been projected; hence the higher costs
over original projections.
G-
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / eC) 7 . AGENDA ITEM
MEET t4G DATE: April 18, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
SUBJECT: 1990 Street Maintenance Program
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to advertise for bids on
the 1990 Street Maintenance Program.
ReportSmnmary: Engineering staff is nearing completion of the
plans, specifications and bidding documents for the 1990 Street
Maintenance Program. As such, staff would like authorization
to advertise for bids on the work as soon as it is ready.
Fiscal Impacts:
Approved budget for FY 1990 -91 is $320,000.
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
6k
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
' AGENDA ITEM
IVE
mmcur SIIMMARY NO. > '-'
MEETING DATE: April 18, 1990 �ITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
QK.
SUIMCT: SD 86 -003 (12890 Pierce Road) - Acceptance
of Offer of Dedication
Recommended Action: Adopt resolution acccepting Offer of Dedication.
Report Summary: The public improvements required for SD 86 -003 are
complete and have been adequately maintained for the final required length
of time. Consequently, staff is prepared to grant
of the work and release the posted securities. Council should now
accept the widened portion of Pierce Road offered for dedication on
the Parcel Map for SD 86 -003.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
Resolution Accep,ing Offer of Dedication.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY- COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION
WHEREAS, an offer of dedication of land for public
street(s) was made on that certain Parcel Map as recorded in the
Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, on
January 6 19 86 in Book 570 , of Maps, at Page(s)
01 ; and
WHEREAS, such offer has not been accepted by the City of
Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, street improvements have been satisfactorily
completed and maintained in good condition and repair for the
period required by the City of Saratoga, and the City Council now
desires to accept the offer of dedication as hereafter specified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. The offer of dedication is hereby accepted with
respect to the street(s), or portion(s) thereof, shown on said
map described as �olgllows:
Pierce Road
Each of the streets described above is declared to be a public
street of the City of Saratoga, California.
2. Any offer to dedicate land for a public street, as
made and shown on said map, which has not previously been accept-
ed and is not expressly accepted herein, shall continue to be
rejected by the City of Saratoga.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of he_. City of Saratoga held on the day
of � by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL,
ESECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �_ AGENDA ITEM
NUMMG DATE: April 18 , 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORI@TATING DEPT: Engineering
SUBJECT*- Senate Bill 2503 (Leonard)
$ecommended Actin: Adopt Resolution supporting Senate Bill 2503
and direct staff to send copy of Resolution to Senator Leonard.
Report Summary: See Attached.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report.
2. Resolution.
3. Senate Bill 2503.
Motion and Vote:
01��
408) 867-34138
('0UN('11, MEMBE' S:
Apri 1 1 1 , 1990 Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
MEMO David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Shitzmao
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer
RE: Senate Bill 2503 (Leonard)
DISCUSSION: At your previous meeting, Council created the posi-
tion of City Surveyor. This action was necesary because as a
civil engineer who obtained his professional registration after
January 1, 1982, I am prohibited from practicing land surveying
and therefore, cannot perform the survey functions of a City
Engineer as they pertain to the review and approval of subdivi-
sion and parcel maps. As time goes on and many of the current
City Engineers in California begin to retire, more and more
cities will face this same problem.
To address the problem, State Senator William Leonard has intro-
duced Senate Bill 2503. A copy of the proposed legislation is
attached for your review. If signed into law, the Bill would
permit City Engineers to carry out their responsibilities under
the Map Act regardless of the date of their professional regis-
trations.
The League of California Cities has reviewed SB 2503 and has
declared their support for it. As Saratoga is now one of a
growing number of cities affected by this problem, it would be
appropriate for the Council to endorse the bill at this time.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution in support of Senate Bill
2503.
2. Direct staff to transmit a certified copy of the Resolution
to Senator Leonard.
ACTION REQUIRED:
1. Adopt Resolution.
2. Approve Recommendation No. 2.
Printed on recycled paper
1
M '
RESOLUTION No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SUPPORT-
ING SENATE BILL No. 2503.
WHEREAS, traditionally civil engineers registered to
practice civil engineering in the State of California and acting
in the capacity of a city engineer were permitted to review,
accept, and sign certificates required by the Subdivision Map
Act; and
WHEREAS, recent changes in State law have restricted
civil engineers registered after January 1, 1982, from engaging
in the practice of land surveying; and
WHEREAS, these changes in State law also prohibit city
engineers registered after January 1, 1982, from reviewing,
accepting, and signing certificates required by the Subdivision
Map Act; and
WHEREAS, this provision creates an unnecessary hardship
on a growing number of cities in the conduct of their responsi-
bilities with respect to the Subdivision Map Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Saratoga supports amendment to Section 8731 of the
Business and Professions Code of the State of California as
provided for in Senate Bill No. 2503 to allow city engineers who
are duly registered to practice civil engineering in the State of
California to sign certicates required by the Subdivision Map Act
regardless of the date of his or her registration.
PASSED and ADOPTED this
vote:
AYES:
lk -z
NOES: fix.
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
, 19
Mayor
day of
by the following
J
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 4 121-1 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 18, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
I Z �7> �
ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Fencing Within Hillside Districts - Area of Enclosure
Recommended Motion: Adoption of revised ordinance.
Report Summary: The revised ordinance incorporates the changes requested by
the Council at the time the ordinance was introduced on April 4, 1990. A proviso has
been added at the end of subparagraph (c)(3) to:
(1) Prohibit fencing of more than 60% of the gross site area,
(2) Prohibit solid fences or walls,
(3) Prohibit fencing material having exposed sharp points, and
(4) Prohibit installation of fencing within dedicated open space.
Fiscal Impacts: None. The cost of processing applications for establishment of
a designated neighborhood area should be recovered throught the collection of a
processing fee.
Attachments: Revised ordinance dated April 4, 1990.
Motion and Vote:
2/21/90: Motion to introduce failed 2 -1; continued kto 3/7/21.
3/7/90: Public hearing set again for 4/4/90.
4/4/90: Ordinance introduced, as revised, 4 -0 (Councilmember Peterson
absent).
e
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING SECTION 15- 29.020 OF THE CITY
CODE CONCERNING FENCING WITHIN HILLSIDE
DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: .. Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 29.020 in Article 15 -29 of the City
Code is amended to read as follows:
"(c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and
fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall
encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the
area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission, which approval may
be granted in any of the following cases:
(1) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the
visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties
will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or
other features of the site.
(2) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the
fence is required for safety reasons.
(3) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure
has been granted by the Planning Commission for a "designated
neighborhood area," as hereinafter defined, in response to a
petition for such exemption signed by the owners of lots comprising
not less than sixty percent of the designated area. Before granting
such exemption, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public
hearing on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least.
ten days prior to the date of the hearing to all persons owning
property located within the designated neighborhood area and
within 500 feet from the boundaries of such area. As a condition
for granting an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish
alternative rules concerning the enclosure of sites in the
designated neighborhood area, including, but not limited to, rules
pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of
fencing, and mitigation of visual impacts; PROVIDED, however, in
no event shall such rules permit enclosure of more than sixty
percent of the gross site area, or the installation of any solid
fences or walls, or use of any fencing material having exposed
sharp points, or the installation of any fencing within an area
dedicated as open space.
Rev. 4/4/90
me
The term "designated neighborhood area," as used in Subparagraph (3) above, means
a geographic portion of a hillside zoning district, as designated by the Planning
Commission, consisting of not less than ten lots which are contiguous to each other.
Lots which are separated only by a street shall be considered contiguous. If a
petition for exemption is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded
subdivision- or tract map, the Planning Commission may, in its discretion, require
that all of the lots shown on such map be included within the designated
neighborhood area. Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to an existing
designated neighborhood area upon application by the property owner and approval
by the Planning Director, based upon his determination that the additional lot has
similar topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within the
designated neighborhood area."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
ssssss
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Rev. 4/4/90
-2-
MAYOR
SARATOGA CTTY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ( U AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 18 , 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL kgtjeo�
5:30 P.M. Study Session
ORIGINATING DEPT: En i ne e r i n
SUBJECT: Non -Point Source Control Program
Recommended Action: Receive as information.
Report Summary:
Attached is the following information pertaining to the
Santa Clara Valley Non -Point Source Control Program:
1. Summary Staff Report.
2. Comprehensive Staff Report.
4. Coopy oflMarcha26, 1990 letterrlfromgRWQCB volume 3. 4. py
Staff will be making a presentation on the NPS Control Program
at your 5:30 P.M. Study Session. The information to be presented
will assist you in determining Saratoga's level of involvement in
the program for FY '90 -'91.
Fiscal Impacts:
Unknown.
Attachments:
1 -4 above.
Motion and Vote:
2s
OEUT o2 0&1R&UQ)0,&
13777FRL'I1-\'.- \1-E.- \ \'ENL'E •S:\RX1'OG.-\.C. \LIFORNL- \9,5(70
(408) 867- 34:38
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
SUMMARY STAFF REPORT Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
TO: The Mayor and City.Council
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer
Re: Santa Clara Valley NPS Program
Since 1986, the City of Saratoga has engaged in a cooperative
effort with the other twelve Santa Clara Valley cities, the
County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, to develop a
program to control pollutants in urban stormwater (nonpoint
source) runoff which discharges into the south San Francisco Bay.
The program is being developed to comply with requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan
for the San Francisco Bay (1986 Basin Plan) as well as federal
requirements of the Clean Water Act and E.P.A. regulations.
Ultimately the thirteen cities et.al., (collectively known as the
'Dischargers'), will obtain a permit from the RWQCB to implement
the program. This permit is referred to as the NPDES Permit and
the program for which it will be issued is referred to as the NPS
Control Program.
The ultimate scope of the NPS Control Program is unknown at this
time. What can be assumed however, is that the program will be
bold, comprehensive and costly. To date, over $2 million has
been spent simply to gather data, develop control strategies,
devise a program implementation and produce a permit application.
Saratoga's'share of this cost has been roughly $30,000 and is
expected to exceed $40,000 annually for next year and beyond.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District has assumed the lead role
in the development of the NPS Control Program. The following
reports have been published bringing the program to the point
where it is now at:
1. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Study, Volume I: Loads
Assessment Report.
2. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Study, Volume II: Control
Measures Report.
3. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program, Volume
III: Implementation Program.
Copies of Volumes I and II are available for review in my office.
A copy of Volume III is enclosed with this report. Volume III is
the important document as it discusses how an NPS Control Program
may be implemented in the Santa Clara Valley.
Printed on recycled paper.
With the completion of Volume III, the Santa Clara Valley dis-
chargers are set to apply for a NPDES Permit from the RWBCB. A
copy of the permit application is attached for you to review.
Also attached is a Resolution the Council must adopt authorizing
the City of Saratoga to be listed as a co- applicant on the permit
application. To date, only the Santa Clara City Council has
adopted such a resolution however, it is anticipated that by the
end of next week, all of the other governing bodies will pass
similar resolutions for their respective agencies. It is not
anticipated that any one agency will elect to drop out of the
program at this time as the repurcussions to an agency for doing
so could be severe.
Also attached for Council consideration is a draft of an Agree-
ment among the Santa Clara Valley dischargers providing for
implementation of the NPS Control Program. The Agreement was
drafted by the City Attorney's offices of Palo Alto and San Jose
and is now being circulated for review and comment by all of the
agencies. Eventually, the City of Saratoga will be asked to
execute such an Agreement which should be regarded as the formal
cooperative arrangement among the public agencies for implement-
ing the NPS Control Program. In effect, the Agreement is actual-
ly a more important document than the NPDES Permit since without
it, the permit would be virtually unenforceable.
There remains much to be decided about the NPS Control Program.
At the countrywide level, questions regarding funding alloca-
tions, implementation scheduling and permit enforcement need to
be answered. Similarly, at the local level, the City Council
will have to decide how much of an effort Saratoga will make to
carry out such a program locally. Before any decisions are
reached however, the agency representatives will continue to meet
to address these issues and to explore common efforts to imple-
ment the program. The results of these meetings will be present-
ed to you over the next couple of months for consideration and
action.
Subject: Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program
Report in Brief
The purpose of this report is to advise the City Council of the status of
the Nonpoint Source Control Program, present the conclusions of the 2 -year
study conducted by the 13 cities, the County and Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) in response to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board's (RWQCB) 1986 Basin Plan and to recommend a program for
implementation of nonpoint source controls.
The RWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan for San Francisco Bay (1986 Basin
Plan) required an evaluation of dry and,wet weather nonpoint source
pollution, an evaluation of existing nonpoint control measures and a
program for implementation and monitoring of additional nonpoint source
control measures and a program for implementation and monitoring of
additional nonpoint source control measures.
State and federal water quality regulatory agencies are proposing new
policies and programs to regulate nonpoint source pollution that will be
implemented in 1990. The Regional Board is proposing amendment of the 1986
Basin Plan. The State Water Resources Control Board, as part of the Bay
Delta Program, is developing a Pollutant Policy Document (PPD) and Water
Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries. EPA is currently scheduled to promulgate new regulations for
stormwater permit applications in August 1990.
The Nonpoint Source Control Program Study initiated in 1987 found that
stormwater is a significant source of heavy metals to the South Bay which
at times exceeded aquatic life water quality criteria. Other constituents
such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and pesticides, suspended
sediment, coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand and nutrients were
also present. Recommended area -wide and community specific control
measures emphasize non - structural approaches that would be implemented
through public education, regulatory efforts and /or public policy
directives and actions.
Implementation af_the program would be under the direction of a single
National Pol.lutat Qischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by
the Reg.?.onal Boat to the cities, the County and the Water District.
The City would be required to participate in the area -wide program, to
select and implement community specific control measures, to participate in
coordinated monitoring of the water quality impacts of nonpoint source
pollution and to provide reports on program implementation.
Background
The Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program Study was conducted
to fulfill regulatory requirements in the 1986 Basin Plan. The study was
initiated by and has been guided and.supported by a group consisting of 13
cities, the County of Santa Clara, and the District - all of which
1
contribute storm runoff to the Lower South Bay (i.e. that portion of San
Francisco Bay which is located south of the Dumbarton Bridge). The
participating cities are:
Campbell Milpitas San Jose
Cupertino Monte Sereno Santa Clara
Los Altos Mountain View Saratoga
Los Altos Hills Palo Alto Sunnyvale
Los Gatos
In late 1986, representatives from the cities, the County, and the District
met with representatives of the RWQCB, to review the emerging 1986 Basin
Plan requirements, discuss the implications for nonpoint source
dischargers, draft a Memorandum of Agreement and a flexible cost - sharing
formula, and established an NPS Task Force which would meet regularly to
guide the participants' efforts to comply with the changing requirements.
The NPS Task Force (which is made up of representatives from three of the
cities, the County of Santa Clara, the District, and the RWQCB staff)
performed this role on a continuing basis. Staff members from the District
have supported the NPS Task Force in program management and administrative
capacities.
In early 1987, the NPS Task Force hired consultants to prepare an NPS
Action Plan which would satisfy the first three requirements stipulated by
the 1986 Basin Plan: 1) a proposal to evaluate nonpoint source pollution
associated with dry weather and wet weather discharges, 2) an inventory of
existing nonpoint source pollution control measures, and'3) a program to
identify and evaluate additional nonpoint source pollution control
measures. The results of the Action Plan included a detailed description
of existing data sources, land use and demographic information, and a
workplan to monitor and model nonpoint source water quality and loads.
Existing control measures also were documented for each municipality.
In September 1987, the NPS Task Force selected Woodward -Clyde Consultants
to conduct the field studies, laboratory analysis, modeling, and control
measure.assessment. The study was performed in close cooperation with the
NPS Task Force and resulted in a three - volume final report: The Load
Assessment Repot ,(Volume I) included the.field, lab, and modeling studies
and focused on *veloping credible, first -order estimates for dry - weather
and wet weather„tlows to the Lower South Bay, and the associated nonpoint
source pollutant loads. The Control Measures Report (Volume II) assessed a
broad spectrum of candidate control measures and presented alternative
nonpoint source control programs. The NPS Control Program (Volume III)
describes the implementation program to be achieved through an NPDES
permit.
State and Federal Regulation of Nonpoint Source of Pollution Regional Water
Quality Control Board
The RWQCB's 1986 Basin Plan specifically designated the Lower South Bay as
an area which warrants focused attention regarding nonpoint source water
pollution problems. The Basin Plan included regulatory language which
2
_A
called for the following specific actions.
1. By June 15, 1987, designated Santa Clara Valley nonpoint source
dischargers were required to submit a detailed proposal to evaluate
nonpoint source pollution associated with the following:
* Dry weather discharges by industries and dry weather runoff from
residential areas
* Wet weather urban and agricultural runoff and sewage
bypass /overflows
The proposal was required to contain specific monitoring locations and
identify monitoring frequencies related to storm and discharge events.
A specific monitoring program was required for runoff from industrial
facilities. The program was required to provide for the evaluation of
concentrations of pollutants and total pollutant loadings and compare
these with waste loads from point source discharges.
2. By June 15, 1987, the Santa Clara Valley nonpoint dischargers were
required to identify existing nonpoint source pollution control
measures and present a program to evaluate their effectiveness.
3. By September 15, 1987 the Santa Clara Valley nonpoint dischargers were
required to submit a program to identify and evaluate the effectiveness
of additional nonpoint source pollution control measures.
4. By June 15, 1989, the Santa Clara Valley dischargers were required to
submit a program for the implementation of additional nonpoint source
controls and an ongoing monitoring program to evaluate their
effectiveness. The RWQCB extended the deadline for submittal of the
implementation program in recognition of the progress made on the
program and the participating agencies FY1989 -90 program commitments.
The RWQCB is formulating amendments to its 1986 Basin Plan. These changes
are currently in draft.form, and will be subject to public comment and
revision by the Regional Board prior to publication in late Spring 1990.
At this time,�the-Regional Board staff is planning to include new water
quality objectllltres""for the Bay and propose a three prong approach aimed at
updating the ellsting Basin Plan to incorporate recent advancements in
urban runoff management. The major elements of this approach are as
follows:
* Baseline Control Program
The Baseline Control Program will be a Best Management Practice Program,
designed to emphasize preventative rather than remedial controls. The
requirements of this program are expected to include a plan for operation
and maintenance of storm drain systems, illicit discharge elimination
program, educational programs, and establishment of basic monitoring and
reporting requirements. These requirements may be extended to include
controls on new developments.
3
* Comprehensive Control Program
The Comprehensive Control Program will focus on both prevention and
remediation, and will be parallel with the EPA's proposed NPDES municipal
stormwater permitting program. Under this program, selected counties,
cities, and industrial facilities will be required to develop and implement
individual comprehensive control plans to comply with the scope of the
NPDES program.
* Water Quality Objectives
New water quality objectives are proposed to be included in the Basin Plan
amendment. These objectives will set numerical water quality standards for
the South Bay.
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) in 1987, pursuant to
commitments in the 1978 Water Rights Decision 1485 and Water Quality
Control Plan for the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh, began a
four -phase proceeding to receive evidence on beneficial uses and water
quality issues. A product of these proceedings will be a Pollutant Policy
Document (PPD) to establish state policy for water quality control. This
policy will be used by the San Francisco and Central Valley RWQCBs in
updating their basin plans.
The SWRCB released the Draft PPD in November 1988, amended the first draft
in October 1989, and conducted public hearings on the Draft PPD in December
1989. The SWRCB is scheduled to release a revised Draft PPD for public
review in March 1990 with adoption around July 1990.
The PPD is expected to: -
1. Establish policy statements relative to the control of pollutant
sources and loadings in the Estuary.
2. Request the State Department of Health Services for guidance on the
health effects from consumption of aquatic life containing pollutants
of concerroft
3. Require the San Francisco and Central Valley RWQCB to implement mass
emission strategies to regulate arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury,
selenium, silver, and PAHs for the purpose of controlling the
Accumulation in sediments and aquatic tissues and protecting beneficial
uses.
4. Require the San Francisco and Central Valley RWQCBs to develop programs
to reduce and eliminate the discharge of synthetic organic agricultural
chemicals (pesticides).
The PPD is not expected to set numerical water quality objectives. The
SWRCB is developing two new state -wide water quality control plans, the
4
Inland Surface Waters Plan and the_Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan. A
major element of these state -wide water quality control plans is the
adoption of water quality objectives for toxic substances (mandated by the
Federal Clean Water Act) which could reasonably be expected to interfere
with beneficial uses.
The SWRCB conducted workshops in November 1989 regarding alternative
methods of developing numerical water quality criteria which could serve as
the basis for objectives in the plans. The workshops solicited comments on
the attainability of the objectives based on the criteria and procedures
for site specific modification of the objectives. The original date
(February 1990) for adoption of the plans has been delayed.
The SWRCB staff has proposed an initial list of 37 pollutants for which
water quality objectives would be developed and proposed for adoption in
the initial version of the new state -wide plans.
Environmental Protection Agency
The 1987 Clean Water Act amendments require Individual Control Strategies
to (ICS) be developed for toxic pollutants for navigable waters that will
not meet water quality standards or assure protection of beneficial uses
after application of effluent limitations to point sources. Section 304(1)
required states to list such receiving waters (by February 1989) which
cannot meet standards and to provide ICSs for reducing the discharge of
toxic pollutants from point sources and controls on nonpoint sources of
pollution to achieve compliance with the water quality standards within 3
years after the ICSs are adopted.
On February 1, 1989 the SWRCB listed South San Francisco Bay, and the RWQCB
submitted the recently adopted NPDES permits for the San Jose /Santa Clara,
Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plants and indicated its
intent to consider an NPDES permit to implement the Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Program. This NPDS permit would serve as the ICS for
nonpoint source pollution.
On June 5, 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency approved the 304(1)
listing of Sotft -h San Francisco Bay, recognized the water pollution control
plants and stAh dramas as sources, and conditionally approved the NPDES
permits. The SWRCB is required to develop water quality standards for
metals in South San Francisco Bay by February 1990 and to include NPDES
permit effluent limits for silver, nickel, lead, mercury, selenium,
cadmium, and copper. EPA did not approve the state's storm drain ICS, but
did acknowledge the progress of the Santa Clara Valley NPS Program and
agreed to consider NPDES permits to implement the program, if an
appropriate application is submitted by March 1990.
Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the existing Federal
Clean Water Act and required EPA to promulgate a new set of regulations to
control stormwater pollution from municipalities and selected industries.
Drafts of the proposed rules and discussions of EPA's rationale were
published in-December 1989 for public review and comment. EPA is currently
5
reviewing the comments and modifying the final rule, which is scheduled to
be released in August 1990. The proposed rule would require that all
municipalities with a population greater than 100,000 and selected
industries that discharge directly into waters of the United States submit
permit applications. The permit applications would be submitted in two
parts. Part I of the application would be required to be submitted by
large municipalities (i.e. larger than 250,000 population) one year after
release of the final rules. Medium size municipalities (i.e. larger than
100,000 and less than 250,000) would submit Part I within two years
following release of the final rules. Part I of the application will
require the applicant to assemble and submit the following information on
the existing stormwater system and to conduct initial monitoring to screen
for illicit discharges.
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Program - Study Results
The study results are described in a three volume report.
Volume I: Loads Assessment Report - This volume described the objectives,
study methods, and findings of the field program, the laboratory analysis,
and the computer modeling which were used to estimate the annual dry
weather and wet weather flows and pollutant loads from Santa Clara County
into the Lower South Bay.
Volume II: Control Measure Report - This volume described and discussed
the applicability of control measures that have been-examined and /or
implemented in other communities to reduce NPS pollution problems so that
program participants can plan their collective and individual responses to
requirements for controlling NPS water pollution.
Volume III: NPS Control Program Report - This volume responds to the 1986
Basin Plan's requirement for a plan for implementing NPS control programs.
It consists of an introduction, an overview description of NPS phenomena,
the associated problems on a national scale, and the problems /challenges in
the Santa Clara Valley study area. It also includes a summary discussion
of the existing and emerging.federal and state regulations that.pertain to
NPS matters, and an historical review of the actions the participants have
taken to develep-a sound basis for dealing :pith r..inpoint source water
pollution probsiNws and for.respond.ing to regulatory requirements in a
proactive manner: A summary description of the field, laboratory and
modeling studies and the findings reported in Volume I. It has a summary
description of the controls that are available for reducing dry weather and
wet weather loads of nonpoint source water pollutants.
The key element of Volume III is a description of the participants'
proposed NPS control programs (i.e., both area -wide controls and community
specific controls) and their strategy of using the existing NPDES
permitting process as an effective framework within which planning and
implementation of controls will be carried out.
6
Sources and Pollutant Loadings
The study found the following regarding the sources, amount and impact of
nonpoint sources of pollution:
* The runoff water quality and loads to the Lower South Bay vary from
storm to storm and from year to year in response to hydrologic and other
factors.
* The loads are episodic in nature and are associated with, on average, 17
storms per year each with an average duration of 31 hours.
* The constituents of primary concern in nonpoint force runoff are heavy
metals, especially cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.
* The nonpoint source loads are primarily from stormwater runoff from the
urbanized areas. Loads from reservoir releases during wet years can be
important and on average contribute about 10 percent of the metals and
solids loads. Dry weather loads are relatively small, except for
nitrate nitrogen, where dry weather loads contribute about 25 percent of
the total load.
* Stream sediments act as a metals sink during low flows and a metals
source (thorough resuspension) during high flows. Thus, although dry
weather flows do not directly contribute a large load to the Lower South
Bay, dry weather flows are an important source of contaminants that
accumulate in deposits of stream sediments between stormwater runoff
events.
* Loadings of chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc from nonpoint
source tend to be about-60-80 percent of the total point plus nonpoint
source metal loads. Most of the nonpoint source metals load is
associated with the suspended sediment, whereas most of the point source
load is dissolved.
* The point source loads for the three municipal wastewater treatment
plants that discharge to the Lower South Bay (i.e., San Jose, Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto) are 80 -95 percent of the total loads of
nutrients Oxamined (i.e., nitrate nitrogen, total Kjelkhal nitrogen,
total phosphate).
* Almost all of the total suspended solids load is associated with
nonpoint sources.
* In wet weather stream samples, total concentrations of copper,.cadmium,
zinc, lead, and mercury were found to occasionally exceed the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) water quality objectives for
protection of aquatic life. However, when soluble fractions were
examined, copper was the only constituent that exceeded the objective
more than once (three or four times out of 24 sampling events).
7
• Dry weather water quality in streams generally met EPA's water quality
objectives for protection of aquatic life.
• Toxicity testing showed that wet weather samples were occasionally
toxic, whereas dry weather samples tended not to be toxic.
Pollutant Control Measures
Volume II: Control Measures Report Volume II presents and discusses many
candidate control measures that must be considered for implementation by
the cities, the County, and the District to achieve initial (reasonable)
control over nonpoint source pollutants. Most of the candidates would be
directed toward controlling the pollutants at their respective sources (i.
e.,) they are preventative measures and are intended to keep pollutants
form entering stormwaters in the first place, rather than removing
pollutants from contaminated water).
The various control measures can be implemented in the following ways:
* Some controls would be implemented primarily through various forms of
education, public information, and /or "technology transfer" to explain
the principles and correct practices of NPS control to the general
public or to specially- targeted audiences.
* Some controls would be implemented through new or amended regulatory or
public policy directives (and associated inspection, detection, and
enforcement activities).
* Some controls would be implemented thorough efforts by public agencies.
These would include the efforts of planning departments, public works
departments, and /or other public agencies that would conduct
inspections, provide maintenance and /or repair services, build new
facilities, and perform other public agency functions.
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Program - Recommended Program
The Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control:Program is an aggressive
pro- active program to effectively control pollutants at their source.
This program has been developed to comply with the following skate and
federal water quality control programs and regulations:
* 1986 Basin Plan
* Federal Clean Water Act Sections 305, 304(1), 319, and 402(p)
* SWRCB Proposed Pollutant Policy Document
* EPA Proposed NPDES Stormwater Permit Regulations and to respond to
increasing concern of the public and elected officials about the
health of South San Francisco Bay and tributary streams
The program consists of a series of actions that would be implemented under
the regulatory direction of an NPDES permit developed by the program. The
major components of the program include:
8
* Illicit Connection Program
* Illegal Dumping Program
* Area -wide Stormwater Management Program
* Community Specific Stormwater Management Program
*
Evaluation of Treatment Based Controls
* Wet Weather Monitoring Program
The NPDES Permit was selected as the best method to obtain regulatory
oversight and guidance for implementation of the program.
Recognizing that the program had already developed most of the technical
data called for by the proposed USEPA regulations, and recognizing that the
program was obligated to meet the 1986 Basin Plan requirements and
timetable (regardless of EPA's progress), the NPS Task Force decided to
consider an alternative pro- active strategy. EPA Region IX indicated in
.its approval of the 304(1) listing of the South Bay that an NPDES permit
application was required by March 1990 and the Regional Board further
stated that all municipalities in Santa Clara County as significant
contributors of pollutants and should receive NPDES permits.
Illicit Connection and Illegal Dumping Programs
The identification and control of illicit connections and illegal dumping
is an important element in the upcoming federal regulations and is
considered ana integral part of the stormwater control program. The
objectives of this program element are to: 1) develop a field manual that
can be used by the program participants in conducting illicit connection
and illegal dumping investigations, 2) conduct pilot -scale illicit
connection and illegal dumping investigations in at least two test -case
cities, and 3) provide training to municipality and Water District staff
who would assume responsibility for conducting such investigations as part
of permit compliance.
rea -Wide Stormwater Management Program
The "area -wide" program will focus on those control measures which are to
be applied throughout the study area. It will consist of those controls
which are seen as being basic to nonpoint source water pollution control
and that lend.4hemselves to being implemented on a universal basi,a,
throughout the study area. All municipalities, the County and the Water
District will participate in funding and implementing the area -wide
program. The process that led to the definition of this area -wide program
was described in Volume II. Specific activities which will be conducted to
refine and implement the area -wide control program area as follows:
1. NPDES Permit
* Obtain and NPDES permit for the Santa Clara Valley NPS Program
* Coordinate participating agencies' compliance
* Report on the program's compliance with requirements
E
No
2. Coordination of Participating Agencies
W
* Assist in developing uniform community specific control measures
* Assist in developing consistent community specific control measures
among cities on same watersheds
* Develop model ordinances to assist communities in implementing
regulatory control measures
* Develop an illegal dumping field manual and conduct training
* Develop guidance and procedures for an illicit connection
identification and elimination program
* Develop manual on Best Management Practices for preventing and
controlling NPS pollutants
3. Public Education Programs
• Develop materials and plan implementation programs
• Publish materials
* Conduct workshops for public officials, professionals, and
organizations
4. Regulatory Compliance
• Maintain knowledge of current and pending regulations
• Review and formulate candidate positions on current and pending
regulations
• Coordinate response to pending regulations
5. Evaluation of Treatment -Based Controls
* Maintain knowledge on state -of -art of treatment -based controls
* Conduct pilot testing programs and evaluate their results
6. Wet - Weather Monitoring Programs
• Conduct ongoing monitoring programs at strategic locations
• Revise and refine data concerning pollutant characterization and
control
7. Regional and State-wide Programs
• Participate in Bay Area Stormwater Management Association
• Participate in and provide support to relevant Aquatic Habitat
Institute Studies
• Participate in the State's Bay -Delta Pollutant Monitoring and
Assessment Program
Community Specific Stormwater Management Program
Several of the nonpoint source control measures that were described in
Volume II are most effective when specifically tailored to local
conditions. The "community specific " programs will be developed to
supplement the area -wide controls, where additional focus is determined to
10
1
be warranted and cost - effective. The forthcoming work on community -
specific controls will involve the following activities:
1. NPDES Permit
* Submit reports on compliance with provisions to the area -wide
coordinator
2. Public Education Programs
* Implement public education programs in specific communities
3. Control Measures Selection and Implementation
• Select specific control measures
• Budget for specific control measures
• Implement specific control measures
• Continue current NPS control measures
4. Implement Illicit Connection Program
5. Implement Iflegal Dumping Program
Evaluate Treatment -Based Controls
The initial focus in the development of stormwater management plans will be
on source control by implementing a broad range of control measures which
function by preventing pollutants from entering stormwater in the first
place, and this emphasis is reflected in the recommended control measure
program. As more data are developed regarding the role of nonpoint sources
and their effect on beneficial uses in the Lower South Bay, it may
eventually become necessary to implement more capital intensive treatment
based controls. In this program element, the feasibility of implementing
treatment -based controls will be evaluated by first examining the
practicality of retrofiting existing flood detention basins to provide
additional water quality benefits and measuring the effectiveness and
operational impacts of the modifications.
Wet - Weather Monitoring
The NPS study conducted in Santa Clara Valley during water years 1988 and
1989 characterized the flows and water quality associated with Nonpoint
Source , and estimated nonpoint source loads that flow into the Lower South
Bay via creeks, storm drainage channels, and sloughs. Although the
resultant data were adequate to characterize nonpoint dource water quality
and loads, there has been broad based support for a follow on monitoring
program to provide additional data that can refine the loading estimates,
and that may assist in the development of cost - effective control measures.
The scope of the proposed monitoring program will consist of monitoring
flows and water quality at five strategic locations (i.e., the most
representatives of the original 12 monitoring stations) for five storm
events. The water quality constituents to be measured will focus on toxic
11
contaminants (heavy metals and hydrocarbons), with supporting conventional
parameters. The program will also attempt to characterize the loadings
from the transportation corridors.
Fiscal Impacts
The City has provided 1.6 % in support of the study with the District and
City of San Jose each providing about 30% of the total cost of $2,160,000
through FY 1989 -90.
For fiscal year 1990 -91 budget categories have been identified and will
consist of costs for the area -wide stormwater control plan, the city
specific control plans, ongoing monitoring, and program administration.
The area -wide stormwater control plan will consist of control measures
which will be selected from Volume II and will be applied throughout the
County. The implementation of these control measures may in some cases
(e.g., public education through the development and distribution of
brochures) conducted by an area -wide agency (e.g., the SCVWD) and in other
cases (e.g., illegal dumping identification and elimination) may be
conducted by each participating entity. The annualized cost for developing
and implementing the area -wide plan is estimated at about $2,000,000.
A second cost element will be the cost of the city specific stormwater
control plans. These plans will focus on specific control measures best
suited to each city and will include measures other than those in the
area -wide plan and possibly measures in the area -wide plan which would be
implemented at a more intense level than called for in the area -wide plan.
Cost estimates for the city specific plans are not available and will be
developed as part of the 1989 -90 program. One element of the community
- specific program, a third cost factor will be conducting ongoing
monitoring. This activity has been estimated to cost $350,000 per year.
The last cost element will be program administration, which involves
coordination of the various activities and personnel support of the lead
agency. This element is estimated to cost $150,000 per year. All shared
costs will be based on the cost sharing formula used for each fiscal year
to be developed in the Institutional Agreement.
Future program costs cannot be estimated at this time; however, the cost of
community specific. programs will increase as i.mplementation programs are
developed and implemented.
Institutional Agreement
The current agreement provides for funding and participation in the Santa
Clara Valley NPS Control Program study and provides for cost sharing among
the 15 participating agencies.
The institutional agreement necessary to implement a coordinated NPS
Control Program will be different and will primarily address the legal
authority and responsibilities of the agencies participating in the
program. The agreement will particularly address the responsibilities for
program implementation within the respective jurisdiction, compliance with
12
provisions of the NPDES permit for area -wide and city specific programs and
provision of funding for programs' applicable to the study area.
The agreement to implement Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control
Program is attached.
Conclusion
Every City will be required to implement a Nonpoint Source Control Program
by the.Regional Water Quality Control Board. The-Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Program is the most cost effective way to implement a
coordinated program. The City should be a co- applicant for the NPDES
permit that will provide the regulatory guidance.
1
t
SENT BY :WATER QUALITY CONTROL ; 3 -26-90 ; 6 :07PM SAN FRAN BAY-► 4087411132;# 2
� 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Oovornor
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
Phi: A" CON 416
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1800 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 700
OAKLAND, CA 04815
March 26, 1990
Roger B. James
Operations and Water Quality Manager
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5730 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear Mr. James:
SUBJECT: - SANTA CLARA VALLEY NPS CONTROL PROGRAM - NPDES PERMIT
In a letter dated June 9, 1989 the local agencies in Santa Clara county were granted an
extension of the June 15, 1989 date for submittal of a program for the implementation of
nonpoint source (urban runoff) controls in the county. This extension was contingent on the
submittal of an NPDES permit application that includes all Santa Clara county municipalities.
We are encouraged by the progress towards development of a urban runoff control program
and a permit application. However, we are concerned that there may be some reluctance by
some municipalities to adopt the proposed agreement providing for implementation of the
control program and to be included in a group application.
We strongly encourage the current approach towards development and implementation of the
control program. The three volume program report, the proposed implementation agreement,
and a group NPDES permit application would satisfy the contingencies stated in the June 9,
1989 letter. It is essential that all Santa Clara county municipalities implement a
comprehensive control program. The failure of any Santa Clara county municipality to adopt
the agreement and to be included in the permit application will be cause for the Regional
Board to consider its enforcement authority under the NPDES regulations and the California
Water Code.
We understand that the development of a comprehensive control program has been a
formidable task which has included educating and informing public officials from fifteen
separate entities of the technical, fiscal, and regulatory elements of the program. If it would
be of assistance, we will appear at city council or other public meetings to explain the
regulatory requirements and the imperative participation of all Santa Clara county
municipalities in the program. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call
Thomas Mumley at 415 - 464 -0962. 'r
Sincerely,
Steven R. Ritchie
Executive Officer
SENT BY .'WATER QUALITY CONTROL 3 -26 -90 ; 6 :08PM SAN FRAN BAY-+ 4087411132;# 3
i
Roger B. James
2
cc: Mike Giusti, County of Santa Clara
Don Wimberly, City of Cambell
Bert Viskovich, City of Cupertino
Bruce Bang, City of Los Altos
Thomas Frutchey, Taws of Los Altos Hills
Christine Fisher, Town of Los Gatos
Mike McNeely, City of Milpitas
Rosemary Pierce, City of Monte Sereno
Mark Harris, City of Mountain View
Phil Bobel, City of Palo Alto
Jim Williams, City of San Jose
Bob Mortenson, City of Santa Clara
Iarry Perlin, City of Saratoga
Marvin Rose, City of Sunnyvale
March 26, 1990