HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD: '
SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Protest
Hearing, Final Approval of Engineer's Report, and
Confirmation of Assessments
Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Resolution overruling
protests and confirming the assessments for FY 94 -95.
Report Summary: At your meeting, you will conduct the Protest
Hearing i.e., the final step in the process for reauthorizing the
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 94 -95.
At the conclusion of the hearing, it is recommended that you adopt
the attached resolution overruling all protests, granting final
approval of the Engineer's Report, and confirming the assessments
for each Zone for FY 94 -95. Attached to this report are the
following:
1. Resolution overruling protests and confirming the
assessments.
2. Table showing preliminary assessments approved on May 18
and final assessments which reflect the decisions made by
the Council at your previous meeting.
3. Final assessment schedule.
4. Chart showing history of annual assessments.
5. Description of activities for FY 94 -95 by Zone.
6. Map of LLA -1.
7. Letter from Richard Gurney, President of Sunland Park HOA,
dated July 20, 1994, with attachments.
8. Letter from George Korbay dated June 23, re: Zone 22
assessment.
9. Letter from Rosemary Wooley dated July 21 re: Zone 22
assessment.
10. Written protests filed as of July 29.
Fiscal Impacts: All costs associated with the Landscaping &
Lighting Assessment District are recovered from the annual
assessments. Revenues and expenditures are programmed in the
adopted budget in Activity 56. The following summarizes the
proposed financing of the District for FY 94 -95:
Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/1/94
$164,604.66
Revenues
Property tax revenues $ 53,050.00
FY 94 -95 assessments $ 92,169.68
Total Revenues - $145,219.68
Expenditures
Total Expenditures - $226,978.73
Ending Fund Balance as of 6/30/95 $ 82,845.61
Carryovers to FY 95 -96
Surplus carryovers $117,005.61
Deficit carryovers $ 34,160.00
Net Carryover - $ 82,845.61
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: All property owners whose
assessments are proposed to be increased have received the proper
legal notices for the Protest Hearing.
Conseauences of Not Actinq on the Recommended Motions: The
resolution will not be adopted and the assessments will not be
confirmed. The final assessment roll must be turned over to the
County Auditor by August 10 in order for the assessments to appear
on the 94 -95 Tax Roll.
Follow Up Actions: The assessment roll will be delivered to the
County Auditor.
Attachments: See 1 - 10 above.
ATTACHMEMT I
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -24.4
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING
THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING
THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
FISCAL YEAR 1994 -1995
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 18th day of May, 1994, said Council adopted
its Resolution No. 94 -24 , "A Resolution Describing Improve-
ments and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal
Year 1994- 1995" for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District LLA -1, pursuant to the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer to prepare
and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for
under said Act and by said Resolution No. '94 -24 T
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk
of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City
Council for its consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report
and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all
the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act
and said Resolution No. � -24 , including (1) plans and
specification of the existing improvements and the proposed new
improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the District;
and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were
done in the form and manner required by said Act;
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and
every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and
determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent
proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to
the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 3rd day of
August, 1994, at the hour of 8:30 p.m. of said day in the City
Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California,
as the time and place-for hearing.protests in relation to the
levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, for Fiscal Year 1994 -1995, and directing said Clerk to
give notice of said hearing as required by said Act;
May 12, 1994 —1-
mnrs \273 \res \94I.I.A.MSR
WHEREAS, it appears that notices
and regularly published and posted in
required by said Act, as evidenced by
Certificates on file with said Clerk,
duly and regularly held at the time ai
notice; and
of said hearing were duly
the time, form and manner
the Affidavits and
whereupon said hearing was
ad place stated in said
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to said improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to
the extent of the assessment district, or any zones therein, or
to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's
estimate of costs thereof, filed protests with the Clerk of said
City at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and
all matters and things pertaining to the levy-and collection of
the assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered
by said Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered,
as follows:
1. That protests against said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of
the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed
assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs
thereof, for Fiscal Year 1994 -1995, be, and each of them hereby
are overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity
require and said Council does hereby order the levy and
collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the
construction or installation of the improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly
described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by
reference thereto.
3. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District LLA -1 and the boundaries thereof benefitted
and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or
installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in Saratoga, California,
and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof
on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map
indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included
in said District -and any ..zone thereof and -.the _.general location of
said District.
4. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within
the assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in
May 12, 1994 —2-
mnrs \273 \res \94LLA.MSR
said report, be, and they hereby are, finally adopted and
approved.
5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total
costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and
servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith, contained in said report, be, and it hereby is,
finally adopted and approved.
6. That the public .interest and convenience require, and
said Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as
described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report,
reference to which is hereby made for a more particular
description of said improvements.
7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution
No. 94 -24 , and also the boundaries of any zones therein and
the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within
said District as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the
County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies,
each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate
number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it
hereby is, finally approved and confirmed.
8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs
and expenses of said improvements upon the several lots or
parcels of land in said District in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively,
from said improvements, and the maintenance or servicing, or
both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto contained in
said report be, and the same hereby is, finally approved and
confirmed.
9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1994 -1995
be, and the same hereby is, finally adopted and approved as a
whole.
10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the
Auditor of Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with
said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as
confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such
confirmation thereto attached and the date thereof.
11. That the order for the levy and collection of
assessment for the improvements and.the final.- .adoption and
approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans
and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the
diagram and the assessment, as contained in said Report, as
hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall
refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as
May 12, 1994 —3—
mnrs\273\res\94LLA.MSR
amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in
accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted
or made by this Council.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga, California, at.a. meeting thereof held.on the 3rd day of
August, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
May 12, 1994 _4_
mars \273 \res \94LLA.MSR
ATTAtHMEWT z,
SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LL<
FY 94 -95 ASSESSMENTS
ZONE
PRELIMINARY
FINAL
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT
0 (7C)
(1)
(1)
1
$85.62
$77.68
2
$130.80
$118.68
3
$26.86
$25.26
4
$0.00
$0.00
5
$0.00
$0.00
6
$25.40
$25.40
7 (7R)
$10.88
$10.88
8
(1)
(1)
9
$169.92
$169.92
10
$456.00
$442.58
11
$19.60
$19.02
12
$398.88
$380.00
13
$3.48
$3.46
14
$277.90
$264.58
15
$202.04
$202.04
16
$57.24
$54.40
17
$25.20
$25.20
18
$0.00
$0.00
19 (VPD #2)
(1)
(1)
20 (VPD #3)
(1)
(1)
21 (VPD #4)
(1)
(1)
22
$22.58
$22.58
23
-(2)
(2)
24
$0.00
$0.00
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92.
C:\wk\llalcomp
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1 FY 94 -95
C: \WK \LLA19495
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
ZONE 5
ZONE 6
ZONE 7
ZONE 9
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
# OF PARCELS
29
85
167
697
107
64
762
48
9
250
FACTOR
0.0081
0.0236
0.0464
0.1936
0.0297
0.0178
0.2116
0.0133
0.0025
0.0694
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
$185.85
$544.72
$1,070.22
$4,466.72
$685.71
$410.14
$4,883.28
$307.61
$57.68
$1,602.12
ATTORNEY
4.03
11.80
23.19
96.78
14.86
8.89
105.80
6.66
1.25
34.71
ASSESS. ENGRG.
45.50
133.37
262.02
1,093.60
167.88
100.42
1,195.58
75.31
14.12
39225
ADVTSG.
4.03
11.80
23.19
96.78
14.86
8.89
105.80
6.66
1.25
34.71
MISC.
• 1.61
4.72
928
38.71
5.94
3.55
42.32
2.67
0.50
13.89
INDIRECT COSTS
17.59
51.55
101.29
422.73
64.90
38.82
462.15
29.11
5.46
151.62
OVERHEAD
33.82
99.14
194.78
812.96
124.80
74.65
888.78
55.99
10.50
291.59
-
TOTAL
- - - - --
$292.43
- - - - - --
$857.11
- - - - - --
$1,683.96
- - - - - --
$7,028.28
- - - - - --
$1,078.95
- - - - - --
$645.35
- - - - - --
$7,683.72
- - - - - --
$484.01
- - - - - --
$90.75
- - - - - --
$2,520.91
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
CONTR. MAINT.
2,040.00
3,180.00
2,340.00
3,900.00
1,066.50
1,260.00
CONTR. REPAIRS
306.00
477.00
351.00
585.00
159.98
189.00
IRRIGATION WATER
250.00
150.00
250.00
2,150.00
337.50
450.00
ELECTRIC POWER
13,000.00
6,500.00
1,500.00
3,000.00
195.00
45.00
-
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
339.56
497.98
384.68
1,700.40
850.20
196.20
392.40
893.36
210.45
248.39
- - -
-
TOTAL
- - - - --
$2,935.56
--- -------
$4,304.96
- - - - --
$3,325.68
- - - - - --
$14,700.40
- - - - - --
$7,350.20
- - - - - --
$1,696.20
- - - - - --
$3,392.40
--------•----------
$7,723.36
$1,819.43
- --
$2,147.39
CONSTRUCTION
$565.00
$127.12
SUB -TOTAL
$3,227.98
$5,162.06
$5,009.65
$21,728.68
$8,429.15
$2,341.55
$11,076.12
$8,772.38
$2,037.30
$4,668.29
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
TOTAL COST
$3,227.98
$5,162.06
$5,009.65
$21,728.68
$8,429.15
$2,341.55
$11,076.12
$8,772.38
$2,037.30
$4,668.29
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
($699.67)
($5,146.44)
($3,165.06)
$53,986.69
$24,856.52
$715.32
$2,772.20
($10,411.04)
($7,783.94)
($351.54)
n
EST. PROP. TAX
$1,150.00
$220.00
$1,580.00
$12,250.00
$4,950.00
-�
NET COST
$2,777.65
$10,088.50
$6,594.71
($44,508.01)
($21,377.37)
$1,626.23
$8,303.92
$19,183.42
$9,821.24
$5,019.83
rn
�J
COVER NOT RECOVERED
($524.75)
($2,373.80)
($7,80828)
($5,837.96)
($263.66)
l
COVER TO FY 95 -96
$44,509.96
$21,377.67
NET TO ASSESS
$2,252.90
$10,088.50
$4,220.91
$1.95
$0.30
$1,626.23
$8,303.92
$11,375.14
$3,983.29
$4,756.18
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$77.69
$118.69
$25.27
$0.00
$0.00
$25.41
$10.90
$236.98
$442.59
$19.02
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
$77.68
$118.68
$25.26
$0.00
$0.00
$25.40
$10.88
$169.92
$442.58
$19.02
C: \WK \LLA19495
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1 FY 94 -95
- - - - - -- - - - - - --
TOTAL $2,176.79 $0.00
CONSTRUCTION
ZONE 12
ZONE 13
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
ZONE 22
ZONE 24
TOTAL
# bF PARCELS
9
36
20
41
55
200
11
891
120
3601
FACTOR
0.0025
0.0100
0.0056
0.0114
0.0153
0.0555
0.0031
0.2474
0.0333
1.0000
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WAGES $ BENEFITS
$57.68
$230.71
$128.17
$262.75
$352.47
$1,281.70
$70.49
$5,709.97
$769.02
$23,077.00
ATTORNEY
1.25
5.00
2.78
5.69
7.64
27.77
1.53
123.72
16.66
500.00
ASSESS. ENGRG.
14.12
56.48
31.38
64.33
86.30
313.80
17.26
1,397.99
188.28
5,650.00
ADV7SG.
1.25
5.00
2.78
5.69
7.64
27.77
1.53
123.72
16.66
500.00
MISC.
0.50
2.00
1.11
2.28
3.05
11.11
0.61
49.49
6.66
200.00
INDIRECT COSTS
5.46
21.83
12.13
24.87
33.36
121.30
6.67
540.39
72.78
2,184.00
OVERHEAD
10.50
41.99
23.33
47.82
64.15
233.28
12.83
1,039.24
139.97
4200.12
-
TOTAL
- - - - --
$90.75
- - - - - --
$363.01
- - - - - --
$201.87
- - - - - --
$413.43
- - - - - --
$554.60
- - - - - --
$2,016.72
- - - - - --
$110.92
- - - - - --
$8,984.51
- - - - - --
$1,210.03
--- - - - - --
$36,311.12
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES 8 BENEFITS
$16,339.00
$16,339.00
CONTR. MAINT.
1,500.00
2,370.00
2,760.00
1,380.00
500.00
1,303.50
2,200.00
9,925.00
35,725.00
CONTR. REPAIRS
225.00
355.50
414.00
207.00
195.53
330.00
1,488.75
5283.75
IRRIGATION WATER
200.00
750.00
750.00
412.50
500.00
1,750.00
7,950.00
ELECTRIC POWER
100.00
325.00
55.00
125.00
21,750.00
48;595.00
INDIRECT COSTS
3,068.00
3,068.00 ,
OVERHEAD
251.79
467.68
513.26
250.09
65.40
257.22
412.67
7105.15
15 036 87
- - - - - -- - - - - - --
TOTAL $2,176.79 $0.00
CONSTRUCTION
SUB -TOTAL
$2,267.54
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
$5,039.42
TOTALCOST
$2,267.54
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
($4,610.14)
EST. PROP. TAX
$25.20
NET COST
$6,877.68
COVER NOT RECOVERED
($3,457.61)
COVER TO FY 95 -96
$25.20
NET TO ASSESS
$3,420.08
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$380.01
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
$380.00
C: \WK \LLA19495
$363.01
$4,043.18 $4,437.26 $2,182.09 $565.40
$282.50 $3,000.00
$4,527.35 $4,850.69 $2,716.69 $5,582.12
$363.01 $4,527.35 $4,850.69 $2,716.69 $5,582.12
$238.30 ($3,058.13) ($14,36528) ($1,101.87) $542.70
$124.71 $7,585.48 $19,215.97 $3,818.56 $5,039.42
($2,293.60) ($10,773.96) ($826.40)
$124.71
$5,291.88
$8,442.01
$2,992.16
$5,039.42
$3.46
$264.59
$205.90
$54.40
$25.20
$3.46
$264.58
$202.04
$54.40
$25.20
$2,223.75 $3,567.67
$155.38 $11,308.00
$2,490.05 $23,860.18
$2,490.05 $23,860.18
$2,640.54 $3,610.07
($150.49) $20,250.11
$150.49
($0.00) $20,250.11
($0.00) $22.73
$0.00 $22.58
$81,425.90 $129,997.62
$45,232.00 $60,670.00
$107,867.94 $226,978.73
$0.00
$107,887.94 $226,978.73
$125,935.43 $164,604.66
$32,900.00 $53,050.00
($50,967.49) $9,324.07
($34,180.00)
$50,967.49 $117,005.61
($0.00) $92,169.68
N/A
N/A
SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1
CA
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92
C:\WK\LLA-SUM.WK1
ANN U A L
ASS E S S MEN T S
ZONE
DATE
80 -81
81 -82
82 -83
83 -84
84 -85
85 -86
86 -87
87 -88
88 -89
89 -90
90 -91
91 -92
92 -93
93 -94
94 -95
CREATED
0 (7C)
4/16/80
$102.01
$92.50
$92.58
$56.80
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$21.02
$34.56
$35.38
$21.60
$21.66
$21.66
$14.64
$73.56
$49.72
$72.64
(1)
1
4/16/80
$34.26
$10.54
$0.00
$10.90
$6.80
$203.76
$207.82
$11170
$113.54
$105.94
$95.12
$101.54
$62.20
$90.32
$77.68
2
4/16/80
$11.30
$5.62
$6.16
$6.62.
$7.86
$8.86
$35.14
$27.40
$29.66
$32.00
$34.62
$36.50
$5.98
$18.15
$11868
3
4/16/80
$4.76
$4.46
$0.00
$0.00
$4.20
$11.60
$8.70
$20.50
$23.06
$46.82
$13.14
$15.38
$25.80
$45.21
$25.26
4
4/16/80
$20.95
$18.54
$0.00
$2.06
$2.30
$5.86
$6.70
$2.26
$1.86
$1.86
$1.60
$2.10
$23.84
$0.00
$0.00
5
4/16/80
$23.52
$21.28
$2.12
$0.84
$1.24
$5.00
$6.56
$5.14
$4.98
$4.98
$6.24
$6.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
6
4/16/80
$42.03
$36.68
$0.00
$15.68
$11.32
$14.78
$16.94
$10.54
$10.60
$ 10.60
$8.62
$8.58
$0.00
$0.00
$25.40
7 (7R)
4/16/80
$10.41
$8.90
$6.66
$5.78
$2.54
$2.50
$3.32
$3.14
$2.64
$2.64
$3.78
$4.26
$6.88
$0.00
$10.88
8 (VPD #1)
4/16/80
$269.07
$48.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$213.80
$341.32
$330.36
$117.20
$0.00
$133.36
$0.00
$0.00
(1)
9
5/4/83
$65.00
$84.86
$83.52
$90.82
$87.40
$113.74
$157.20
$136.74
$144.82
$13882
$161.30
$169.92
10
4/18/84
$1,416.00
$0.00
$167.34
$ 186.26
$ 234.70
$ 435.80
$ 34874
$385.38
$371.12
$326.17
$44258
11
4/18/84
$14.32
$5.66
$8.38
$7.70
$8.04
$8.76
$9.58
$10.72
$11.32
$15.48
$19.02
12
4/17/85
$17200
$153.02
$154.16
$168.04
$18804
$209.84
$22260
$24242
$203.01
$380.00
13
4/17/85
$18.00
$5.24
$3.04
$3.60
$3.60
$3.70
$3.16
$0.00
$0.00
$3.46
14
4/17/85
$14210
$121.30
$107.04
$114.48
$15248
$137.56
$14872
$19274
$11010
$264.58
15
4/17/85
$22200
$170.76
$87.44
$83.76
$128.18
$10260
$100.72
$98.90
$227.39
$20204
16
4/16/86
$2,376.44
$3.04
$3.22
$3.22
$59.88
$40.56
$45.16
$42.58
$54.40
17
4/15/87
$10.00
$7.70
$7.70
$8.72
$8.66
$0.00
$5.06
$25.20
18
4/15/87
$50.00
$6.08
$135.18
$154.56
$164.94
$88.10
$0.00
$0.00
19 (VPD #2)
4/19/89
$1,851.00
$1,520.30
$5,243.00
$6,969.76 $13,620.00
(1)
20 (VPD #3)
4/19/89
$6,41200
$6,414.00 $14,09200 $18,770.62 $21,25235
(1)
21 (VPD #4)
4/19/89
$0.00
$977.78
$2,933.00
$5,406.00 $14,385.56
(1)
22
4/17/91
$36.00
$0.00
$13.21
$22.58
?
23
5/1191
$110.00
(2)
24
8/3/94
$0,00
CA
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92
C:\WK\LLA-SUM.WK1
ATTACHMENT 5
City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Fiscal Year 94 -95
Proposed Activities Within Each Zone
Zone 1 - (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive medians.
Zone 2 - (Fredericksburg Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance along Cox Avenue adjacent to the
Fredericksburg Drive neighborhood. (Tracts 3077, 4041, and 4042).
Zone 3 - (Greenbriar Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance of the entryway to the Greenbriar
neighborhood at Cox Avenue /Seagull Way and of the frontage area of
the Azule Park site along Goleta Avenue.
Zone 4 - (Quito Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in
the E1 Quito Park area.
Zone 5 - ( Azule Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in
the Azule Crossing area.
Zone 6 - (Sarahills Lighting District) - Provides for
streetlighting in the Sarahills Drive and a portion of the Russell
Lane areas.
Zone 7 - (Village Residential Lighting District) - Provides for
streetlighting in the residential areas surrounding Saratoga
Village.
Zone 9 - (McCartysville Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road between Cox
Avenue and the SPRR tracks adjacent to Tract 5944. $565 is
allocated for irrigation systems upgrades.
Zone 10 - (Tricia Woods Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance along the easterly side of Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road between Miljevich Drive and Blauer Drive adjacent to Tracts
6199, 7495 and 7928. Shared with Zones 14 and 18. $565 is
allocated for irrigation system upgrades.
Zone 11 - (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) - Provides for
monthly maintenance of the common area landscaping belonging to the
Arroyo de Saratoga neighborhood at Saratoga Avenue and Via Monte
Drive.
Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
Activities by Zone
Page 2
Zone 12 - ( Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance along the SPRR right -of -way in the Leutar
Court neighborhood, Tract 6996.
Zone 13 - (Cabernet Landscape District) - Provides for periodic
landscape maintenance and improvements along the Obrad Drive entry
and the San Palo Court border area adjacent to Tract 7655. .
Zone 14 - (Cunningham Place Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
Zone 15 - (Bonnet Way Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way.
Zone 16 - (Beauchamps Landscape District) - Provides for
landscaping and lighting of the entry to the Beauchamps subdivision
at Beauchamps Lane and Prospect Road.
Zone 17 - ( Sunland Park_ Landscape District) - Provides for semi-
annual landscape maintenance along Quito Road between Baylor Avenue
and McCoy Avenue adjacent to the Sunland Park neighborhood. $3,000
is allocated to develop a landscaping theme and plan to be
installed in Fiscal Year 95 -96.
Zone 18 - (Glasgow Court Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
Zone 22 - (Prides Crossing Landscape District) - Provides for
periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between the
Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue and along Cox Avenue between
the Route 85 overcrossing and Saratoga Creek. $10,000 is allocated
for tree maintenance along Prospect Road.
Zone 24 - (Village Commercial Landscape and Lighting District) -
Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1 -4,
Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting along Big Basin Way.
$45,000 is allocated for tree maintenance, new landscaping,
irrigation system and trash enclosures in Parking District No. 1,
resealing and restriping Parking Districts 1 and 2, miscellaneous
repairs in Parking District 3, and tree trimming along Big Basin
Way.
Ar
WL
to
ANNE
Pt
SO
A
Ulm 0
him==
AT Ac m �A F: uT- 7
Richard Gurney
18241 Purdue Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
July 20, 1994
Mayor and Council Members p �F' r'
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave. JUL 2 5 1994
Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY OF:S', ATOCA
e�.Y MA!� U t�' e „��rcE
Subject: . Lighting District Public Hearing, July 6, 1994
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
During the July 6, City Council Meeting, Glen Crow from the Sunland Park
Development (Zone 17) expressed confusion and a lack of communication regarding
the zone's increased charges. Please find enclosed the items that have been made
available to Glenn. These materials clearly discuss the homeowner's interest in having
the deferred improvement agreements issued against our properties canceled by
conducting a major project in our area.
You will find an informational packet delivered to all homeowners of Sunland Park.
Voting ballets were included in the packets and were collected from 70% of the
homeowners. This resulted in 65% of all the homeowners agreeing to a $15.00
additional amount added to our lighting district zone. Glenn even voted in favor of the
increased assessment. Finally, a newsletter was sent out to all the homeowners
reporting the results.
As you can realize, there has been a lot of work by interested homeowners to identify a
problem, present some solutions and allow all the homeowners to participate in the
decision making process. Glenn Crow's comments July 6 are contrary to everything
the Homeowner Association has done and that he has received. Even more
surprisingly is that I have discussed this issue with him several times.
In any event, it is Sunland Park's interest to continue this project. I look forward to
working with the Council in the future.
Very truly yours,
Richard Gurney
Sunland Park Hom owners Association President
Y43�;, IzK
�� co
�� Z eo
Sunland Park Civic Improvement Association, Inc.
(Sunland Homeowners Association)
Saratoga, Ca
May 27, 1994
To: Sunland Park Homeowners
From: Richard Gurney, President
Subject: Deferred Improvement Agreements
During the April 28, 1994 homeowners meeting the topic of the Deferred Improvement
Agreement, recorded against each homeowner's property, was discussed. The City has
suggested that if the Homeowners. Association conducted some type of major
improvement, even if it cost less than the initial intent of the agreement, the City may be
willing to cancel the Deferred Improvement Agreement. The interest of the homeowners
at the April homeowners meeting was to receive more information about the agreement
and explore the options to cancel the document.
What is the Deferred Improvement Agreement?
When the Sunland Park neighborhood was annexed into Saratoga, the City required an
agreement that would insist that the residents of the neighborhood pay for the
improvements to Quito Road along the Sunland Park frontage. This could include
Widening Quito and putting the storm drain ditch underground. The cost of the project
would be evenly divided among the 200 homeowners and billed on each property owner's
Secured Property Tax Bill. The agreement is an attachment to each parcel's deed, so
when the property is sold, the new owner becomes responsible for that agreement.
If the City elected to act on the agreements today for road improvements, the cost could
be very expensive. Larry Perlin, Saratoga Public Works Director estimates that the cost
could be over $200,000.00. This would represent a cost of over $1,000 to each
homeowner's tax bill. The longer the agreement is active the higher that cost can go.
Cancellation of the Agreements
During the April meeting Larry Perlin discussed the City's interest in cancelling these
agreements if some other major improvement was conducted by the homeowners. Three
possibilities have been suggested:
A. Traffic Light at Baylor or Clemson and Quito
If a traffic light were to be installed at Quito and Cox due to the increased traffic from the
opening of 85, the Sunland Park may elect to install a signal at Baylor or Clemson and
Quito. These signals would provide the ability of the Sunland Park homeowners to safely
enter and exit the neighborhood via Quito Road.
The estimated cost of a signal sponsored by Sunland Park at one of these locations is
$60,000.00. Dividing this cost among the homeowners, each owner would pay $300.00.
B. Traffic Light at McCoy and Quito
It has been agreed that the traffic at McCoy and Cox is extremely heavy due to traffic
entering and exiting via Quito Road and the YMCA. A Sunland Park sponsored signal
at McCoy and Quito would provide traffic breaks for residents to safely enter and exit
Clemson and Baylor via Quito. This signal would also provide a safe method for exiting
the Sunland Park going south on Quito if the northbound traffic is too heavy to exit during
traffic breaks. A similar access is provided by the signal at Bucknall Road to the north.
Finally, the signal would provide safer pedestrian and bicycle traffic crossing at McCoy
and Quito.
The estimated cost of this signal sponsored by Sunland Park is $90,000.00. The
increased cost over the signal at Cox is due to the wider street and a four -way
intersection requiring more hardware for installation. Dividing the cost among the
homeowners, this project would cost each homeowner $450.00
C. Landscape Improvement Along the Sunland Park Frontage
This suggestion involves major landscaping of the Sunland Park frontage property
between McCoy and Baylor. The beautification of this area would include new landscape,
such as trees, shrubs and improved bike and walking paths. This enhanced landscape
would make the Sunland Park more appealing to prospective house buyers and increase
the property value of all the homes in our neighborhood.
The frontage is approximately 1 acre in size. Estimated cost, for materials and
installation could total $40,000. However, this estimate is more difficult to determine
because of the amount of work involved, type of landscape materials and the
maintenance required. A landscape design would have to be developed to determine a
more accurate cost of this project and the ongoing cost for maintaining the landscape
each year after its its installation.. Estimated. _cost to develop a ..design by a landscape
architect is between $2,000 and $3,000.
Recommendation
To fairly judge these projects as a means to eliminate the Deferred Improvement
Agreements, the homeowners should approve assessing themselves $15.00 per parcel
GEORGE KORBAY
----------------------------------------
13148 Anna Drive, Saratoga, California 95070
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
June 23, 1994
ATTACHHENT gj
---------------------------
Ph. 408 255 6412 FAX 408 446 1645
ref. Parcel No. 389- 05 -002w -� 3
I concur in the proposed assessment of $22.58 for City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1.
Sincerely,
eorg Korbay
ATTAC Hmr=hIT 9
July 21, 1994
City Engineer Larry Perlin
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Monies collected for Assessment /Parcel No.:309 -04 -030
This is not a protest for the assessment increase. It is a request for the
use of some of the monies that is collected on this assessment. We as
home owners in the Cox area have not seen any great improvement from
the last assessment which was spent on Prospect Rd. and 1 am under the
assumption that a good amount of this assessment will go for the Cox
area. Designating enough money for a new paint job on the repulsive
orange, pink wall constructed along Cox leading to the freeway overpass
;mould be appreciated. I would think this would come under improvements.
No one asked the residents that live in the area, and drive Cox sometimes 4
times a day, if they wanted any particular color. It seems that the
residents that back up to the wall can't see it from their yard, or if they,
do how many have it painted this color on their side of the wall? What was
the thinking for not just painting it the same as the freeway wall. 1 can't
see why one house painted this unusual color near the railroad tracks
could justify painitng a wall, on a good portion of a well traveled street,
the same color.
I would appreciate consideration of this request.
Rosemary Woolley
19396 Shubert Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
cc: Mayor AnnMarie Burger
Saratoga Creek Homeowners Association
Judy Heintz, President
408- 741 -0588
July 6, 1994
City Council
City of Saratoga
715
Subject: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, Fiscal Year 1994 -95
Assessment and Parcel No. 386 -39 -029
Dear City Council Members,
Regarding your recent undated letter and attached resolution of intention
announcing an assessment increase, this letter serves to protest the proposed
rate increase and the combining of Zone #2 with Zone #9 on behalf of the 85
homeowners who comprise the Saratoga Creek Homeowners Association.
After reviewing the actions being proposed by the city, we believe that they
do not serve the best interests of the 85 homeowners in Zone #2. The
proposed changes involve 2 primary problems as follows:
1.) The rate'increase from $18.16 to 130.80 per home seems excessive.
The enclosed comparison chart shows our actual landscaping expenses
for the fiscal year just completed and the expenses proposed by the city
for the coming year which appear to be unrealistically high. Why will
contract maintenance costs increase by 50% next year, why will repairs
and construction of $1,189 and $361 respectively occur when they have
been zero previously, why will water costs zoom from $350 to $1,671?
Why does the city want to add 13% of costs for overhead, and $10.15
($863 total) for administration when this was zero previously? The
actual cost of $3,655 this past year translates into a $43 per year per
home rate, an increase of $25 from the present $18 rate. This is the
kind of rate we expect for fiscal year 1994 -95, not a rate which is triple
this amount.
Regarding the present unpaid carry forward expenses of $5,146, we
believe the city should implement a "pay as you go" approach. This
balance should be billed to us as a special assessment and not built into
the rate base because there is no way to back it out in the future. The
annual rates should cover only the expenses of each year, with a special
assessment implemented at the end of any year when an unpaid
balance occurs. It also helps to have any annual overruns explained at
year end so everyone can stay informed.
2.) The proposal to combine Zone #2 and Zone #9 does not appear to be in the
best interest of homeowners in Zone #2 because it appears that Zone #2
would have to subsidize Zone #9 very extensively with no corresponding
benefit in return.
The enclosed comparison chart shows that Zone #9 has more than twice
as many plants in its landscaping area as Zone #2, it requires
considerably more water and maintenance expense than Zone #2 does,
and yet Zone #9 has only about half the number of homes (48) as does
Zone #2 (85) over which to spread these higher expenses. Accordingly,
the homeowners in Zone #2 see no redeeming value in combining with
Zone #9.
We would welcome information that would correct any misunderstandings or
incorrect assumptions that we may have at this time and that would help us
to better understand the situation. We enjoy a wonderful city here and take
pride in keeping it beautiful.
COMPARISON CHART
ZONE #2 EXPENSES FOR LAST YEAR (ACTUAL) & NEXT YEAR (PROPOSED)
7/6/94
EXPENSES
7/93 - 6/94 Actuals
7/94 - 6/95 Proposed
COMMENTS
Contract. Maintenance
$3,180
$4,755
Why the 50% increase?
Repairs (est. at 25% of Maint)
$0
$1,189
What is this increase for?
Construction
$0
$361
What is this increase for?
Water Cost
$350
$1,671
Why the 4.7 times increase?
Electricity
$125
$128
Total of above Costs
$3,655
$8,104
This is a 2.2 times increase!!
COST PER HOME
$43.00
$95.34
Zone #9 is 6.2 times higher!!
City of Saratoga Charges
125
175
Overhead c@ 13% of costs
N/A
$1,053
What alternatives do we have
Administration c@ $10.15 / home
N/A
$863
to paying these charges ??
Total of all above costs
$3,655
$10,020
This is 2.74 times higher!!
COST PER HOME
$43.00
$117.88
It seems unrealistically high!
Actual amount charged in past
$18.00
N/A
Zone #9 is triple Zone #2!
See Note A.
•X122. yt «2.1. Y{•14.:•S:.w.1+:C 4.Onwnw.\ . t: 2.: 2. ;:C {x.Y:22.i:: /..:2.;nY:2:.I {:y
..:tt • . v. 'f.2 {.i.vii:L.i:2..iii:G;p:.:2: ;:.: ii:<.i}i}i:.Y • { {C.Y. {.Y: ;n:,v,.'f.2 «nip :2 { ;:<:;v:n \:C..'. ;G.;..::
:.:.".2'O••. :: +.'. '�C``.. 2x2........ . {f . n. 4t••::•> . o.....
2•E:.v ::ik.:::::::::: }.:: r:2•::::::: r.::: Y::::::1:... . ..� .:. 2 .................................. ............................... Y..... ..x ..:h
.::.151::•1:•1•::•1::::::. .. � •Y:....:....... ................ ..,.::..:::::..•.... ... �::1..............
..: Yn.22•YS,.. ... ........... w,,... M ....4x....n..n.:..::.'ox.•�.a'f n,•riiYf)ifii.'•::':Sif •' ....'.'•:i.•% .. •�'
::�:1.(:lhrii:%FfY:LL:5.5�:% yin. n. n: SlOfli%: bx..:% 2+1.df2.5fJ:22L:2.5YYIid' %ii::i s4iY: f% s��: 3Y�k:::: ix' %�f:$�:�2UALSd2<''"':ii}5�}. +�•+'.:2JY x�: •''W�.':'.5'F .S..�iCG�.'''� I%.CfL21: %:w :Y�
COMPARISON OF ZONE #2 AND ZONE #9
ITEM
ZONE #2
ZONE #9
LANDSCAPING QUANTITIES
Length of landscape area
1800 feet
1725 feet
Each about the same length
Number of plants total
182
390
Over twice as many plants in
Zone #9
ANNUAL EXPENSES 7/93 -6/94
Contract Maintenance
$3,180
3900
22% higher cost in Zone #9
Water Cost
350
2200 „
Zone #9 is 6.2 times higher!!
Electricity
125
175
Total of above Costs
$3,655
$6,275
Zone #9 is 1.7 times higher
HOMEOWNER QUANTITIES
Number of Homes per Zone
85
48
For every 7 homes in Zone
#2, there are 4 in Zone #9
Landscaping Cost per Home
$43.00
$130.73
Zone #9 is triple Zone #2!
See Note B.
NOTE A.) : There is a Carry Forward Expense of $5,146 as of 6/30/94 due to assessment amount
in Zone #2 being less than actual expenses.
NOTE B.) : These direct costs do not include the 13% Overhead rate nor the $10.15 per home Administration
charges proposed by the city. Also, no carry forward expenses are included
JOHN W. JOHNSTON • 19394 BROCKTON LANE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95005'�/�
22 June 1994
Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Sir:
\, Juiv S 1994
CiT , ",11'�i ^i1J1:'� CTl ICS
This letter is to file a written protest to the proposed increased
assessment, Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, Fiscal Year
1994 -1995, for Parcel No. 386 -47 -038, 19394 Brockton Lane, Saratoga,
CA., held in the name of the John W. Johnston Inter Vivos Trust.
The proposed increase is over 70 %, which is deemed unnecessary and
excessive. It is far above either the annual cost of living or
the rate of inflation, even over a period of several years.
Sincerely,
ohn W., o nston, Trustee
John W hnston Inter Vivos Trust
Sunland Homeowners Association
Landscape Improvement Ballot and Survey
Please compete this ballot/survey and return to your block representative by
Saturday, June 4th. (This will allow us time to tally the results and take the
appropriate steps before the next Saratoga City Council meeting)
Ballot
I approve of assessing the properties in Sunland Park $15.00 per parcel (on -time fee
to be collected through property taxes) to be used to identify the actual installation
cost and approximate annual maintenance costs of Option C (Landscape Improvement
along Sunland Park Frontage). This in turn will enable the homeowners to make a fair
and accurate comparison of the possible methods of cancelling the Deferred
Improvement Agreement.
Yes
Name_
Address
No
Some of our neighbors have expressed interest in building more of a neighborhood
feeling within our development. Please take the time to fill out the following survey.
I am an Owner or Renter. Owner Renter
-
I am interested in seeing the following programs or activities on my street:
Neighborhood Watch
Earthquake Preparedness
Block Party (from simple BBQ to organized events with games)
Other (Specify:
Comments or Suggestions
Thank you for participating in this survey. We want to hear everyone's opinion!
Block Representative- Phone
t�
r
Sunland Park Homeowners Association
.Newsletter
27 June 1994
Results of the Ballot county of their decision. If approved,
We received a response from 70% of the county will then incorporate the
the homeowners in Sunland Park_ ` dollar figure into the property tax
Development. Thank you.for taking bills:.
the time to vote. The final count:. The Next Step
showed a majority (95 %) intere.st in
the one -time $15.00 assessment to
develop a landscape design for,the
frontage along Quito Road. When
factored in with those who did not
vote, this still left a majority "Yes"
vote from 65% of the houses. This
information has been communicated to
the City of Saratoga and included in
the City's landscape /lighting budget
for '94 -'95.
You may have already received a
notice from the City of Saratoga
referring to the increased tax
assessment. This notice was sent to
all residents of Saratoga, with the
dollar amount varying to reflect the
landscape and lighting costs related
to each "zone ". Sunland Park's
"zone" will be assessed $25.25 on
.next year's taxes. This amount
includes the $15.00 assessment that
we voted on. The balance of $10.25
is what the City projects will be
needed to cover our portion of the
City's administrative costs and to
maintain the current landscaping
along Quito per Sunland Park's
original contract. The City is required
to notify each "zone's" residents when
costs increase. The City Council has
scheduled a meeting on July 6th to
explain these costs and allow public
testimony. On August 3rd, the
Council will approve or reject the
additional amount and notify the
The City of Saratoga will select and
pay a landscape designer to provide
us. with a layout and estimated annual
maintenanc,e cost for the improved
landscape. We need a committee
which will work with this landscape
designer to ensure that the design
meets our criteria of low installation
cost and low annual maintenance
cost. The designer will be available
to meet with this committee by
September /October '94. The
committee will consist of two block
representatives and four additional
homeowners. If you are interested in
participating on this committee,
please contact Richard Gurney
(Association President) at 374 -8817.
Back to the Goal of Canceling our
Deferred Improvement Agreement
After the landscape designer provides
costs for installation and annual
maintenance, cost comparisons and
arguments for each option would be
developed and presented to the
Homeowners for a vote. Arguments
-for the-two traffic light options will
need to include the post traffic study
by the City. The post freeway traffic
study is expected to. take a year.
Look for future Sunland Park
Homeowners Association Newsletters
to keep you informed of new
developments.
4
Results of the Interest Survey
Both renters and homeowners alike'
expressed interest in neighborhood
programs and activities.- With this in
mind, the Association Steering
Committee and Block Representatives
are moving ahead on a Neighborhood
Watch program. Other activities will
follow. If anyone is interested in
helping to organize any of these
events, please contact Rich Gurney at
374 -8817.
(percent of
Program/ ballots returned)
Activity: Ourvey Results:
Neighborhood Watch 66%
Block Party 43°x6
Earthquake Preparedness 40°x6
Other suggestions included:
* Annual Yard Sale and Block Party
* Baby- sitting Roster
* More police awareness
* Establish "helpers" for those who may
need assistance in quickly exiting their
homes during an earthquake, fire, or.
other disaster.
Below is a sample of some of the
additional comments that were
expressed:
• "Thanks for doing this!"
• "Auto speeding on Baylor is outrageous.
I have called the Sheriff Dept. so many
times, to no avail!"
• "Stop signs on McCoy. We need" this
very badly!"
• "Have you thought of speed bumps on
Clemson ?"
• "We just moved in and we get a
neighborhood feeling already. We
would certainly be interested in any
activities or programs."
Baylor:
Gail P. (379 -1254) or
Maureen F. (374 -3265)
Purdue:
Sandy S. (379 -3103) or
Cyndy L. (866 -8346)
"Landscaping Quito is an excellent
-. investment to which we all should be
`happy to contribute. Please, no traffic
light at McCoy."
* "Think the McCoy light is most logical."
- ' "Owners should make sure renters keep
up landscaping."
* "Need street lights. Bumps on McCoy or
stop sign. Traffic is using the street as
a raceway. Unsafe for kids. Would
like to see sidewalk & gutters on
Quito."
* ".Excellent job you are doing!"
* "Getting speed limit on McCoy reduced
to 25mph. Also a stop sign at
Villanova and McCoy."
* "Some of the properties, or rather front
yards are badly neglected. Should
send a note to these addresses to have
their front cleaned up."
* "Address the issue & possible solution
to the current traffic on Baylor. Good
neighborhood involvement -- let's keep
the momentum going!"
Old Business
You may recall that we distributed a
memo in May notifying you that the
Saratoga Public Safety Committee
agreed to recommend to the City
Council that the traffic signal at Quito
and Cox not be installed until traffic
patterns can be measured and
observed after Freeway 85 opens.
This recommendation was made at the
City Council meeting in May. The City
Council is scheduled to make their
decision on this issue at the upcoming
Council meeting on July 6th. They are
expected to rule in favor of the
recommendation. If you are already
planning to be at this meeting for the
increased tax assessment topic, you
may wish to attend this portion of the
meeting as well.
four Block Represent
Vanderbilt:
Jim A. (374- 31.72) or
Clark B. (374 -1071)
Clemson:
Jim T. (379 -0757) or
Jean W. (379 -4211)
atives Are:
Swarthmore:
Don S.(379 -6382) or
Barbara S. (374 -4063)
- McCoy:
Dan L.(370 -2833)
to raise $3,000.00 for development of a landscape design for the frontage of the Sunland
Park Development. The amount would be collected by the City from the Secured
Property Tax Bill. These funds would be used by the City to acquire an architectural
landscape designer. The designer would work with a committee from the Association and
be responsible to present a completed design which will include the installation and yearly
maintenance cost.
Ti_ ming
In order for the City to contract with a landscape designer in the next 12 months the City
must receive notice from the Association by June 10, 1994. The City Council must
approve the expense for the contractor in their 94/95 fiscal year operating budget at the
June City Council meeting. If the Association's interest to get a design completed is
received by the City after,June 10, 1994 the Council, can not approve the spending of the
assessment amount until fiscal year 1995/96. This means that it take over a year until
a design could be completed and to begin analyzing the cost.
After the design
Cost comparisons and arguments for each option would be developed and presented to
the Association for a vote. Arguments for the traffic lights will need to include the post
traffic study by the City.
Landscape Design assessment approval Ballot
Enclosed is your assessment ballot. The assessment would cost Sunland Park property
owners $15.00 to develop a landscape design for the frontage to Sunland Park only.
Please fill it out and return it to your block representative. Ballots must be returned no
later that June 4, 1994.
If you have any questions, please call me at 374 -8817 or your block representative.
ichard Gurney
Homeowner Association President
Block Representative Phone
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 49 e7
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 1994 CITY MGR.: -A,'
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: n{AAiju,'
SUBJECT: SD 93 -004 (14065 & 14075 Saratoga Ave.): Final Map
Approval for 2 lots, (Owner: Larry and Jill Fine)
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 93 -004
granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No.
SD 93 -004 for two lots at 14065 and 14075 Saratoga Ave. 2. Move to
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement waiving the
right of the property owner to protest annexation into a future
assessment district for the purposes of undergrounding utilities.
Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 93 -004 which, if
adopted, will grant final map approval for two lots located at
14065 and 14075 Saratoga Ave. I have examined the final map
submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section
14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that:
1. The final map substantially complies with the approved
tentative map.
2. All conditions of the approved tentative map as contained
in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 93 -004 have been
completed.
3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance
and all other applicable provisions of law have been
complied with.
4. The final map is technically correct.
Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on
the f inal map and have f iled the f inal map with the City Clerk
pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by
the City Council.
Fiscal Impacts: The subdivider has paid $902.60 in Engineering fees
for this subdivision.
Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the
subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording
instructions.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final
map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If
the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with
findings as to why the map was rejected.
Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 93 -004 granting final map
approval.
2. Agreement waiving right to protest annexation into
a future assessment district.
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 93 -004
approving the tentative map with conditions.
RESOLUTION NO. SD 93 -004
.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD 93 -004
14065 & 14075 SARATOGA AVENUE (FINE)
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: Parcels.l and 2 as shown on that certain Parcel Map
prepared by Westf all Engineers, Inc., dated
February, 1994, and filed with the City Clerk of
the City of Saratoga on August 3, 1994, are
approved as TWO (2) individual parcels.
SECTION 2: All streets and easements shown on said map and
offered for dedication to public use are hereby
accepted on behalf of the public.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 3rd day of August,
1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Jacobs, Moran-, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Burger
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Deputy City Cler
"Im, / , r
•�
M1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Application No. /Location: SD -93 -004 & V -93 -011; 14075 & 14065 Saratoga AVe.
Applicant/ Owner: FINE
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: August 11, 1993
APN: 397 -25 -045 & 088 Director Approval: �N
14u / o & l4uoo �araioga tive.
RESOLUTION NO. SD -93 -004
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
FINE; 14075 i 14065 Saratoga Ave.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under
the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative
map approval of two (2) lots, all as more particularly set forth in
File No. SD -93 -004 this City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision
and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and
general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,
reference to the Staff Report dated 8/11/93 being hereby made for
further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the
Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in accord with the
currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to
said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in
accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 24th day
of May, 1993 and is marked Exhibit "A" in.the hereinabove referred
file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The
conditions of said approval are as follows:
Completed by Surveyor.
1. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall cause
the property to be accurately surveyed and shall cause
monuments to be set at all exterior boundary corners, angle
points and a otherwise directed by the City .Engineer.
Completed by Surveyor.
2• Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either
prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Fees Paid,
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as deter
mined by the City Engineer, at the time the Final Map is sub-
mitted to the City Engineer for checking.
Acknowledged.
4. The owner (applicant) shall not be required to pay any new
Park and Recreation in -lieu fees, as a requirement of Final
Map approval because no new need is being'created (i.e. a
residential unit currently exists on the newly created parcel) .
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
condition: within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
File No. SD -93 -004; 14075 i 14065 Saratoga Ave.
5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable offers of
All easements offered
Dedication for all required easements and /or rights of way
on Parcel Map.
either on the Final Map or via separate written instruments
prior to Final map approval as determined by the City
Engineer.
Completed.
6. The owner (applicant) shall submit a Final Map in substantial
compliance with the approved Tentative map, along with the
additional documents required in section 14- 40.020 of the
Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for his review and
approval. The Final Map shall contain all of the information
required in section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and any
additional in formation that may be required by the City
Engineer.
Done.
7. The owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County
Recorder the requisite statement indicating that there are no
liens against the subdivision or any part thereof, for any un
paid taxes or special assessments prior to Final Map approval.
Agreement signed.
8. Prior to Final Map Approval, the owner shall enter into an
agreement with the City waiving the rights of the owner, and
any successive owners, to protest the formation of and /or
annexation into an assessment district for the purpose of
undergrounding utility lines serving the properties.
Acknowledged.
9. Prior to Final Map Approval, the owner shall obtain Encroach -
ment Permits from the City for any existing structures located
within the Saratoga Ave. right -of -way.
Designation completed.
10. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall
submit an application for designation of the northeast
residence (14065 Saratoga Ave.) as a historic landmark. This
application shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation
Commission pursuant to the criteria contained in Article 13 -15
of the City Code.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
condition: within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
File No. SD -93 -004; 14075 i 14065 Saratoga Ave.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 11th day of August, 1993 by the
following vote:
AYES: Asfour, Jacobs, Moran & Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Caldwell & Murakami
ATTEST:
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted:
Signature of applicant Date
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
Application No.: SD 93 -004
Owner: Larry R. Fine & Jill M. Fine
Address: 14065 & 14075 Saratoga Avenue
APN: 397 -25 -088 & 397 -25 -045
Agreement of Waiver of Right To Protest Future
Annexation Into And /Or Formation Of An Assessment
District - In Consideration of Certain Development ADProval
_This is.. an --agreement .between the City-of- Saratoga (City) and
Larry R. Fine & Jill M. Fine (Owner) relating to Owner,'s waiver of
right to protest future annexation.
Whereas, City has approved Application No. SD 93 -004 for
development on Owner's real property, more particularly described
in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein, and
Whereas, condition no. 8 of said development approval requires
that Owner of the subject property shall enter into an agreement
with the City waiving the right of Owner and any successors in
interest of Owner to protest the formation of an assessment
district, special taxing district, or other financing
mechanism for the purposes of undergrounding existing overhead
utility facilities and /or the annexation of the subject property
into such a district or mechanism.
Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows:
1. This agreement is executed concurrently with that certain
development approval described as Final Map Approval for
Application No. SD 93 -004, dated August 3, 1994, between City and
Owner relating to the making of improvements on Owner's real
property described -in Exhibit "A" and commonly referred to as
14065 & 14075 Saratoga Avenue 397 -25 -088 & 397 -25 -045
2. In consideration for approval of said development
application by City, Owner agrees to expressly waive any and all
rights Owner may have in the future to protest any proposed
annexation of the subject property into or formation of an
assessment district, special taxing district or other financing
mechanism for the purposes of undergrounding existing overhead
utility facilities.
3. This agreement is an instrument affecting the title or
possession of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the
terms, covenants and conditions herein imposed shall run with the
land and be_ binding .upon and . inure to . the.. benef it of -the successors
in interest of Owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement.
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation
By:
Attest:
City Clerk
(Seal)
By:
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
(Acknowledgements)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
City Manager
Owner
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM 46 (,,(—)
CITY MGR.: (_69
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Congress Springs Park Ball Screen, Capital Project No.
9307 - Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to declare All West Golf Services,
Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Move
to award a construction contract to All West Golf Services, Inc. in
the amount of $61,511. 3. Move to authorize staff to execute
change orders to the contract up to $5,000.
Report Summary: Sealed bids for the Congress Springs Park Ball
Screen, Capital Project No. 9307, were opened on July 26. A total
of four contractors submitted bids for the work and a summary of
the responsive bids received is attached. One bid was judged to be
non - responsive as the bidder submitted a bid for supplying the
netting material only and indicated that they could not furnish any
of the labor or equipment required on the project.
All West Golf Services, Inc. of Pleasant Hill submitted the lowest
bid of $61,511 which is 5.1% above the Engineer's Estimate of
$58,500. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the listed
references and believes that the bid is responsive to the City's
solicitation for bids, and that it represents a fair price for the
work to be done. Therefor, it is recommended that the Council
declare All West Golf Services, Inc. to be the lowest responsible
bidder on the project, and award the attached construction contract
to this firm in the amount of their bid. Further, it is
recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute change
orders to the contract up to an amount of $5,000 in the event any
unforeseen circumstances or problems arise during the course of the
work.
Fiscal Impacts: The adopted budget contains $60,000 in Capital
Project No. 9307, Account No. 4510 (General Contracts) , for this
work. Since the bid exceeds the budget for the project, a
supplemental appropriation or budget transfer will be necessary.
However, it is recommended that this action be deferred until
completion of the project (early October) when the final project
costs will be known. At that time, the appropriate budget
adjustment resolution (s) can be brought bef ore you which ref lect (s)
the final costs and the amount by which the project budget will
need to be increased.
Additionally, you will recall that the Traffic Authority has
entered into an agreement with the City to split the construction
cost of the ball screen. As the construction cost increases, so
does the City's reimbursement. The adopted budget for the project
programs a $30,000 reimbursement to the City, however it is now
known that the initial reimbursement amount will be $30,755.50, or
slightly more than what the budget projects. This variation in
actual versus budgeted revenue will also be accounted for in the
supplemental resolution(s).
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: All West
Golf Services, Inc. will not be declared the lowest responsible
bidder and a construction contract will not be awarded to that
firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare another
bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the
bids and direct staff to re -bid the entire project. However, staff
does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re- bidding
the project, and if a contract is not awarded at your meeting, it
is quite likely that the ball screen will not be installed by the
date the freeway opens which could expose the City to significant
liabilities.
Follow Up Actions: The contract will be executed and the contractor
will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Within the next thirty days,
the City will - -invoice --the-Tra-ffic Authority- for - $30,755.50.
Attachments: 1. Bid Summary.
2. Construction Contract.
CITY OF SARATOGA
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK BALL SCREEN
CAR TAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 9307
BID SUMMARY
.ITEM # i ITEM DESCRIPTION
1
BALL SCREEN
GRAND TOTAL
ENGINEER'S
II-
QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRIC
1 LS N/A
GATE ALL WEST GOLF SERVICES, INC. WEST COAST FENCE, INC. SERRANO & CONE, INC.
TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL
$58,500.00 N/A $61,511.00 N/A $67,798.82 N/A $73,091.00
$58,500.00 $61,511.00 $67,798.82 $73,091.00
L
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM 6
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD: '
SUBJECT: Local Match Resolution for ISTEA Projects in the 1995 TIP
Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the resolution committing the
necessary local match for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Improvement
Project.
Report Summary: In early 1993, the City submitted an application
(see attached) for ISTEA funding of a roadway improvement project
along the entire length of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to be included
in the 1995 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). if
funded, the project would provide numerous enhancements to the road
beyond the improvements Caltrans will be required to make before
relinquishing the road to the City. While Caltrans is required to
upgrade the travelled portion or structural section of the roadway
to meet minimum City standards, they are not required to improve or
provide such things as continuous pathways and sidewalks, bicycle
lanes, curbs and gutters, shoulder and median landscaping, etc.,
essentially the kinds of things which differentiate a local
arterial street from a state highway.
The City's application competed against all other ISTEA candidate
projects within Santa Clara County and was screened and scored by
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) staff. The application received
a very favorable review, and eventually the project was initially
placed on the County's "Guarantee" list of ISTEA projects which
meant that funding for the project would be guaranteed so long as
the project met the screening requirements of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). Meeting MTC's screening
requirements was a virtual certainty since the CMA used the same
project screening requirements as the MTC.
In June of 1993, the CMA adopted the final list of Santa Clara
County ISTEA projects to be included in the 1995 Federal TIP. At
that time, the City's project was removed from the Guarantee list
of projects and placed as one of three projects on a "Guarantee
Reserve" list of projects. The reason behind this was to
substitute the Traffic Authority's Route 237 1Maude - Middlefield
Interchange project, an original Measure A Completion Plan project,
onto the Guarantee list. This was done because funding for that
project from the new Measure A Local Transportation Program became
doubtful as a result of the legal challenge and subsequent court
decision against the new Measure A, and the CMA's desire to assure
that the Route 237 1Maude - Middlefield Project would get built.
Several recent developments now indicate a likelihood that the
City's project will be reinserted onto the County's Guarantee list
of ISTEA projects before the 1995 TIP is certified by the Federal
Highways Administration (FHwA) sometime before October 1. The most
promising of these is that the Traffic Authority appears to have
secured separate federal funding for the Maude - Middlefield project
which means they will no longer need any of the County's ISTEA
funds for that project. As a result, CMA and MTC staffs are
advising the three cities with projects on the Guarantee Reserve
list to expect to receive their full ISTEA requests for their
projects during the 1995 TIP cycle and to begin to plan
accordingly. if the above scenario holds true, the City can expect
$899,000 in ISTEA funds to be programmed for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road Improvement project in the federal fiscal year which begins on
October 1, 1995. The funds would then need to be obligated prior
to the end of the 1995 TIP cycle, September 30, 1997.
The MTC is requesting all sponsors of ISTEA projects in the 1995
TIP to pass a resolution by September 1 committing the necessary
local match for their projects. Attached is a resolution which, if
adopted, would satisfy MTC's request. The City's local match would
be $224,750 and could come from a variety of sources including
general funds, gas tax funds, developer contributions, etc., but
need not be specified now. In fact, the Council will not need to
consider the methods of funding and programming the project until
next spring, when deliberation of the City's next bi- annual budget
and 5 year Capital Improvement Program will begin.
Fiscal Impacts: None at this time. As discussed above, the City
would need to program $224,750 in local funds to leverage $899,000
in ISTEA funds for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road project.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The
resolution would not be adopted and the City would not satisfy
MTC's requirement that local project sponsors adopt such a
resolution. If the City fails to adopt a resolution committing the
local matching funds, MTC will not program the City's project into
the 1995 TIP.
Follow Up Actions: Two certified copies of the resolution will be
sent to - the -CMA, - -one of -which will - be - forwarded on - -to the MTC on
the City's behalf.
Attachments: 1. City's project application.
2. Resolution committing local matching funds.
3. MTC's draft ISTEA program for Santa Clara County
for 1995 TIP.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
1995 TIP /1994 RTIP
Roadway Project Application
(fill out one form for each project)
1. PROJECT SPONSOR:
RW
This application was prepared by: Larry I. Perlin Phone: 867 -3438
Agency: City of Saratoga
FAX: 741 -0940
Sponsoring Agency: City of Saratoga / CALTRANS Date: _March 15, 1993
Implementing Agency: City of Saratoga
Operating Agency: City of Saratoga / CALTRANS
2. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
Project Title: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road ( State Route 85) Improvements
(please repeat this project title at the top of each page of this application)
Location: COUNTY: Santa Clara City/Town: Saratoga
Brief Project Description (route/post miles): Roadway rehabilitation and pedestrian/
bicycle improvements (Route 85/10.46 to 12.87)
3. STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL/AIR QUALITY DOCUMENT: Type:
❑ NEPA ❑ CEQA
X3 C.E ❑ FONSI ❑ Neg. Dec. ❑ EIR ❑ EIS ❑ Exempt ( )
Estimated date of completion:
4. FUNDING REQUEST SUMMARY: XXSTP /CMAQ ❑ FCR (RTIP /STEP)
691,000
22q.750
/, 123, 750
Escalated dollars - escalation factor is 5% per year
$--J ��'
.K, »��,� re
STP /CMAQ/RTIP Request (total escalated dollars)
guest scat ve
94-95
$
TSM Match (total escalated dollars)
$ +-36,500
Other Local Match (total escalated dollars)
94-95
$
$
Funds from other sources (total escalated dollars)
TOTAL PROJECT COST (total escalated dollars)
94-95
94-95
5. Project Application ® is being submitted through the Santa Clara County CMA
❑ is being submitted directly to MTC as a regional project (must also
be submitted to CMA)
zr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMA USE ONLY
CMA Rank: of CMA Contact: Walt Streeter phone: (408) 453 -4030
❑ Guarantee Project I revised: 2/15/93
Project Title: Sara ng;: unn )ZvalP Rnac3 ( .qtata un„t ;5) Improvements RW
6. PROJECT TYPE: ❑ Freeway
O Expressway
❑
Aux Lane ZI Restripe
(check all X2 Arterial
❑ Collector
❑
Bridge ❑ ROW
that apply) N$ Widening
❑ New/Extension
M
Overlay
❑ Ramp Metering
❑ New Signal
❑
.
Signal Interconnect
❑ Interchange
❑ Turn lanes
❑
Incident Management
A$ Other Pedestrian /Bicycle improvements
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (aaach an appropriate diagrams, naps, schematic drawings):
Pavement overlay and repairs spot widenings sidewalks and
pathways, curbs, gutters, bicycle lanes, handicap ramps and
drainage improvements.
8. Is this project on the currently defined MTS? M Yes ❑ No
(in Santa Clara County, the CMP system is the same as the MTS)
If no, describe how project benefits the MTS:
9. Is,this a replacement or rehabilitation project?
M Yes ❑ No
If yes, please cite results of Management System (i.e., PMS) that indicate need for replacement
or rehabilitation: CALTRANS deflection study, July 1991.
This project is NOT based on a Management System.
10. Is any part of this project a seismic retrofit?
If yes, please describe:
❑ Yes 15 No
11. Will this project prevent an unacceptable breakdown in
the ability of the MTS to carry traffic? ❑ Yes 15 No
12. Will this project address an existing safety problem? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Total number of accidents over last 3 years: 146- of which - 0 were fatal.
Total number of documented complaints over past 3 years: N/A (if available)
If no, is this project a pro -active measure that
will avoid potential safety /security problems?
Please describe how:
❑ Yes ❑ No
Eliminates pedestrian /bicycle and vehicle
2 revised: 2/15/93
Project Title: _Saratoga - unnyvale Road ( State Routt s5) Improvements RW
13. Does this project increase capacity
for Single Occupant Vehicles? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, is the project justification now or will it be
supported by a project -level NEPA Analysis?
14. Does this project include :
❑ Signal Actuation
❑ HOV Lanes
❑ HOV by -pass
❑ Ramp metering
W Pedestrian walks
C3 Other ped amenities
QJ Bike lanes
® Signage
❑ Lighting
❑ Signal interconnection
a Other ( Curbs, gutte
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
❑ Where none currently exist?
,'-7 Where none currently exist?
15. Does this project remove and NOT REPLACE
any transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities?
If yes, explain:
16 (a). Will there be any annual travel time savings
as a result of this project?
❑ Yes ❑ No
% of project cost
% of project cost
% of project cost
% of project cost
�.2 % of project cost
1 % of project cost
3 % of project cost
1 % of project cost
% of project cost
% of project cost
12 % of project cost
❑ Yes Q2 No
❑ Yes M No
0 passenger hours saved/year
How did you calculate the savings? MTC Travel Time Savings Formula
16 (b). Will there be any annual operating cost savings
as a result of this project? ❑ Yes W No
0 annual operating cost savings
How did you calculate the savings? N/A
16 (c). What is the cost effectiveness ratio for this project?
0 cost effectiveness ratio
How did you calculate the cost effectiveness ratio?
Formula
MTC Cost Effectiveness
3 revised: 2/15/93
Project Title: Saratoga -•innyvale Road (.State Routs- 5) Improvements RW
17. Is this a gap - closure project? 13 Yes ❑ No
Explain: Closes pedestrian /bicycle system gaps
18. PLANNING JUSTIFICATION
Is this project included in or consistent with a current,
adopted transportation/land use planning document? W Yes ❑ No
If yes, cite document and pages: City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use
.Element Goal 4.0 and Circulation Element Goals 2.0, 3.0, and Polic
6.1, 6.8 and 6.10.
Is this project consistent with the'Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP)? Yes ❑ No
19. PROJECT LOCATION
Route No.: Countye6erstate (circle one) 85
Jurisdictions affected/traversed: City of Saratoga
Street Name (if applicable): Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
20. PROJECT BOUNDARIES: ❑ City /Area wide K] Intersection ❑ Corridor
Caltrans post mile back: 10.4 6 Caltrans post mile ahead: 12-87
Project begins at (nearest intersection/cross street): State R o u t- P 9
Project ends at (nearest intersection/cross street): Prospect Road
Please attach a clearly Lbeled vicini_ man.
21. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
As applicable, attach a clearly labeled cross section, lane configuration, or ramp
configuration diagram showing current conditions and proposed changes.
Provide complete traffic information below. Attach any relevant supporting documentation.
Average
Daily
Traffic
(ADT)
Approach Current ADT % in Panir
% Trucks
Northbound-
27-,500
10 .
- 2.0
Southbound
2 7 5 0 0
10
2.0
Eastbound
Westbound
Source of ADT data: CALTRANS and City Date collected: 1991
4 revised: 2/15/93
Project Title: Saratoga-. nnyvale Road ( State Route ;) Improvements RW
Level of Service:
Intersection:
Current Conditions:
Projected w /project:
Peak Period LOS:
Peak Period LOS:
Corridor/Fwy Segment: State Route 85
Current Conditions: Peak Period LOS:
Projected w /project: Peak Period LOS:
Method of LOS calculation (must be
❑ AM Peak ❑ PM Peak
A B C D E F (circle one)
A B C D E F (circle one)
❑ AM Peak b PM Peak
A B C D E F (circle one)
A B C D E F (circle one)
consistent with local CMA adopted methodology): V /C Ratios for Rural Highway
s
Current Avg. Vehicle Occupancy Rate during Peak (if available): N/A
Source:
22. List any ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) components of this project and estimate the
percentage of the project they represent:
Handicap ramps represent approximately 1% of total project cost.
23. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE: Describe the impact this project will have on
maintaining or improving transit service, relieving congestion, improving safety, and
improving air quality. Include any information that could have an effect on how the
project is scored.
The project will close existing gaps in the pedestrian /bicycle
system along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (State Route 85). This
will eliminate conflicts with vehicular traffic which will
improve the overall safety of the roadway and will also
encourage additional pedestrian /bicycle usage of the roadway
which will tend to improve air quality. The project also
maintains and sustains the CMP and MTS roadway system.
attach additional sheets if necessary
5 revised: 2/15/93
Project Title: Sara nga- Sunnyvale Rnad (St-at-P Rn„ta . U) Improvements R W
24. Does this project address at least one of the ISTEA
"fifteen factors ?" (please check all that apply to this project): AYes ❑ No
Preservation of existing transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet
transportation needs by using existing transportation facilities more efficiently;
Consistency of transportation planning with applicable Federal, State, and local energy
conservation programs, goals, and objectives;
❑ The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not yet
occur;
❑ The likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development and the
consistency of transportation plans and programs with the provisions of all applicable short
and long term land use and development plans;
XThe programming of expenditure on transportation enhancement activities as required in
section 133, which defines transportation enhancement activities for the purpose of funding
under the STP as "the provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, acquisition of
scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs,
landscaping and other scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation and
operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, facilities and canals, preservation of
abandoned railway corridors including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or
bicycle trails, control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and
research, and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. ";
❑ The effects of all transportation projects to be undertaken within the metropolitan area,
without regard to whether such projects are publicly funded;
❑ International border crossings and access to ports, airports, intermodal facilities, major
freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation areas, monuments and historic sites, and
military installations;
❑ The need for connectivity of roads within the metropolitan area with roads outside the
metropolitan area;
❑ The transportation needs identified through the use of the management systems required by
section 303 of this title;
❑ The preservation of rights -of -way for construction of future transportation projects,
including identification of unused rights -of -way what may be needed for future
transportation corridors and identification of those corridors for which action is most needed
to prevent destruction or loss;
❑ Methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight;
AThe use of life cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels, or pavement;
The overall social,. economic, energy, and environmental effects of- transportation decisions;
❑ Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services;
❑ Capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems.
revised: 2/15/93
Project Title: garatnrra innvvala PnaA (st -ate, pn„tE _ 5) Improvements RW
25. TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES (TCMs)
Indicate whether the project can be categorized entirely or in part as either a Federal TCM
(FTCM) or a State TCM (STCM) and how much of the project can be considered a TCM..
Most Effective TCMs
Entire
Project
Significant
Part'
Minor
Part
Signal timing (FTCM 24 & 25)
❑
❑
❑
Market based measures (STCM 22)
❑
❑
❑
Ozone excess No Drive. Days (STCM 23)
❑
❑
❑
Highly Effective TCMs
❑
❑
X
Incident management (FTCM 26)
❑
❑
❑
Employer based Trip Reduction Rule (STCM 2)
❑
❑
❑
Install Traffic Operations System (STCM 11)
❑
❑
❑
Implement Revenue Measures (STCM 21)
❑
❑
❑
Moderately Effective TCMs
Regional Transit Coordination (FTCM 21)
❑
❑
❑
Expand & improve public transit (FTCM 3)
❑
❑
❑
Improve transit service (STCM 3)
❑
❑
❑
Expand regional rail system (STCM 4)
❑
❑
❑
Improve arterial traffic flow (STCM 3)
❑
❑
Indirect source control program (STCM 16)
❑
❑
❑
Marginally Effective TCMs
Upgrade Caltrain service (FTCM 19)
❑
❑
❑
Regional HOV system plan (FTCM 20)
❑
❑
❑
Park & Ride lots (FTCM 7, 8)
O
O
O
Employer audits (FTCM 23)
O
O
O
Local TSM initiative (FTCM 28)
❑
❑
X
All other FTCMs; all other STCMs
❑
❑
❑
Use the space below for any appropriate explanation (attach additional sheers as necessary):
7 revised: 2 /15/93
a Project Title: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road ( State Route 85) Improvements RW
26. FINANCIAL PLAN 1,0 Z7.r
1, /Z 31 7So
Estimated total cost of project: $ ~current $MANWiffiMescalated
Please complete the following expenditure table using ESCALATED dollars.
Use an escalation factor of S% per year.
rUca[ years are federal fiscal years.
Please complete the following Project Budget/Implementation schedule:
For each tack /lo Pr Onsv
Task
TOTAL
FY 95 -96
I
FY 97 -98
-pprupt uuc
FY 98 -99
cuianin
FY 99 -00
FY oo -01
P.E.
TOTAL
Fund Source
1993 $'s
FY 94-95
FY 95 -96
FY 96-97
FY 97 -98
FY 98 -99
FY 99-00
FY 00 -01
Escalated
Const.
TP
S MA
/ C Q
$
$
S
$
t
X99,000
Other
Federal:
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
State
FCR/RTIP
State TSM
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
max 11.5%
Other
State:
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
�Zy,7So
Local
$
$
$I V, �'
$
$
$
$
$
$
Match
Other
Source:
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3, 7S0
OMNI
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,1Z3.�S
Please complete the following Project Budget/Implementation schedule:
For each tack /lo Pr Onsv
Task
FY 94 -95
FY 95 -96
FY 96 -97
FY 97 -98
-pprupt uuc
FY 98 -99
cuianin
FY 99 -00
FY oo -01
P.E.
$q, 900
ROW
Const.
Does this project require an ongoing operational budget? M Yes 0 No
If yes, please describe the source(s) of those operating funds: CALTRANS and City of
Saratoga road maintenance funds.
8 revised: 2/15/93
Congestion Management Agency of Santa Clara County All dollar amounts in thousa,tds
DRAFT STP /CMAQ Program for 1995 TIP Based on MTC Staff/ Draft Regional STP /CMAQ Program
Project Project STP/ CUM CUM CUM
Sponsor Title Location CMAQ MSA Non -MSA TOTAL
EXPENDITM S: FY 94/95. 95/96, 96/97
STP- BONUS:
$737
Local Match Restoration for STP -D projects
Co. Transit
Tasman ADA Design Work
STP COMPHTnaVE (STP -D).
1 Milpitas
Interchange Reconstruction
2 Caltrans
Interchange Modification
4 Campbell
Intersection Improvements
7 Caltrans
N. Shoreline SB Off Ramp
8 Caltrans
Hwy 85 HOV Widening
REG Caltrain JPB
Caltrain Locomotive Rebuild
REG Caltrain JPB
Railcar Rehabilitation
ChtAQ COMPS TIVE:
10 Co. Transit
Final Design/ROW
11 Co. Transit
PE/FEIS
REG MTC
RTSOP
REG MTC
TravInfo
REG MTC
II
Freeway Service Patrol
If Measure A Is not upheld or settled by 10/1/94, CMA withdraws 5 projects from STP Guarantee marked ( ") above and reprograms:
Traffic Auth Interchange Construction Hwy 237 /Maude /Middlefield $8,450
(Note: $300 for Steven's Creek/Alum Rock Study would go to SanPoses CMP System Maintenance project):
d: \ci1)\95tip \DRFTPR0GXLS 4/7/94
$737
$9,265
$10,113
$19,378
$553
$10,666
$19,931
Hwy 880 at Dixon Lndg Rd
$3,971
$14,637
$23,902
Lawrence Expwy ® Hwy 101
$7,698
$22,335
$31,600
Hamilton Av at Salmar Av '
$847
$23,182
$32,447
Hwy 101 in Mt View - Southside
$6,616
$15,881
$39,063
Dana St to Hwy 101
$5,653
$21,534
$44,716
Systemwide
$141
$23,323
$44,857
Systemwide
$2,490
$25,813
$47,347
Vasona Corridor /Final Design -ROW
$5,300
$26,834
$52,647
Capitol- Evergreen- Downtown
$7,283
$34,117
$59,930
Regionwide
$1,243
$27,056
$61,173
Regionwide
$165
$27,221
$61,338
Regionwide
$198
$27,419
$61,536
If Measure A Is not upheld or settled by 10/1/94, CMA withdraws 5 projects from STP Guarantee marked ( ") above and reprograms:
Traffic Auth Interchange Construction Hwy 237 /Maude /Middlefield $8,450
(Note: $300 for Steven's Creek/Alum Rock Study would go to SanPoses CMP System Maintenance project):
d: \ci1)\95tip \DRFTPR0GXLS 4/7/94
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �`� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 8/3/94 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager n h/y
SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention Concerning 1994/95 Management
Employees Compensation
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Minute Resolution: It is the intention of the City Council
that any action which the Council may take regarding compensation
for management employees, upon completion of the pending
compensation study, will go into effect retroactive to September 1,
1994.
Report Summar
On July 6, 1994, the Council tabled until August 3 a resolution
setting management salary ranges for FY94/95 and discussion of the
Management Compensation System merit increase pool. The adopted
Management Compensation System requires that management salary
ranges be established effective July 1 of each year based upon a
job market survey for management benchmark position in four
counties. The system further sets forth that the amount of any
management salary increases are determined on the basis of a merit
increase pool, to be in effect September 1, 1994. Therefore,
Council is requested to declare its intention that a salary pool or
change to management salary ranges which may be approved at a later
date will be made retroactive to September 1, 1994.
Fiscal Impacts•
Not known
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
None
Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motions:
Future action will not be retroactive
Follow Up Actions:
None
Attachments:
None
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. . 2-4y 1
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Ordinance Relating to Enforcement of the Non -Point Source
Pollution Control Program
Recommended Motion(s): Move to introduce the Ordinance by title
only.
Report Summary: Attached is an Ordinance which, if adopted, would
grant specific authority to the Public Works Director to enter and
inspect any premises where a violation of the City's non -point
source pollution control regulations is reasonably believed to
exist. The City must acquire such authority under conditions of
the Cease and Desist Order issued by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board against the co- permittees under_the Board's NPDES
permit.
The Ordinance would also clarify that the Public Works Director is
the City's Director of Parks. Previously, the Maintenance Director
carried that title.
Fiscal Impacts: Very little, if any. It's possible that the added
authority could result in additional fines being paid to the City
if violations are discovered during inspections of properties.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motions: The
Ordinance would not be introduced. The Council may modify the
Ordinance or simply not introduce it all. If such an Ordinance is
not adopted however, the RWQCB may impose certain penalties or
sanctions against the City.
Follow Up Act -ions: - -The - Ordinance -will - --be - agendized for a second
reading and adoption at your next meeting.
Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance.
SARATOGA CI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-4-2
MEETING DATE: A
ORIGINATING DEPT.:
SUBJECT: An Ordinance of the City
Standards for Placement of Tempo
Period of Time Certain Current Si
COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM: 8
CITY MGR: (Z
wo
nt eLl-11
Saratoga Establishing Interim
y Signs and Suspending for a
Code Provisions (AZO -94 -001)
Recommended Motion(s): Accept the lanning Commission recommendation and
introduce the Ordinance which will allow the use of temporary signs and
banners during a six -month trial �eriod.
Report Summary: On July 13, 1994, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval (4 -0) of an Interim Ordinance to allow the use of
temporary signs for grand openings, special promotions and sales in
commercial districts. Businesses located in the Village and gasoline
service stations are not permitted the use of the temporary signs.
The Commission's decision follo ed discussions at the joint City
Council /Chamber of Commerce meeting of April 26, a Planning Commission
public hearing held on June 8 and a Work Session held on June 14.
Consideration of the use of tempor ry signs or banners is a result of a
proposal by the Chamber of Commerce. Chamber representatives have
stated that temporary signs and banners are a valuable tool in
advertising and identifying new arid established businesses.
The basic elements of the ordinance are:
• The ordinance is an interim I ordinance in that it will expire 6
months after the effective date. The purpose of the 6 month period
is to provide a time of review and evaluation of the signs to
determine consistency with aesthetic and design policies of the
City. If it is determined that the ordinance (and the continued
use of temporary signs) is inappropriate, the ordinance will expire
and no further action will be required. If the ordinance is to
remain in effect, a new public hearing can be held to adopt
permanent changes to the Sign Ordinance.
The maximum size of a temporary sign shall not exceed 40 sq.ft.
• The temporary sign (or banner) must be attached to a primary
building and shall not project above the roof line.
• Temporary signs or banners may be displayed for a maximum of 42
days within the 6 -month "trial" period.
• An administrative sign permit will be required prior to
installation or display of the temporary sign.
Interim Sign Ordinance (Temporary Signs)
City Council
August 3, 1994
Environmental Determination: This project (adoption of an Interim
Ordinance) is considered to be categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act: Class 4e - minor temporary
use of land (i.e. temporary signs) having negligible or no permanent
effects on the environment; and Class 11 - placement of minor structures
(i.e. temporary signs) accessory to existing commercial facilities. No
further environmental determination is necessary at this time.
Fiscal Impacts: No direct costs to the City. Monitoring and evaluating
the use of temporary signs will be covered by the administrative sign
permit fee.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Public notices have been
placed in the Saratoga News. The Chamber of Commerce has received
agendas and staff reports prior to all meetings.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The use of
temporary signs will not be allowed except for the current provision
which allows a 20 sq.ft. grand opening sign for a period of 30 days.
Further consideration of temporary signs may be given as part of the
Sign Ordinance study directed by the City Council to begin in October.
Follow Up Actions: Adoption of the Interim Ordinance at a subsequent
City Council meeting. The Ordinance will become effective 30 days after
adoption.
Attachments:
1. Interim Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 13, 1994
3. Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 13, 1994
4. Planning Commission Work Session Notes, dated June 14, 1994
N
h
U
0919W Qq
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
M E M O .R A N D U M victor Monia
Karen Tucker
TO: Saratoga Planning Commission
,^r�/ FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director
DATE: July 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance Amendment (AZO -94 -001); amending Section
15 -30 of the Code of the City of Saratoga relating to the
size, location, quantity and duration of Temporary
Merchant signs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward its
recommendation to the City Council approving the use of promotional
signs and banners for a six month trial period.
Background:
In December 1993, the Chamber of Commerce submitted a proposed sign
ordinance with a recommendation that the new ordinance be adopted
to assist new and established businesses in attracting customers
and to remain competitive with surrounding communities.
Following review of the proposed ordinance provisions at the April
26, 1994, City Council /Chamber of Commerce joint work session, the
Council directed staff to place a sign ordinance study on the
Community Development Department Work Program to begin in October
1994. The City Council also directed staff to schedule public
hearings as soon as possible to consider the use of temporary signs
for special sales, promotions and grand openings.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment:
The proposed ordinance establishes regulations for the use of
temporary signs and banners for a specified number of days (42
days) within a specific trial period (6 months).
Printed on recycled paper.
AZO -94 -001
Temporary signs
July 13, 1994
Page 2
The proposed ordinance takes precedence over the provisions of the
current Sign Ordinance to the extent that the proposed provisions
are different from the ordinance as long as this "temporary"
ordinance is in effect.
The ordinance proposes the following specific provisions:
The ordinance is temporary in that it will expire in 6 months.
At the end of the 6 month period, the ordinance will expire
and the current sign provisions will again be applicable.
The purpose of the 6 month trial period is to allow staff and
the Planning Commission /City Council to evaluate what affect
the temporary signs and banners will have on the aesthetic
quality of the City.
If it is deemed appropriate to continue to allow temporary
signs and banners, a new (permanent) ordinance can be adopted
or the use of temporary signs and banners can be included as
part of the overall Sign Ordinance Amendment Study directed by
the City Council.
• Temporary signs and banners may be displayed for a_ maximum of
42 days within the 6 month trial period.
• The maximum size of a temporary sign or banner is 40 sq.ft.
The 40 sq.ft. sign area is measured on one side of the sign
only; that is, a 4x10 sign with signage on both sides. is'
permissible.
• An administrative sign permit will be required before a
temporary sign or banner is installed. The permit (and the
accompanying $71 permit fee) will be required each time a
temporary sign is proposed.
The permit will be valid for the continuous 42 days permitted
during the 6 month trial period or the 42 days may be divided
into several periods of time as determined by the merchant.
If the merchant states on the permit the different dates the
temporary signs will be used, only one permit will be
required. However, if a,permit is issued for 7 days with no
other dates specified, a new permit will be required for
additional days.
This will allow easier enforcement of the 42 day maximum while
saving the merchant additional fees if repeat dates are known.
A CSO can check the permit to see if the sign has been
approved for use on that day.
AZO -94 -001
Temporary signs
July 13, 1994
Page 3
• Temporary signs or banners will not be allowed in the Village
or for gasoline service stations. The Village Specific Plan
establishes sign design standards. Temporary signs and
banners are inconsistent with the standards and to allow them
may create an inconsistency with the .Specific Plan. Signs for
gasoline service stations are regulated by the station's
Conditional Use Permit. It would be inconsistent with
conditions imposed for the individual service station to allow
the use of different signing.
Staff Analysis:
Staff feels that the proposal to allow temporary signs or banners
for a 6 month trial period will provide an adequate time for review
of the effect and the effectiveness of the signs.
During the trial period, staff will be evaluating the quantity of
signs throughout the City, the quality of construction and
materials (the sign permit process may help to minimize poor
signing), the proper use of the sign permit process (i.e.
enforcement of illegal signs or the specified days allowed) and the
documentation of the "sign character" of the City (signs will be
photographed).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 13, 1994
PAGE -8-
3. AZO -94 -001 - City of Saratoga; An ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending
Section 15 -30 by amending the Code of the City of Saratoga relating
to the size, location, quantity and duration of Temporary Merchant
Signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Community Development Director Curtis reported on this item. He recommended that an
added specification be included to read as follows: "Signs are to be attached to the building
or building face and shall not project above the roof line." He informed the Commission
that staff faxed and mailed a copy of the report to the Chamber of Commerce. He
informed the Commission that he received a phone call from a Village property owner who
stated that he did not have a problem with the exclusion of the Village from the temporary
trial period (the only correspondence received on this issue). Since this was essentially a
Chamber proposal that the city was trying to expedite through, he was not comfortable in
sending this sign ordinance amendment forward unless some Chamber input was received,
especially on the sign location aspect. However, he was comfortable with the proposal with
the inclusion of the location of the temporary signs.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned how staff derived the $71 fee associated with the
temporary sign or banner request. Community Development Director Curtis responded that
the fee is contained within the City's Fee Schedule adopted by City Council Resolution.
CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M.
Mary Jane Karas, 12752 Saratoga Creek Drive, informed the Commission that she has
attended several hearings where this issue was under discussion and one thing that she has
noticed lately was that several of the businesses along Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road have vans
with movable signs parked in front of businesses. She questioned if this issue could be
addressed through this amendment process.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4 -0).
Community Development Director Curtis commented that when you have a sign on a
vehicle that is parked in a legal parking space there really is not much you can do to enforce
the Code. What he has experienced in other cities is regulation of vehicle signs by requiring
them to be permanently affixed to vehicles.
COMMISSIONERS GALDWELL- /KAPLAN MOVED -TO RECOMMEND THE
FORMATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDINANCE THAT COVERS THE ITEMS AS
LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE LOCATION
PROVISION DISCUSSED THIS EVENING REGARDING SIGNS BEING ATTACHED
TO THE BUILDING AND NOT PROJECTING ABOVE THE ROOF LINE - NO
FREESTANDING SIGNS TO BE ALLOWED. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY (4 -0).
ogu,ff o2 UQ)(5Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission Work Session
June 14, 1994
7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
. Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
Present: Chairman Asfour, Commissioners Murakami, Jacobs, Kaplan,
Caldwell, CDD Curtis
Items of Discussion:
1. Review of Temporary Merchant Signs with the Chamber of Commerce
Director Curtis gave the background of the proposed sign ordinance
amendments as presented by the Chamber of Commerce. The City
Council had directed that Staff and the Planning Commission proceed
with consideration of Temporary Merchant Signs and not wait until
the rest of the ordinance changes were studied as part of the Work
Program.
Carl Orr, President of the Chamber of Commerce, distributed a
revised Temporary Merchant Ordinance. The revisions were made to
the proposed sign ordinance language presented at the June 8 public
hearing. The revision reduced the display period for A- Frame-signs
from 6.-months to 4 months; the extension period was reduced from 3
months to 45 days; and the overall.sign height was reduced from 8
ft. to 6 ft.
Com. Caldwell asked about applying the suggested signing City -wide;
she questioned if the proposed signs would be allowed in the
Village.
Mr. Orr stated it was not his intention to suggest A -frame signs as
proposed to be allowed -in the Village as the need is not as great
there as in other locations in the City. He suggested other
locations where expanded signing was needed included Azule,
Argonaut, Gateway and Quito Centers. He presented a photo display
showing Saratoga signs compared to San Jose signs north of
Prospect.
Printed on recycled paper
Planning commission Work session
June 14, 1994
Com. Caldwell stated general concerns with a permit process,
building materials and color.
There was general discussion regarding the "visual quality" of
Saratoga and what impact new signs would have on that quality.
Com. Jacobs spoke to the overall. philosophy of signs throughout the
City; trees, sign limitations, design review, etc. is what makes
Saratoga special. If you try to compete with San Jose,'Saratoga
will start looking like San Jose. He stated that it may be
appropriate to allow larger permanent signs, but he has a problem
with 40 sq.ft. A -frame signs.
Chairman Asfour reiterated Com. Jacobs concerns that by allowing
large temporary signs, even on a trial basis, may jeopardize
amendments to permanent signs because of negative public response
when they see the effect of the temporary signs.
Mr. Orr stated that if the A -frame signs were a problem, that
section could be deleted from the proposal. The Chamber was
specifically interested in providing temporary. signing for grand
openings, special sales and promotions.
There was general discussion regarding what would be appropriate
for a trial period and whether only certain sections of the City
should be used to "study" the effects of temporary signs. It was
the general feeling that it would be difficult to allow temporary
signs for certain businesses or centers and not others.
Following discussion, Staff was requested to readvertise a public
hearing to consider possible code amendments to the existing
Saratoga sign provisions to include:
• Advertise for a July 13 public hearing;
• 40 sq.ft. banners for special sales,.promotions and grand
openings; !,
• Exclude the Village and gas stations from the temporary
signs and trial period;
• 6 month trial period following adoption of the ordinance;
• Banners may be displayed for a total of 42 days during the
6 month trial period;
• The current permit process would be used to allow the
temporary banners;
• No other changes proposed by the Chamber would be
considered at this time.
Director Curtis stated that this discussion and suggested direction
to staff should not be considered a decision by the Planning
Commission. Staff will probably use a press release or special ad
as part of the public notice procedure to inform the general public
as much as possible.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 -43 AGENDA ITEM r-.10
MEETING DATE: August 3, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement
Charges
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution.
Report summary:
Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the
seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property.
For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed
abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's
Office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to
have government take care of weed removal and to pay through a
property tax lien.
This past year, the County performed weed abatement on 107 parcels in
Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels
totalled $27,592.05. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary
for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and
directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on
the property tax bill.
Fiscal Impacts:
None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for
work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied.
Follow Up Actions:
None; this is the last City action in the weed abatement cycle.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
See Fiscal Impacts.
Attachments:
Resolution with list of assessments.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2,44 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 3, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed and Brush
Abatement Charges
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution.
Report summary:
Under State and local laws, local governments abate the seasonal fire
hazards of weed and brush growth on undeveloped property. For the
County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed and brush
abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office.
In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government
take care of weed and brush removal and to pay through a property tax
lien.
This past year, the County performed weed and brush abatement on 3
parcels in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of
these parcels totalled $247.50. In order to recover this cost, it is
necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the
assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the
assessments on the property tax bill.
Fiscal Impacts:
None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for
work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied.
Follow Up actions:
None; this is the last City action in the weed and brush abatement
cycle.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
See Fiscal Impacts.
Attachments:
Resolution with list of assessments.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �'� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August.3, 1994 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Proposed Agreements for Recycling and Residential Yard Collection Services
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS(S)
Award the Recycling and Yard Waste Contracts to Green Valley Disposal Company (GVDC) as
the lowest responsible bidder and direct the Mayor and City Manager to execute the contracts
on behalf of the City.
BACKGROUND
The current Residential Curbside Recycling Agreement with GVDC expires on February 1, 1995.
To assure continued curbside recycling services and obtain competitive proposals, the five West
Valley jurisdictions (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga and Santa Clara County)
jointly issued a Request for Proposals (RFP).
DISCUSSION
The proposed services were developed according to the following sequence:
1) The California Integrated Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandated that each City
and County in the State of California develop a Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE) for inclusion in the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The law
requires that each local jurisdiction in California divert from disposal 25 percent of its
waste stream by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000, or risk fines of up
to $10,000 per day.
2) Saratoga's SRRE, which contained the plan to achieve the mandated reduction, was
adopted by Council in September 1992 after the required public hearing process. The
SRRE states that we will expand our recycling program to collect a variety of materials,
including mixed paper and yard waste.
3) The RFP for the expanded program complies with the City's SRRE, since it proposes to
include residential recycling services for mixed paper and yard waste.
Scope of Services
The RFP requested proposals describing specialized collection, processing, marketing, customer
support and public education activities for each of the following services as listed below:
1) Residential curbside service for recyclables and used, oil;
2) Multi- family service for recyclables;
3) Recycling services for City and Town Offices;
4) Recycling services for public and private elementary and secondary schools and West
Valley College.
5) Recycling services for other public facilities, including libraries and firehouses, for
example;
6) Corrugated cardboard service for businesses;
7) Residential curbside service for yard waste (grass clippings, leaves, and other plan
materials) and Christmas trees; and
8) Christmas tree collection near the bin enclosures for multi - family dwellings.
Attachment #1, Proposed City /Town Sponsored Recycling Services, provides a summary
of the materials to be collected. The recyclables that are proposed to be added or expanded are
listed first followed by the items that will continue to be collected. In addition to materials
currently collected, the vendor will collect mixed paper, scrap metal, milk cartons, aseptic
cartons, styrofoam, and various bottles with a #1 -7 on the bottom. The RFP provided proposers
the opportunity to bid for the recycling services (Items 1 -6) or the residential ,yard waste services
(Items 7 -8), or both.
Yard Waste
As was noted earlier, all jurisdictions in the State are required to divert 25 % of their municipal
Waste stream by January 1, 1995, and 50% by January 1, 2000. To meet these diversion rates,
the new services include unlimited yard waste collection for single- family homes in each of the
cities except Saratoga, where services will be continued. Saratoga began offering yard waste
collection to residents in April 1992. The City diverted 33.7% of the waste stream in calendar
year 1993. Due to the implementation of the yard waste program, the City is already in
compliance with the 25 percent 1995 diversion requirement.
As required by Saratoga's SRRE, the RFP specified services to collect yard waste because this
material makes up about 58% of Saratoga's residential waste stream. This estimate is based on
a mid -1992 waste composition survey that was conducted at the disposal site to determine which
materials (e.g., yard waste; paper, plastics, glass and metals) make up Saratoga's waste stream.
This proportion may have increased since that time because the survey was performed during
drought conditions when water rationing was in effect.
Because the costs for the yard waste program are assigned to all residential properties having
individual can collection for single family dwellings up to and including fourplexes, the fee per
household is minimized and maximum participation is encouraged. Furthermore, the future cost
of this program will be reduced for Saratoga residents due to the participation of the other West
Valley cities.
Mixed Paper
The collection of mixed paper from all residences and public facilities is also a major component
of Saratoga's strategy for AB 939 compliance. Saratoga's SREE indicates that this item accounts
for 20% of our waste stream.
Projected Diversion Rates
Implementation of the expanded recycling and residential yard waste contracts is expected to
produce a total diversion rate of 40% withing the next two years. Staff will monitor the
program to ensure that diversion services will support our efforts to meet the 50% diversion goal
by the year 2000.
Summary of Cost Proposals
The fees for the proposed services are listed in Attachment #2, Fee Comparisons. The fees
listed do not suggest that the new rates will be increased by the sum of the fees for recycling
($3.43 /household) and yard waste ($5.39 /household). A comprehensive refuse rate analysis will
be completed in the next few months and will take into consideration:
Reduced garbage collection and disposal costs due to diversion into new recycling and
yard waste programs.
2. Disposal company operating cost adjustments 'necessary since the last refuse rate
adjustments of August 1992. This new rate will be based on the comprehensive
performance audit which is nearing completion.
3. For other West Valley Cities, the estimated numbers of cans that each household will
select as their basic service upon elimination of, "unlimited" refuse pick -up service.
However, the City of Saratoga converted to a per can charge in the summer of 1991.
Upon completion of this analysis, a proposal for new refuse rates, including garbage, expanded
recycling and yard waste will be presented to the City Council for consideration. The new rates
would be proposed to be effective February 1995.
The City Manager has compiled Attachment #2A, Rates and Rate Setting, to provide the.
Council with the history of the garbage, recycling and yard waste elements of the Solid Waste
Program. This attachment also covers the current components of the rates and how the rates will
change under the new agreements.
Selection Process and Provisions for Public Comment
Proposals were due on March 23, 1994. The Solid Waste Review Committee (composed of staff
representatives from the West Valley jurisdictions) evaluated proposals and invited proposers to
interviews in April, After the interviews and background reviews, the proposals were evaluated
based ont the criteria in the RFP, including cost of services, experience with similar programs,
management structure, financial background and references.
Attachment #3, shows the actual Procedures for Preparing the Recyclables.
Cost Proposal Summary
A Recommended Contractor
Proposals were received form Browning- Ferris Industries (BFI) and Green Valley
Disposal Company (GVDC). GVDC is the recommended contractor since:
1. The proposed fees are lower for each of the services specified in the RFP; and
2. The design of the proposed services shows an understanding of the demands of
this service area.
In addition, since GVDC is the existing service provider for garbage collection:
3. Resolution of customer service issues and problems will be simpler with a single
provider for recycling, yard waste and garbage collection services;
4. New or expanded services for recycling or yard waste services will be easier to
introduce and promote using a single service provider rather than multiple
contractors; and
5. Overall contract administration and services will be simplified.
Reasons for the higher proposed fees from BFI include the fact that:
6. BFI would need to purchase all new trucks for regular and back -up service to
support the contracts, since they do not have any used equipment available, as
does GVDC; and
7. The fees for Commercial Cardboard Recycling are high because BFI is uncertain
how many businesses would elect to share a bin, whether one -, two- or three -
cubic yard capacity. Also, BFI is assuming a higher number of one- to three -
cubic yard bins compared to GVDC 's proposal to use three to eight cubic yard
bins for businesses to store cardboard until collected.
B. Proposal Comparisons
A more detailed summary of the scope of services offered by both proposers and the fees
for six and eight year terms for each service, as listed above, is enclosed as Attachment
#4, Summary of Recycling /Yard Waste Proposals for West Valley Jurisdictions.
Each page summarizes one of the services specified in the RFP. The fees shown for each
service reflect a comparable scope of services, except that the fee for plastic bottles #1 -7
is excluded from the fee per household per month provided by Browning Ferris
Industries, but is included in GVDC's fee for recycling services.
Attachment #4 shows the services as Option #1, Split Decision and Option #2, both
contracts. Option #1 refers an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the
other of the tow contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both,
whereas Option 2 assumes that the proposer would be awarded both contracts.
Both companies were required to submit proposals using these two assumptions in order
to evaluate the proposals separately and together to determine if it was in the
jurisdictions' best interest to award one contract to each company or to award both
contracts to one company.
A total of 14 firms indicated' an interest in submitting a proposal and were provided with
a copy of the RFP. Three local companies who indicated an interest in submitting a
proposal, but did not do so, are Green Waste Recovery, Inc. /Zanker Road Landfill,
Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. and Waste Management Technologies, Inc. (WMX). Staff
from Norcal and WMX acknowledged, after the proposals were due, that they did not
submit a proposal because they had no permitted recycling or yard waste facilities in this
County. Staff from Green Waste /Zanker offered that they did not submit a proposal due
to their workload under their contract with the City of San Jose.
Contract Terms
The RFP solicited for both six years (February 1, 1995 through February 28, 2001), and
eight years (February 1, 1995, through February 28, 2003). An eight -year term is
proposed for both the Recycling and Residential Yard Waste Agreements for two reasons.
First, and eight -year term results in a significantly lower cost proposal, because it will
allow GVDC to amortize the costs of the equipment (eg: trucks, curbside bins and
wheeled carts for residential yard waste collection and multi- family -recycling) over a
longer term. Second, since the current Franchise Agreement with GVDC expires
February 28, 2003, an eight -year term for both Agreements will. allow issuance of a
combined RFP for garbage and recycling services for the next contract which will begin
March 1, 2003.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21062. 1, a mitigated negative declaration was
prepared for these projects and submitted to the State on September 3, 1992.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recycling services have no fiscal impact on the City. Funds to pay for the proposed
services will be collected via new refuse rates that will include the fees for recycling and
yard waste services.
Attachments: #1 Proposed City /Town Sponsored Recycling Services
#2 Fee Comparisons
#2A Rates and Rate Setting
#3 Procedures for Preparing Materials for Recycling
#4 Summary of Recycling /Yard Waste Proposals for West Valley
Jurisdictions
#5 Proposed Recycling Contract
#6 Proposed Yardwaste Contract
1 1,2,,, / -
141iji'l,
Paula Reeve 40v Harry Peacoc
Public Services Assistant City Manager
Proposed City/Town- Sponsored Recycling Services ATTACHMENT #1 PropSvs.wB1
Source: West Valley Solid Waste Program
c
Rec ciables
Residential
Curbside
Multi - Family
Dwellin s
Businesses
Schools
City/Town/
County Facilities
Mixed Paper, including magazines, catalogs, envelopes, junk mail,
Expanded, since magazines
Added
Expanded, since
kraft brown (grocery) bags and paper, paperboard, paper egg
and phone books are
magazines and
cartons, office ledger paper, and telephone books
currently collected.
phone books are
currently collected
Small scrap ferrous and non - ferrous metals, not exceeding forty
Added
Added
Added
pounds in weight nor two feet in any dimension for any single item
(eg: small household appliances)
Milk and juice cartons with gabled top .
Added
Added
Added
Added
Aseptic cartons
Added
Added
Added
Added
Expanded polystyrene ( "styrofoam ") peanuts and molding for
Added
Added
Added
Added
packing material
Plastic bottles in which the neck is smaller than the base, and
Expanded, since #1 bottles
Expanded, since
Expanded, since
Expanded, since
identified with a number between "1" through "T' on their bottom.
are currently collected in
#1 bottles are
#1 bottles are
#1 bottles are
Some examples include milk and water jugs, laundry and dish
Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte
currently collected.
currently collected.
currently collected.
detergent bottles, soft drink bottles, vitamin bottles and salad
Sereno, Saratoga and
oil bottles.
unincorporated areas of
Santa Clara County, and #2
are also accepted in Los
Gatos and Saratoga.
Newspaper, including inserts
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Corrugated Cardboard
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Glass jars and bottles, all colors combined
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Aluminum beverage containers
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Steel ( "tin ") cans and bimetal containers
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Used Motor Oil
Continued
Yard Waste (grass clippings, leaves, prunings, Christmas trees, etc.)
Added, except continued
in the City of Saratoga
Christmas trees
Continued
ATTACHMENT #2
Recvcline/Yard Waste Proposal Summaries
GVDC's proposed fees are lower for each of the services specified in the RFP, as shown
below:
Type of Service
Residential Curbside Recycling
(includes fees for Schools,
City/Town /County Facilities):
Residential Yard Waste Recycling
Resident - provided Containers
Solid Wall Carts:
Ventilated Carts
Multi - Family Dwelling
Recycling Services:
Commercial Cardboard
Recycling
Residential Leaf Collection in
selected areas of the City of
Campbell during heavy
leaf fall:
Annual Dollar Cost:
Residential Street Sweeping
in selected areas of the City
of Campbell during heavy
leaf fall:
Annual Dollar Cost:
BFI's Proposal
$3.76/Household/Month
$6.09/Household/Month
$6.5 8/Household/Month
$6.80/Household/Month
$46.92 /Complex/Month
Fees are per service
location, since some
businesses may share
a bin:
$46.09 for 1 cy bin;
$47.78 for 2 cy bin; and
$45.42 for 3 cy bin.
Fees exclude the cost of
the bins.
$0.32/Household/Month
$29,348
$0.08/Household/Month
$7,296
GVDC's Proposal
$3.43/Household/Month
$5.04/Household/Month
$5.39/Household/Month
$5.57/Household/Month
$30-24/Complex/Month
Fee applies to all
Business
Establishments:
$14-74/Business
Establishment/Month
Fee includes cost of bins.
$0.11/Household/Month
$10,041
$0.13/Household/Month
$12,080
Attachment #2A
RATES AND RATE SETTING
Introduction•
As the City Council considers the recommendation to award the
competitive bid for recycling and yard waste pickup through an
eight year period, beginning February 1, 1995, to Green Valley
Disposal, one of the decisions to be made is how to pay for these
services. It seems appropriate, under the circumstances, to review
the current City Council policy and to provide an historical,
context to rubbish rates and rate setting in Saratoga. This part
of the staff report will cover the transformation of the rates from
a flat rate for unlimited service, depending on the service
provided and the area of the City in which one lives (i.e. flat -.
land or hard to serve), to the current per can rate over the past
five years, the current components of the rates and how the rates
will change under the new agreement.
Background:
Prior to the start of recycling in early 1990, the rubbish rates
for residential service were based upon unlimited pickup. No
matter how much or how little one put out, the monthly charge was
the same. There were some exceptions. Senior citizens who put out
only one can paid a reduced rate. Households which did not place
their cans at the curb were charged extra, as were people in areas
defined as hard to serve. Currently (as of March 1994) these
surcharges exist for 532 hard to serve households and 100 non hard
to serve households which do not have curbside service, (the cans
are' not 'set at the curb so the collection worker must bring them to
the collection truck). The surcharge for these extra services is
as set forth below:
Flat Land Area:
>6' <130' from the curb - 70% of curbside rate - 83 customers
>130' from the curb - 140% of curbside rate - 17 customers
Hard to Serve Area:
<6' from the curb - 40% of flatland curbside rate - 523
>6' <130' from the curb - 110% of flatland curbside rate - 2
>130' from the curb - 180% of flatland curbside rate -
In addition, Green Valley Disposal offered, as an optional service,
the rental of a 96 gallon toter type trash container for $2.00 a
month, which was and still is not part of the rate structure.
In early 1990 the City began its curbside recycling program. Green
Valley Disposal was the successful bidder at $.83 per household per
month. In the following years the City Council added items for
recycling for an additional cost bringing the current cost to $1.06
per household per month.
Attachment #2A contd
Page 2 - Rates and Rate Setting
Then in the summer of 1991 the City Council made the decision to
expand into yard waste collection and convert to a per can charge
basis for collection with recyclables and yard waste becoming the
unlimited items. The yard waste program would become effective on
April 1, 1992. At the same time the City Council directed that as
incentive for recycling the cost of each can would be the same and
that all costs would factor in on that basis. Concurrently, the
City began to provide service programs to meet various
environmental mandates. It was the decision of the City Council to
fund the cost of these mandates by a surcharge on rubbish rates.
As a result of these changes the setting of rates has become much
more complex because a number of additional variables are now
involved. These are discussed in more detail below.
Finally, other issues which impact rates include. the amount
residential rates are subsidized by the commercial rates,
(currently that subsidy is some $288,000 a year), and outside
influences caused by taxation on tipping fees and the increased
cost of tipping fees themselves from the landfill with which the
City has a guaranteed contract to accept our trash.
Discussion:
In 1989 residential rates were the same for all users except as
noted above. The variables used to determine rates were:
1. Number of residential customers
2. Number of senior citizens with one can service
3. Number of hard to serve customers paying a 40% surcharge
4. Number of customers who had trash pickup not placed at
the curbside and were surcharged 70% or 140% depending on
distance from the curb
5. Cost to provide service by Green Valley Disposal plus a
reasonable net profit
6. The amount of commercial subsidy
With the advent of curbside recycling another variable was added:
7. Cost to fund the recycling program
When environmental programs were added in 1991, three additional
variables were added:
8. Cost of the Non -Point Source Pollution Program
9. Cost of the Household.Hazardous Waste Program
10. Cost of administration of the State Integrated Solid
Waste Management Act
Attachment #2A cont
Page 3 - Rates and Rate Setting
When the City began yard waste collection and switched to a per can
cost basis for all programs, a number of variables were changed.
Some were eliminated and others were added:
Deleted variables:
1. Number of residential customers
2. Number of senior citizens with one can service
Added variables:
1. Number of cans.subscribed for each week, 1 through 5
2. Cost to fund the yard waste pickup program
Currently the base cost per can for flatland, curbside service,
(i.e. no surcharge), is as follows:
Basic Service
Yard Waste
NPDES
AB 939 & HHW
Recycling
Total ...
$10.18 /month
3.31 /month
1.03 /month
.17 /month
.58 /month
... $15.27 /month
Currently the City staff is projecting the following changes to
rates, except for basic service which is under review as a part of
the performance audit:
Basic Service
Yard Waste
NPDES
AB 939 & HHW
Recycling
$10.18 /month
2.97 /month
.82 /month
.55 /month
2.02 /month
Total .. $16.54 /month
There are other variables which will change with the added
recycling contract. Landfill tonnage is expected to drop by an
estimated 923 tons, reducing landfill charges by about $42,000.
Many homeowners will no longer pay an extra $2.00 per month for
toters, which they use exclusively for yard waste now since that
cost is built into the new yard waste rate. The staff also expects
that as a result of the performance audit the basic service for
Saratoga residents will go down. At this time the amount of the
actual rate reduction is not known. While staff cannot predict
that for the average household that rates will go down, we do
believe that they will stay close to the current $15.27 per can and
not go up by the 8o, indicated above. Staff expects it should have
Attachment #2A contd
Page 4 - Rates and Rate Setting
a rate adjustment prepared for City Council hearing by late
September or early October.
As for the specifics regarding the recycling and yard waste
contract, to summarize:
Service
Recycling
Yard Waste
Toter
Total ...
Current Cost*
$ .58
3.31
2.00 **
$ 5.89
Pr000sed_Cost
$ 2.02
2.96
0 -
$ 4.98
* Current costs are based on a can census of 16,270. That
has now been reduced to 15,576 adjusted for surcharging
based on the March 1994 customer census. This will need
to be readjusted again to, set the rates in September or
October.
** Not all residents currently use totters for yard waste,
so many will not save this $2.00 per month
ATTACHMENT #3
Procedures for Preparing the Recyclables
1) Residential Curbside Recycling Services
Households eligible for curbside recycling services will continue to include all
residential single - family dwellings through fourplexes. Residents should already have
two bins to set out their recyclables; the third will be used to store the additional
materials proposed for collection. Following is a list of the three groups of recyclables
that should be combined, placed in bins and set out at the curb:
o newspaper and mixed paper;
o aluminum and tin cans, small scrap metal items, aseptic cartons, milk and juice
cartons with a gabled top, and plastic bottles #1 -7; and
o glass jars and bottles, all colors.
Residents may set out at the curb two or more bins of any of the above - listed
materials as long as the recyclables remain in the combination shown, that is,
newspaper should not be combined with cans or glass, for example. Expanded
polystyrene ( "styrofoam" peanuts or molding for packing) should be bagged and set
next to the bins. Corrugated cardboard should be flattened and placed next to the bins.
Used oil should be placed in the gallon containers and also set next to the bins.
2) Residential Yard Waste Recycling Services
a) Storage Carts and Bundled Yard Waste
Households eligible for this service include all residential single - family
dwellings through fourplexes. Eligible households will be provided with a 95-
gallon, solid wall cart in which to store their yard waste. The carts will be
brown in order to distinguish them from the green carts currently provided for
a fee by GVDC for garbage or yard waste.
In addition, residents may also:
i) set out bundles of yard waste (egs: branches or twigs) tied with string
or twine; tape or wire should not be used. Each bundle may not exceed
3 x 3 feet or 70 pounds.
ATTACHMENT #3 (cont'd)
use resident - provided containers for excess quantities of yard waste.
The containers should have a decal placed on the side of the container
to clearly identify its contents. Decals will be provided by GVDC, on
request, and be delivered on the regular garbage collection day. Decals
may also be picked up at GVDC's administrative office or at City/Town
Offices. No loaded container may exceed 70 pounds.
b) Container Types
Three different container types were specified in the RFP, including:
i) resident - provided rigid containers, (such as an old garbage can with a
program decal clearly identifying its contents);
ii) wheeled disposal carts with solid wall construction; and
iii) wheeled disposal carts specifically designed to provide air ventilation
for compostable wastes. Carts with air vents were included for two
reasons. First, ventilated carts would allow the yard waste to dry, thus
reducing objectional odors that can result from a lack of oxygen
available to the yard waste. Second, reducing the odors would allow
householders to set out their yard waste less frequently, when the carts
are full resulting in a more productive collection service and less wear
and tear on vehicle brakes. However, ventilated carts were not selected
since these carts cost more than the solid wall carts, and GVDC's
proposal did not assume that a sufficient number of residents would take
advantage of the ventilated carts by setting out their carts only when
full.
c) . Carts versus Resident - Provided Containers
Carts were selected rather than resident - provided containers for the following
reasons:
i) Collection Operation: Resident - provided containers require the driver
to regularly leave the vehicle to empty the containers, resulting in a
more labor intensive service than offered by a standardized container,
such as a cart.
ATTACHMENT #3 (cont'd)
Carts will allow GVDC to use mechanized collection vehicles allowing
the driver to stay in the vehicle more often; consequently a larger
number of households can be served each day. The proposed services
are more mechanized, less labor intensive and offer some potential for
fewer driver injuries since drivers will not typically be lifting as many
containers on a regular basis.
Convenience, Visibility and Useful Life: Wheeled carts are
convenient for householders and are easily identified by the driver. The
carts have a 10 -year warranty with reasonable use, though actual useful
life is typically longer.
iii) Cost Comparison: Solid wall carts will cost $0.35 more per household
per month than resident - provided containers ($5.04, compared to $5.39).
Although the fee for the carts is higher, the advantages noted above
justify using the carts. Also, residents will save money previously spent
on plastic bags or additional garbage cans.
CSMFDSVS.DCS \CnciMmRY.MS
RecyclingNard Waste Proposals RYWProps.WB1 ATTACHMENT #4
for West Valley Jurisdictions
Item /Criteria
Browning - Ferris Industries
Green Valley Disposal Company
Residential Recycling
Services
$ /Household/Month
$/ Household /Month
Option 1 • (Split Decision) if 3 New Bins
Option 1: ( Split Decision)
$/Household/Month
if 3 New Bins
6 -year term
8 -year term
$3.91(3.51 +0.26 +0.14); includes small scrap $4.17 (3.91 +0.26)
$3.86 (3.46 +0.26 +0.14); items, EPS & 1 new bin. $4.06 (3.86 +0.20)
$3.74; includes cost of 1 new bin
$3.61; includes
$3.88 (3.74 +0.14)
cost of 1 new bin
$3.73 (3.61 +0.12)
6 year term
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$3.80 (3.40+0.26+0.14); includes small scrap $4.06 (3.80+0.26)
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$3.57; includes cost of 1 new bin
$3.71 (3.57 +0.14)
8-year term
$3.76 (3.36 +0.26 +0.14); items, EPS & 1 new bin. $3.96 (3.76 +0.20)
$3.43; includes cost of 1 new bin
$3.55 (3.43 +0.12)
Total Annual Revenue Required
Option 1 • (Split Decision)
Option 1: (Split Decision)
6 -year term
8 -year term
$1,432,702 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,527,971
$1,414,381 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,487,665
$1,287,362 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,335,562 (1,287,362 +48,200)
$1,242,585 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,283,915
(1,242,585+41,330)
6 -year term
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$1,392,396 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,487,665
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$1,227,836 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,276,036
(1,227,836 +48,200)
8 -year term
$1,377,739 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,451,023
$1,182,479 includes 1 new bin; 3 new bins: $1,223,809 (1,182,479 +41,330)
Recvclables listed in RFP
Newspaper
Yes
Recyclables Collected Now
Mixed paper
Yes
Yes
Yes
Glass
Yes
Yes
No;only magazines & phone books.
Aluminum beverage containers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tin/bi -metal containers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Small scrap metal items
$0.14 /Household/Month; included in above fee
Yes
Yes
Plastic bottles ( #1 & 2)
Yes
Only aluminum scrap (foil,trays)
Expanded polystyrene(EPS)
$0.26/Household/Month; included in above fee
Yes
Yes
Only Los Gatos & Saratoga
Used motor oil
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Additional Recvclables Proposed
Plastic Bottles #3-7: $0.26/Household/Month excluded from fee
Plastic Bottles #3-7; no additional charge
Aseptic cartons; no additional charge
Aseptic cartons; no additional charge
Milk cartons; no additional charge
Milk and juice cartons with gabled top; no
Preparation Procedures
additional charge
3-bin set/Single -Family Dwelling
3-bin set/Single- Family Dwelling
#1: newspaper
#1: newspaper and mixed paper
#2: mixed paper
#2: cans, small scrap metal items, plastic bottles #1 -7,
#3: glass, cans, small scrap metal items,
aseptic cartons, and milk and juice cartons
plastic bottles, milk and aseptic cartons
#3: glass jars and bottles, all colors combined
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.
Recycling/Yard Waste Proposals RYWProps.WB1 ATTACHMENT #4
for West Valley Jurisdictions
Item /Criteria
Browning- Ferris Industries
Residential Yard
Resident Provided
Waste Services
Containers
Solid Wall Carts
$ /Household /Month
Option 1: (Split Decision)
$5.88
$6.09
Resident Provided
$5.63
$5.81
Containers Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
6 -year term
$6.32 $6.98
$7,22
8 -year term
$6.28 $6.74
$6.96
Vented Carts
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$5.65
$5.86
Resident Provided
$5.39
$5.57
Containers Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
6 -year term
$6.13 $6.82
$7.06
8 -year term
$6.09 $6.58
$6.80
_Total Annual Revenue Required
Option 1: (Split Decision)
$2,025,145
$2,097.469
Resident Provided
$1,937,820
$1,999,812
Containers Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
6-year term
$2,315,688 $2,557,611
$2,645,552
8 -year term
$2,302,753 $2,469,670
$2,550,282
Vented Carts
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$1,946,028
$2,018,352
Resident Provided
$1,857,906
$1,919,898
Containers Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
6-year term
$2,246,301 $2,498,984
$2,586,925
8 -year term
$2,231,497 $2,411,043
$2,491,655
Overages
(branches, etc.)
Residents may bundle, place in resident -
provided containers, or rent additional Carts for
$1.51 /Household/Month for 6 -year term or
$1.41 /Household /Month for 8 -year term.
Green Valley Disposal Company
Accepted; bundle or place in resident - provided
container(s).
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.
Option 1: (Split Decision)
Resident Provided
Containers
Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
$5.33
$5.88
$6.09
$5.28
$5.63
$5.81
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Resident Provided
Containers
Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
$5.10
$5.65
$5.86
$5.04
$5.39
$5.57
Option 1: (Split Decision)
Resident Provided
Containers
Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
$1,834,937
$2,025,145
$2,097.469
$1,816,940
$1,937,820
$1,999,812
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Resident Provided
Containers
Solid Wall Carts
Vented Carts
$1,755,820
$1,946,028
$2,018,352
$1,737,027
$1,857,906
$1,919,898
Accepted; bundle or place in resident - provided
container(s).
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.
RecyclingNard Waste Proposals RYWProps.WB1 ATTACHMENT #4
for West Valley Jurisdictions
Item /Criteria
Browning- Ferris Industries
Commercial
Cardboard
$ /Business Establishment/Month
Option 1: (Split Decision)
6-year term
$46.09 for 1 cubic yard bin service
$45.78 for 2 cubic yard bin service
8-year term
$45.42 for 3 cubic yard bin service
Fees exclude cost of bins since some may share usage.
Fees are per service location and apply for 6 -and 8 -year terms.
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
6-year term
$46.09 for 1 cubic yard bin service
$45.78 for 2 cubic yard bin service
8 -year term
$45.42 for 3 cubic yard bin service
Fees exclude cost of bins since some may share usage.
Fees are per service location and apply for 6-and 8 -year terms.
Total Annual Revenue Required
Option 1: (Split Decision) Bins Total Revenue Req.
6 -year term
$671,622 $109,671 $781,293
8 -Year term
$671,622 $109,671 $781,293
Option 2: (Both Contracts) Bins Total Revenue Req.
6-year term
$671,622 $109,671 $781,293
8- year term
$671,622 $109,671 $781,293
Bin Description
1 -3 cubic yard bins; some may be shared among
several Service Recipients due to space
constraints.
Green Valley Disposal Company
Option 1: (Split Decision)
$15.73 Fee includes cost for bins spread over all business establishments.
$15.22 Fee includes cost for bins spread over all business establishments.
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$15.26 Fee includes cost for bins spread over all business establishments.
$14.74 Fee includes cost for bins spread overall business establishments.
Option 1: (Split Decision) Bins Total Revenue Required
$262,882 $48,510 $311,392
$261,888 $39,402 $301,290
Option 2: (Both Contracts) Bins Total Revenue Required
$253,594 $48,200 $301,794
$252,449 $39,402 $291,851
3 -8 cubic yard bins with locking bar to avoid contamination
Cardboard stacked loose in areas where bins are not
practical due to space constraints.
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.
RecyclingNard Waste Proposals RYWProps.WB1 ATTACHMENT #4
for West Valley Jurisdictions
Item /Criteria
Schools
$ /School /Month
6 -year term
8 -year term
Browning - Ferris Industries
Fee for Schools, CityfTown Facilities and Other Public
Facilities included in fees for Residential Curbside Services
Green Valley Disposal Company
Fee for Schools, City/Town Facilities and Other Public
Facilities included in fee for Residential Curbside Services
Total Annual Revenue Required
Option 1: (Split Decision)
Option 1: (Split Decision)
6-year term
$3,608; includes Schools/City/Town Facilities & Other Public Facilities (1)
$46,732; includes Schools,City/fown Facilities & Other Public Facilities
8 -year term
$3,433; includes Schools/City/Town Facilities & Other Public Facilities (1)
$45,592; includes Schools,City/Town Facilities & Other Public Facilities
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
6 -year term
$3,608; includes Schools /CityfTown Facilities & Other Public Facilities (1)
$45,464; includes Schools,City/Town Facilities & Other Public Facilities
8 -year term
$3,433; includes Schools /City/Town Facilities & Other Public Facilities (1)
$44,313; includes Schools,City/Town Facilities & Other Public Facilities
Recvclables listed in RFP
Materials Col
Glass
Yes
Yes Yes
Metal cans
Yes
Yes Yes
Plastics ( #1 & #2)
Yes
Yes Yes
"Office Pack" Paper or
Yes
Yes Yes
trade grade equivalent
Yes
Yes Yes
Corrugated cardboard
Yes
Yes Yes
Expanded polystyrene (EPS)
Yes
Yes Yes
Additional Recyclables Proposed
Aseptic cartons; included in Cart #1
Aseptic cartons, milk and juice boxes with gabled top, if added
Milk cartons; included in Cart #1
to Residential Recycling. Plastic Bottles ( #3-7), if added to
Colored paper; included in Cart #2
Residential Recycling. Mixed paper, if preferred instead of "office pack
Preparation Procedures
2 carts:
2 carts:
#1: glass, cans, plastic bottles, milk and aseptic cartons
#1: glass, cans, plastic bottles, aseptic cartons and
#2: 'office pack" paper and colored paper
milk and juice cartons
Large cardboard flattened and set adjacent to Carts.
#2: "office pack" paper or mixed paper, if preferred
EPS bagged separately, as is currently done.
Corrugated cardboard to be flattened and set adjacent
to Carts, or bins will be provided if space available.
(1) Fees shown are included in Residential Recycling Services.
EPS bagged separately, as is currently done.
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.
tii-
Recycling/Yard Waste Proposals
for West Valley Jurisdictions
RYWProps.WB1
Item /Criteria
Browning - Ferris Industries
Multi - Family
$0.60
$31.38 ($29.45 + $1.93 for all Carts)
Recycling Services
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Oil Coll.
$ /Complex/Month
Option 1: (Split Decision)
Oil Coll.
6 -year term
$49.02 (42.77 +1.45+1.68 +3.12); for all Carts
$0.62
Option 1: (Split Decision)
8 -year term
$46.92 (40.79 +1.33 +1.68 +3.12); for all Carts
$0.62
$61,200
$324,867
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Oil Coll.
$315,687
6-year term
$49.02 (42.77 +1.45+1.68+3.12); for all Carts
$0.62
$260, 325( 238, 525 +21,800 for all Carts)
8 -year term
$46.92 (40.79 +1.33 +1.68 +3.12); for all Carts
$0.62
$52,020
Total Annual Revenue Required
Option 1: (Split Decision)
Oil Coll.
Totl Rev. Rea.
6-year term
$420,570 (408,151 +12,419 for new & used Carts)
$5,319
$425,889
8 -year term
$402,546 (391,163+11,383 for new & used Carts)
$5,319
$407,865
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Oil Coll.
Totl Rev. Reg.
6-year term
$420,570(408,151 +12,419 for new & used Carts)
$5,319
$425,889
8 -year term
$402,546(391,163 +11,383 for new & used Carts)
$5,319
$407,865
Recvclables listed in RFP
newspaper
mixed paper
glass
aluminum beverage containers
tin/bi -metal containers
plastics ( #1 & 2)
small scrap metal items
expanded polystyrene
motor oil
Additional Recvclables Proposed
Preparation Procedures
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes; $1.68/Complex/Month included above
Yes; $3.12 /Complex/Month included above
Yes; $0.62/Complex/Month included above
Aseptic cartons
Milk cartons
3 Carts:
#1: newspaper
#2: mixed paper
#3: co-mingled glass, cans,
plastics, milk & aseptic
cartons
Large cardboard set adjacent to bins
ATTACHMENT #4
Green Valley Disposal Company
Option 1: (Split Decision)
Oil Coll.
$32.12 ($29.52 + $2.60 for all Carts)
$0.60
$31.38 ($29.45 + $1.93 for all Carts)
$0.51
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Oil Coll.
$31.00 (28.40 + $2.60 for all Carts)
$0.60
$30.24 ($28.31 + $1.93 for all Carts)
$0.51
Option 1: (Split Decision)
Oil Coll.
Totl. Rev. Reg.
$269,781 ( 247, 981 +21,800 for all Carts)
$61,200
$324,867
$263,667 (247,417 +16,250 for all Carts)
$52,020
$315,687
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
Oil Coll.
Totl. Rev. Reg.
$260, 325( 238, 525 +21,800 for all Carts)
$61,200
$321,525
$254,044 (237,794 +16,250 for all Carts)
$52,020
$306,064
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, included in proposed fee
Yes, included in proposed fee
Yes, see above
Aseptic cartons
Milk and juice cartons with gabled top
Plastic bottles #3 -7
2 Carts(Additional Carts where space & volumes dictate)
#1: newspaper, mixed paper, small cardboard
#2: glass, cans, plastic bottles #1 -7, small scrap metal
items, aseptic cartons & milk/jaice cartons
Large cardboard set adjacent to garbage dumpsters
Materials Collected Now
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Only #1
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.
RecyclingNard Waste Proposals RYWProps.WB1 ATTACHMENT #4
for West Valley Jurisdictions
Item/Criteria
City/Town /Other
Facility Recycling
Services
$ /Clty/Town /Other Faclllty
6- yearterm
8 -year tern
Total Annual Revenue Required
6-year term
8- yearterm
6-year term
8- yearterm
Recvclables listed in RFP
newspaper
mixed paper
glass
alum. bev. containers
small scrap metal items
tin/bi -metal containers
plastic bottles ( #1 3 2)
expanded polystyrene (EPS)
"office pack" paper or
trade grade equivalent
used motor oil
(Saratoga Corp.Yard)
Additional Recvclables Proposed
Preparation Procedures
Browning- Ferris Industries
Fee for services included in Residential
Curbside Recycling Services
Option 1: (Split Decision)
0,608; includes Schools,City/Town Facilities/Other Public Facilities
$3,433; includes Schools,City/Town Facilities/Other Public Facilities
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$3,608; includes Schools, City/Town Facilities/Other Public Facilities
$3,433; includes Schools, City/Town Facilities/Other Public Facilities
Milk Cartons
Aseptic cartons
Green Valley Disposal Company
Fee for services included in Residential Curbside
Recycling Services
Option 1: (Split Decision)
$46,732; includes Schools, City/Town Facilities/Other Public Facilities
$45,592; includes Schools, CityTown Facilities/Other Public Facilities
Option 2: (Both Contracts)
$45,464; includes Schools, City/Town Facilities/Other Public Facilities
$44,313; includes Schools, City/Town Facilities/Other Public Facilities
Multiple Carts:
81: cans, small scrap metal items, glass, plastic
bottles, milk and aseptic cartons
02: newspaper
93: mixed paper
Large cardboard flattened and set next to Carts.
EPS bagged separately and set next to Carts.
Milk and juice cartons with gabled top, if added to Residential Recyclin
Aseptic cartons, if added to Residential Recycling Svs.
Plastic Bottles, if added to Residential Recycling Svs.
2 Carts/Servioe Recipient
#1: cans, small scrap metal items, glass, plastic bottles
#1 -7, aseptic cartons and milk and juice cartons
#2: newspaper, mixed paper, small cardboard pieces
Large cardboard flattened and set adjacent to Carts,
or bins will be provided, if desired and space is
available.
EPS bagged separately and set next to Carts.
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.
Materials Col
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Only Los Gat
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Multiple Carts:
81: cans, small scrap metal items, glass, plastic
bottles, milk and aseptic cartons
02: newspaper
93: mixed paper
Large cardboard flattened and set next to Carts.
EPS bagged separately and set next to Carts.
Milk and juice cartons with gabled top, if added to Residential Recyclin
Aseptic cartons, if added to Residential Recycling Svs.
Plastic Bottles, if added to Residential Recycling Svs.
2 Carts/Servioe Recipient
#1: cans, small scrap metal items, glass, plastic bottles
#1 -7, aseptic cartons and milk and juice cartons
#2: newspaper, mixed paper, small cardboard pieces
Large cardboard flattened and set adjacent to Carts,
or bins will be provided, if desired and space is
available.
EPS bagged separately and set next to Carts.
Note: Option 1: Split Decision refers to an assumption that each proposer may be awarded one or the other of the two contracts (Recycling or Residential Yard Waste Services), but not both.