Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-15-1997 CITY COUNCIL staff reportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 218 I q AGENDA ITEM ?A MEETING DATE: January 15, 1997 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Contract for an Alternate Landfill Disposal Site (Newby Island Landfill) Recommended Motion(s): That Council authorize the City Manager to sign an alternate landfill disposal site contract with International Disposal Company. Report Summary: Background Each of the West Valley cities has a 20 -year (1983 - 2003 ) disposal contract with Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company to landfill all municipal waste intended for disposal and collected by Green Valley Disposal. This disposal contract is not exclusive, in that the cities /town are not required to dispose of their refuse at Guadalupe Landfill. The amount of the disposal fee has a direct impact on refuse rates paid by residents and businesses in the four cities, and the cities agree that we should seek the most cost - effective services for ratepayers. In 1995, the West Valley cities of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Campbell and Saratoga requested an alternate proposal for landfill services from Browning- Ferris Industries, which owns and operates Newby Island Landfill and from the City of Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station. By the end of July, proposals had been received from both companies. An unsolicited offer from Waste Management Inc. was also received. Discussion Discussion with the proposers' representatives indicated that significant disposal cost savings could be realized by hauling waste to BFI's facility at Newby Island. The enclosed agreement specifies a base rate of $17.85 /ton as compared to the innovative proposal from Green Valley Disposal Company of $27.25/ton. The estimated net reduction in rubbish costs for an annual tonnage of 83,000 tons, including added haul costs, would exceed $600,000 per year for the West Valley cities. The City of Saratoga's share of Alternate Landfill Disposal Site Page 2 that savings would exceed $130,000 per year. The West Valley Cities contracted with two consulting firms to evaluate the impact of contracting with an alternate landfill provider: Ecodata, who evaluated the impact on refuse collection costs if waste is hauled to Newby Island Landfill, rather than Guadalupe Landfill as well as to advise on proposed contract terms; and secondly, David J. Powers and Associates who provided an analysis of the potential impacts on the environment if a different landfill were to be used, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Economic Impact of Using Landfill at Newby Island: Because it is a longer distance from the West Valley cities than Guadalupe Landfill, the Ecodata study concluded that the difference in refuse haul costs were as follows: Commercial Collection $0.93 added haul cost per ton Debris Box Collection $6.02 added haul cost per ton Residential Collection $1.49 reduced haul cost per ton Overall average, all sectors estimated $1.86 - $2.00 per ton added haul cost Last Spring, the cities asked Green Valley Disposal Company, which provides refuse collection and hauling services, to do their own independent haul cost estimate if refuse were to be taken to Newby Island instead of Guadalupe Landfill. To date that estimate has not been provided. The difference between the disposal fee and the additional haul cost nets out to #7.40 /ton. City -wide, 18,000 to 19,000 tons of solid waste is hauled to the landfill each year. Based upon this volume and assuming the $2.00 /ton additional haul cost, the savings for the City of Saratoga for hauling to Newby Island would be between $133,000 and 140,000 per year. Contract Terms: As noted in the June 19, 1996 Report to Council, the BFI contract offers several major provisions not included in the Guadalupe contract, including an annual cost adjustment using a CPI, a "hold harmless" indemnification clause, contractor insurance requirements, a performance guaranty by the parent company, and improved provisions to ensure the cities' review and approval if the company is sold. Staff and attorneys from each jurisdiction had reviewed the contract proposed by BFI. The consultant from Ecodata Inc. had also advised the cities to ensure that the final contract offers the best possible terms for the West Valley cities. The BFI contract offers the West Valley jurisdictions an alternative disposal site, with the Guadalupe contract remaining Alternate Landfill Disposal Site Page 3 intact. Similarly, selection of an alternate disposal site.would not affect the refuse collection agreement with Green Valley Disposal Company. Selection of the actual disposal site would be an administrative determination. Environmental Assessment: In terms of the environmental assessment that had to occur for this project, in February 1996, the cities /town retained the consultant firm of David J. Powers and Associates to analyze the potential impacts of this project on the environment, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The scope of the project involved evaluating the environmental impacts of using Newby Island Landfill rather than Guadalupe Landfill, as the disposal site for some or all of the cities' waste. The cities are not considering any change in the manner, frequency, or any other attribute of their current system for the collection of municipal waste. The consultant prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (Attachment A) and copies were distributed to various state and local agencies for their response. The only comment received on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration was from the law firm of Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda, representing Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company (Attachment B). The letter raised questions about the potential project impacts on landfill capacity at both landfills, suggested that the analysis should identify the impacts of the entire waste haul distance rather than just from the increment of difference; and asked about the context of the increased fuel consumption. The consultant believes that none of the issues addressed lead to a different conclusion than that documented in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. Each of the items raised in the Matteoni letter is addressed by the consultant in Attachment C. On June 19, 1996, the Council has approved the necessary Negative Declaration for the West Valley Cities disposal site and the City managers in all the affected cities have negotiated and further revised the contract enclosed with this report. Fiscal Impacts• The annual savings to rate payers would be between $133,000 to $140,000 as detailed in the report section entitled "Economic Impact of Using Landfill at Newby Island." Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The public was first apprised of the alternative landfill offers from BFI and the City of Sunnyvale last February. At that time, the cities /town were asked to allocate funds for the consultant work. In that report, staff indicated that they would contact Alternate Landfill Disposal Site Page 4 Green Valley to obtain their estimated haul costs if waste was delivered to Newby Island Landfill. After the consultant completed the environmental assessment in May, the cities /town posted notices in the local papers advising residents of our intent to consider the project and the public's opportunity to comment on the project. In April and May, program staff forwarded a letter to Green Valley Disposal asking for their haul cost estimate to deliver waste to Newby Island Landfill, and to compare it to the haul cost estimates prepared by the cities' consultant. For the June 19, 1996 meeting, the agenda had been posted regarding the negative declaration and consideration of the alternate landfill site issue. Also, a copy of this report has been sent to Guadelupe Rubbish Disposal Company. Finally, proper posting of the agenda for this meeting occurred. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Further action on seeking an alternate landfill site and a contract for such would be curtailed, and further, should the City ever have need for a back up disposal site we would not be in any position to do so. Follow Up Actions: The City Manager will file a notice of Determination with the County Clerk. A signed copy of the contract will be forwarded to International Disposal Corporation. Attachments: A. West Valley Cities Landfill Disposal Site Initial Study /Negative Declaration dated May 3, 1996 B. Norman E. Matteoni letter of June 4, 1996 re: Comments Concerning Proposed Negative Declaration for Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste at Newby Island Landfill C. Michael Yesney Response of June 7, 1996 to Letter on Negative Declaration and Supplement to the Initial Study /Negative Declaration for the West Valley Cities Disposal Site D. Contract for alternate landfill disposal site with BFI E. Minutes of June 19, 1996 Council meeting NOTE: FULL COPY ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. Description of Project: ATTACHMENT A Date: May 3, 1996 West Valley Cities Garbage Landfill Disposal Site City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Paul Curtis, Community Development Director (408) 867 - 3438 x231 County of Santa Clara West Valley Cities (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga) Vera Dahle - Lacaze Solid Waste Program Manager (408) 354 -5017 The Cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and the Town of Los Gatos ("West- Valley Cities ") are proposing to change the location at which some or all of their municipal solid waste may be landfilled. The West Valley Cities presently have their municipal solid waste collected by a single waste hauler, Green Valley Disposal, and taken to the same sanitary landfill, the Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill and Materials Recovery Facility. The West Valley Cities are now considering contracting with a different sanitary landfill for disposal of their municipal waste, the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill and Recyclery. The West Valley Cities are not considering any change in the manner, frequency, or any other attribute of their current system for the collection of municipal waste. However, once the waste is collected, some or all of it would be hauled to a different landfill in a different part of Santa Clara County. �• I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT A. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT Four cities in Santa Clara County are proposing to change the location at which some or all of their municipal solid waste is landfilled. If this change is approved, garbage collected at homes, businesses and construction sites within these four cities will be hauled to the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, near the northerly border of Santa Clara County, instead of to the Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, near the southerly edge of the Santa Clara Valley (see Figure 1). B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Four of the cities in southwestern Santa Clara County presently have their municipal solid waste collected by a single waste hauler, Green Valley Disposal, and taken to the same sanitary landfill, the Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill and Materials Recovery Facility (Guadalupe). The four cities are Los Gatos, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Campbell (subsequently referred to as West Valley Cities). Each of the cities contracts separately with both the waste hauler and the landfill company. However, in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness, the four West Valley Cities negotiated similar contractual terms. Both the collection and disposal contracts cover waste collected from residences, businesses, and construction sites. There are also small pockets of unincorporated County property present between and adjacent to these four cities. The County pockets are served by this same collection and disposal "system ". The tern system is used because, in the interests of efficiency, the waste from these various jurisdictions is collected and intermingled in the same trucks and hauled to the same landfill. The West Valley Cities are now considering contracting with a different sanitary landfill for disposal of some or all of their municipal waste. The Newby Island Sanitary Landfill and Recyclery (Newby Island) is also located in Santa Clara County. Figure 1 shows the four West Valley Cities and the locations of both Guadalupe and Newby Island. The West Valley Cities are not considering any change in the manner, frequency, or any other attribute of their current system for the collection of municipal waste. However, once waste is collected, it would be hauled to a different landfill in a different part of Santa Clara County. The proposed destination landfill, Newby Island, is fully permitted under the appropriate regulations of Federal and State law, and has all of its local permits. No revision is required or proposed to any of the Newby Island landfill's permits or operating parameters. The four West Valley Cities also have their yard wastes collected by Green Valley and hauled to the Guadalupe site, where they undergo preliminary processing. No change is proposed in the manner or location at which yard wastes are collected or processed. WEST VALLEY CITIES 1 INITIAL STUDY LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE Nnted an Recycled PWcr MAY 1996 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of the project is to reduce the cost to the West Valley Cities of disposing solid waste by hauling waste to Newby Island rather than continuing to haul all of the waste to Guadalupe. D. CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT PLANS, GOALS, AND POLICIES In accordance with Section 15063(d)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, the following section discusses the consistency of the, project with relevant plans, policies, and land use controls. 1. Federal and State Policies Federal Clean Air Act The Federal Clean Air Act was enacted to protect and enhance air quality and promote the public's health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established Ambient Air Quality Standards, primarily implemented by State and local agencies. Consistency: The proposed project would not create any new fixed base (point) sources of air pollution and would not generate a significant amount of additional traffic. Since the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts, it would be consistent with the Clean Air Act. California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bi11939) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandates that by January 1, 1995 and January 1, 2000, each California City and County must be diverting 25 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of all solid waste generated within the jurisdiction from disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. This legislation requires each City and County to prepare, adopt, and submit to the County a Source Reduction and Recycling Element which addresses those goals. Consistency: The proposed change of disposal site would not affect the County's diversion goals. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this law. 2. Regional and Local Plans and Policies County of Santa Clara Integrated Waste Management Plan The main goals of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP) are to: 1) ensure an effective and efficient integrated waste management system 2) preserve the sustainability of our communities, and 3) conserve natural resources and landfill capacity in the County. - Consistg=: The proposed change of landfill disposal site for the West Valley Cities would Inot affect the amount of solid waste generated or disposed of in the County. The proposed disposal site is shown in the CoIWMP. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CoIWMP. WEST VALLEY CITIES 3 INITIAL STUDY LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE Printed on Recycled Papa MAY 1996 Source Reduction and Recycling Elements Each of the four cities has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The primary goal of the SRREs is to meet the waste diversion goals of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). The SRREs identify all of the permitted landfills within the County and identify each City's plans to deliver solid waste to Guadalupe Landfill. In conformance with State regulations, each City prepares an annual update to its solid waste programs which reflects any changes in those programs and any information in the SRRE that needs to be updated. Should the four cities decide to change their landfill disposal site, this change would be reflected in the following annual update. Consistency: The project would be inconsistent with the existing SRREs, however, upon completing the annual updates, this inconsistency would be resolved. San Jose 2020 General Plan The San Jose 2020 General Plan is an adopted statement of goals and policies which serve as the major planning document defining the character and quality of future development within the City of San Jose. Both the Guadalupe and Newby Island Landfills are designated as Private Open Space with Solid Waste Disposal Site overlays on the Land Use/Transportation Diagram of the adopted General Plan. Consistency: The project proposes hauling waste collected in the West Valley Cities to the Newby Island Landfill, which is an allowed use under the adopted General Plan. The project does not propose any change in the existing land use. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the San Jose 2020 General Plan. E. USES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT This Initial Study and Negative Declaration will be`used by each of the West Valley Cities in considering a contract with Browning - Ferris Industries (BFI) which would permit the solid waste collected within each of those cities to be landfilled at the Newby Island Landfill. WEST VALLEY CITIES 4 INITIAL STUDY LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE Mnwa on RwyrJed PWw MAY 1996 —• .. �.� . +r "- r�I— �� —1 —� —ifs �— i :'•SAN •�FR�/1fVCISCO• BAY.:.::•.`•:'.::•.•:.::.: :`'''•'::•:' : :��:�' :: :`.:'.::. wuta p TO MITT rRI[ T RATn11 •µ .»olo 880 j Ac•u+ MILP wp . I ITAS' • "'""�• ALVISO ° 4 qu vin- Lr�Lnl•+ - Lr.rwr.r °• ep . . It 1....r Hr +p• TTl 237 C +s o MOUNTAIN - ,ro if yrt c• IVIEWI lllcl . . { D.•.i f cl» AL I•r V 18 SUNNYVALE a r SANTA.CLARA� r`yy c SAN JOSE .y r1pY1 1.p •p • i�.l • y fir. p • Jy 1 v •op as CUPERTINO ��� •Y.� • �'° ~ cd u.. w� J• sw., p ,p r..• .vi y IF LL�4p!• A • All • ,.v s.. C.. s '10T •° `CAMPBELL w L� 87 85 5 ♦VI •� -.pp y� R E •u0p ra~ O !� �' C411 I.r•F •O.p ; ♦rrL • • 4iy~ plJ 17 Sr o •rM G V.T SA R ATO G A _"�r�° • a- - �••" r ��. • �' loser A. pl.. .. rows LOS GATO'S r� 4 \�` f �\y LI �r •U, o ri OCorporation Yard by © Newby Island 2 3Jh� © Caadalupe Landfill .'.i: REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1 FROM : City of Monte Sereno M�m '�60 Na l Y • BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL June 4, 1996 Mm. Arne Bybee city Clerk City of Campbell 7o worth First Street Campbell, CA 95008 ATTACHMENT B RECEIVED JUN 0 4 696 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Comments concerning Proposed Negative Declaration for Disposal of Municipal solid Waste at Newby Island Landfill Dear Madam Clerk: XPJ6A Cam, 1740 Ta kndoo DW6 S M-= Sm Js w. C:A 94110 OM 441.7800 FAX -W 441.7.07 Nimnon C. MaUwW ALn PAk" Saint MMINOv . EJW N.nda F4W M. O'Loas%bn Judy c. %W n mdky M. MOMR1 Rom 0. ! la mm our firm represents Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal company which currently serves the West Valley cities for disposal of municipal solid waste at the Guadalupe Sanitary ,Landfill. We have reviewed the proposed negative declaration in this matter and have the following comments. 9ACx0BOD�iD Newby Iceland Landfill is permitted under a solid waste facilities permit (No. 43 -AN -003). This permit is undergoing a live year review, including a review of the capacity of the site. The capacity noted in the proposed negative declaration is from the County of Santa Clara lneegraatGd solid haste Management Plan, Suv=ary Plan and Siting Element, November, 1995. This plan did not formally review capacity values for landfills in the County, but rather accepted the capacity number provided by the landfill operators. "I. Newby island Landfill also has been the subject or a revised contract between the City of San Jose and BFI, the operator of Newby Island; and no impact is noted from the reported extension of terms of this contract. JUN. i.i. 1 =':V0 10: 07RM F 3 FROM City of Monte Sereno PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 6 -13 -1996 10 : 54.AM FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC INKS 408 3760958 P.2 Ms. Anne Bybee June 4, 1.996 Page 2 The proposed negative declaration should address the capacity of the site based upon the most recent and accurate information instead or simply guetiimg the County Summary Plan. This information should be available from the City of San Jose and other contractors. rurther, BPI should be able to provide appropriate documentation concerning meeting capacity needs of currant contracts. SPECIFICS 1. No Asses,Mnt of Etiects on- -n la dfil I Lila or cumulative x=acts. The IS /ND identified that the project voula increase the flow of waste going to Newby Island by 11% (i.e., 346 tons /day or 90.011 tons /year) would be added to the 3current waste load of about 2,700 tons /day). That is actually a 14% increase, but the Newby Island facility Jr. permitted for 3,260 per average operating day and not more than 4,000 tons on any one day (from the Permit) . The addition of the waste from the four cities will shorten the life of the landfill projected in Table i of the IS /ND as 28 years by a corresponding amount (i.e., groin 29 to 23 years). This will have an impact on the other cities and communities who are using Newby Island as a disposal site, requiring those waste generators to look for an alternative site earlier than anticipated. if this happens, the earlier use of an alterna- tive sites could result in longer hauls for those cities and communities. This issue was not addressed in the IS /ND. The transfer of the tour citieso disposal site from Guadalupe Landfill to Newby Island would also reduce the waste going to Ouadalupe which could then open an opportunity for other municipalities or other waste generator to haul to the Guadalupe site. Depending on Where these waste generators were located, the "freeing" of capacity at the Guadalupe alto could have either a beneficial or an adverse impact on transportation, air quality and energy use. The whole issue of the change in fill rata, landfill life and cumulative effects on landfill users was not explored in the IS /ND. 2. Ina Mate Analysis__ of Air. o3aality Inyac a. The ISIriD contains an analysis of the increased emissions from JUfV. 1-�• 177p 1k�tJ7n1'i -. FROM : City of Monte Sereno PHONE NO. 408 395 7653 Opp, me. Anne Bybee June 4, 1996 Page 3 the project (transfer of the sour cities haul from the increase in haul distance from the point of pick -up to Newby Island Landfill compared to Guadalupe Landfill) . The increase in emissions from the increased haul .component was compared to the SAAQ= thresholds for criteria pollutants (p. 26). This analysis is incomplete according to the CEQA Guidelines, since, under AMjoasuin P&1;tor/ { 1=e _Rescue Cuter v. QuntX of_S aniaTauz (1994) 27 CA4th 713, 729 -734, 32 CR 704, this consideration of only the increase could be considered a "curtailed project description" or "truncated project concept." The IS /ND should also have considered the total air emissions of tine project resulting from the total transportation requirement for the haul of the Your cities, vast@ to Guadalupe Landfill vs. Newby Island in relation to the SAAQKD significance thresholds, rather than just the increase component caused by the relocation of haul. In other words, if the air emissions from the total haul are already significant according to the ELAAQM standard, then the increase in haul in.. by 'definition, significant, since it boosts a level of emissions Which was already eignifieant before the increase. 3. Cnn elusion of_XQi1-SiCMif1r.Anr.0 of Tra ltic and, Enemy Use 2lapaLats May Be vnjULt_iZ1rd. The I9JND states that the proposed project would increase the haul distance from reeidsntial, commercial and debris box vehicles by a total of 3.061 miles per week yet concludes that this increase is not significant. This increase in haul distance is not put into perspective by being expressed as a fraction of total haul distance for the four eitiesp waste haul. Similarly, the I5 %ND state& (p. 29) that the project would result in the consumption of 1.015 gallons of fuel per weak, but that this increase is not significant, "in the context of the overall fuel consumption associated with this solid waste System" (p. 29) . Yet the total amount of fuel consumption associated with the solid waste oyatem is not stated, so the proportion that the project increase represents cannot be computed. In addition, tho increase in fuel con- E d es60sLC ser s>% or-land 7asc"b0 pc w NVSS : 0 t 966 l -C t -9 JUN. 13. 1996 10: dyAM P �, FROM City of Monte Sereno PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 6 -13 -1996 10:55AM FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS 408 3760958 . Anne Byb00 June 4, 1996 Page 4 sumption could posaibly be coneiderad significant in the light of being in conflict with energy conservation objectives, and eeuld be c=x1aered to represent a "wnst*ful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy' according to CB'QAr unless there is a clear, overriding benefit to changing the location or the landfill f or these tour cities (see Appendix F to CEQA Guidelines). Thin putative benefit is not made clear in the IS /ND. CONMUnrc N Therefore, the ini~ial study for the proposed negative declaration is inadequate and additional information and /or preparation of a full EiR is necessary. Please provide any respons®es to coaents or further information on this matter to Jim Lord, ouadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company, P.O. Box 20957, San Jose, CA 95160. very urs, NORMAN E. ONI NEM: and cc: Ti= Lord 0 P. 'd BE © DAVID J. POWERS ATTACID ENT C O .•:�— T r+c -- .. © ®o U_ June 7, 1996 MEMO TO: WEST VALLEY CITIES FROM: MICHELLE YESNEY DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES RE: RESPONSE TO LETTER ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION Attached please find my analysis of the issues raised in the letter from Matteoni, Saxe and Nanda, dated June 4, 1996. Please let me know if you have any questions, or require further clarification. I do not have a clean copy of the letter itself, but I suggest that you attach such a copy of the letter to this document and include it in your Initial Study file for the project. Please let me know if there is any additional assistance I can provide on this matter. 10 Environmental Consultants dt Planners 1885 The Alameda - Suite 204 - San lose, CA 95126 - Tel: 408- 248-3500 - Fax: 408- 248 -9641 Tlnnn17nnZ •n1T vv. •nnnnv r ntTT11 nT rtTIVn TIT 0 '•7 T V J nC_1 _ ?10P SUPPLEMENT TO THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEST VALLEY CITIES DISPOSAL SITE A letter was received by the City Clerk of the City of Campbell, dated June 4, 1996, from the firm of Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda (attached). The letter asked certain questions about the analysis done for the above referenced Initial Study. Following are responses to and clarification of the issues raised in that letter. Item: Under "Background ", the letter points out that the landfill capacity numbers in the Initial Study were taken from the CoIWMP'. It also notes that the Newby Island landfill has been the subject of a contract amendment between Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) and the City of San Jose, which was not discussed. The letter suggests that the Initial Study should address the capacity of the site based upon the "most recent and accurate information ", and that this information should be available from BFI and/or the City of San rose. Response: The numbers in the Initial Study which were taken from the CoIWMP are the most recent and accurate information currently available about the estimated life expectancy (not landfill capacity) of all of the landfills in the County. It should be noted that the "capacity figures" listed in the Initial Study are only daily permitted "gate capacity" figures, or the maximum amount of waste which is allowed to be buried in the landfill on a daily basis. The JaW lifetime "capacity" of a landfill is always subject to interpretation, and figures may vary based on a number of variables and/or assumptions. The five year review of Newby Island landfill referred to in the letter is just beginning. There is no updated Report of Disposal Site Information for Newby Island yet complete. It would be inappropriate to include speculative or hearsay information in this Initial Study that contradicted the CoIWMP, even if such information were available. With regard to the recent contract amendment between BFI and the City of San Jose, the amendment reduced the annual tonnage which San Jose was required to deliver or pay for at Newby Island, and extended the term of the agreement by four years and nine months. Using the numbers contained in a staff report to the San Jose City Council dated November 21, 1995, the total capacity contractually allocated to the City of San Jose was reduced by the contract amendment by a total of between one and two million tons (actually between 1.16 and 2.01 million tons). That "capacity" could then be considered as available for sale to others. Other recent changes in that city's waste management system have allowed certain commercial waste generators to contract separately for waste collection and disposal. Waste that was being delivered to Newby Island under the City of San Jose's exclusive franchise is now being landfilled independently; probably at least some is going to Guadalupe Landfill. 'County Integrated Waste Management Plan C I IfiQFQi7Qfl� 'nv yy.J '111QCy p U710r)j 17�Yrr tiTJ !c•7 iva OP_! _rnr Landfill life expectancy is a function of the amount of waste that is received, as well as the ultimate capacity allowed by the permit (in other words, how high the landfill mound can be built). Recent analyses done by the City of San Jose Local Enforcement Agency for the California Integrated Waste Management Board concluded that Newby Island is operating within the parameters of its operating permit? This means that the landfill receives less than 4,000 tons on any one day, and less than 3,260 tons per day on an annualized average. If the landfill receives close to their gate capacity, the lif4 expectancy of the landfill will be shorter. According to BFI, almost half of their incoming waste is non - contractual. This means that it comes from a variety of sources and is not a "secured" waste stream it could be redirected by the waste generators to another landfill at any time. If the incoming waste approaches the landfill's gate capacity, BFI themselves must redirect some of the non - contracted waste to another landfill. All of the most recent information available about waste management and waste disposal practices in the County indicate that available landfill capacity in the County is increasing beyond that anticipated by the CoIWMP, primarily as a result of waste diversion practices. The analysis in the Initial Study therefore reflects an appropriate conservative estimate of landfill life. Item: The first issue raised under "Specifics" states that no assessment of effects on landfill life or cumulative impacts was done. It is stated that the proposed project would shorten the landfill by exactly the percentage represented by the incoming tonnage. The specific concern is explained as a possibility that if the proposed project shortens the landfill life of Newby Island, this could result in longer hauls for cities and communities using Newby Island. In addition, a concern is expressed that the "freeing" of capacity at Guadalupe could result in other generators using Guadalupe, having either beneficial or adverse impacts, which should be addressed in the Initial Study. Response: This comment invites inappropriate speculation about what might happen in the future (after Newby Island closes, 25 years from now) if the project is approved. What other jurisdictions or private waste generators might do that far into the future, given. the recent rate of change in the waste management industry and the current locally abundant landfill capacity, is not something that anyone can predict. Landfill life is generally a function of the amount and type of waste buried in the landfill, how the landfill is operated, how much cover material is used, what compaction is used to process the waste, and so on. Newby Island is currently operating at below their permitted gate capacity. If they receive an amount of waste which is closer to their gate capacity, they will reach the end of the landfill's life faster than would otherwise be the case. The West Valley Cities' waste stream does not include much industrial waste, making it significantly different than some of the more industrial communities in the County which already use Newby Island landfill. Exactly how that would affect landfill capacity differently than other waste delivered to Newby Island is not known. It would not be accurate to state that it would Conversation with Dennis Ferrier, City of San Jose LEA, June 7, 1996. 2 'J I;OPO;7QO1 'nr vvi 19 ()TUAM nT AWT T'•TI !C •7 JYJ Q�_! _Vnf decrease landfill capacity (and therefore landfill life) by exactly the average percentage that it increases the amount of waste coming through the landfill gate on a particular month. As is stated in the Initial Study (page 30), the proposed project would decrease the active life of the landfill at Newby Island and extend the life of the Guadalupe landfill. Guadalupe Landfill, on the other hand, is also operating at well below their permitted gate capacity (917 out of a permitted 3,510 tons per day). The other jurisdictions or waste generators referred to in the letter who might be encouraged to use Guadalupe if the West Valley Cities stopped, could actually deliver their waste there now. It would be inappropriate (and inaccurate) to identify a hypothetical change in other waste delivery patterns as being a result of the proposed project. Many of the requirements of the Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) were intended to encourage cities and counties to deal with waste management issues, especially disposal issues, on a regional basis. The CoIWMP and other planning documents which assign disposal capacity on a county-wide basis reinforce this policy. The Initial Study concludes that the proposed project will not change the amount of disposal capacity available to the region. There may be other incremental shifts of waste hauled to different landfills in the future. It is not possible to predict what those shifts might be. Item: The second issue raised under "Specifics" states that the Initial Study should have considered the air emissions from the project as being the air emissions from "the total transportation requirement for the haul of the four cities' waste to Guadalupe Landfill vs Newby Island" and compared those total emissions to the significance thresholds. The statement is made that "if the air emissions from the total haul are already significant according to the BAAQMD' standard, then the increase in haul is, by definition, significant...." The letter also refers to a particular court case (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v County of Stanislaus) as support for its position. Response: The air emissions analysis was a good faith effort on the part of the Lead Agencies to identify the additional increment of impact which might accrue from the project. The BAAQMD guidelines for air quality analyses actually allow the use of vehicle trips as a an alternate measure for determining whether or not the thresholds might be exceeded. Using that measure (2,000 trips per day) the project would not have had to prepare an air quality analysis. Since the BAAQMD guidelines did not anticipate such an atypical project as a change in a waste disposal site, additional analysis was considered appropriate to ensure that the change would not cause a significant deterioration in the regional air quality. Because regional air quality already does not meet current regulatory standards, BAAQMD established certain thresholds of significance. This was specifically done to avoid projects having to guess about what constituted a "significant" additional impact to the already existing air quality problems. The air quality emissions which 'Bay Area Air Quality Management District C '; IiOPP{7pnl 'ON YYJ *1ncCY p U7MM nt.ANR tiU PC *7 rua OP-/ -unr would be generated if the proposed project were approved was found to be less than one -sixth of those thresholds. Another recent court case found that project impacts must make a "considerable" addition to cumulative impacts before a project warranted preparation of an EIR.4 This reinforced existing CEQA Guidelines language which states that an EIR must be prepared if the project would have "cumulatively considerable" impacts, when considered in conjunction with past, current and probable future projects [ §15065(c)]. The Initial Study concluded that the results of the proposed project would not constitute a considerable addition to the local or regional air quality nonattainment conditions. With regard to the statement in the letter that considering only the increased vehicle travel distances constitutes a "curtailed project description ", insisting that the four cities need to look at the total waste haul distance (which would result in a change in the project definition) seems to imply that the cities could choose not to continue to collect garbage. The Initial Study specifically states that there is no intention to change the garbage collection system (page 6) other than minor revisions (page 29). The CEQA Guidelines define "project" as the "whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimatoly "; it also states that project `refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term `project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." There is no intention here of curtailing the project by omitting or overlooking part of the result of this discretionary action, or of omitting or overlooking other discretionary approvals or other governmental agencies' approvals. The total project which is being considered for approval by the Lead Agencies is the change in disposal site from Guadalupe to Newby Island. There are no other discretionary actions known to the Lead Agencies to be necessary for this project to occur, and there are no other actions contemplated by the Lead Agencies themselves. The Initial Study identifies all of the changes in the physical environment which are considered likely to occur if this project is approved. The Lead Agencies do not agree that the project should be redefined to include the entire waste collection system; that definition would mislead the public as to the action contemplated, and the analysis would not accurately evaluate the true impact of the proposed discretionary action. Item: The letter asks that the increased haul distance (3,061 miles per week) be compared to the total haul distance for the four cities' waste in order to'evaluate whether or not the increase is significance. The letter points out that the increased fuel consumption is also not compared to the total fuel consumption, which would allow the significance of the proportional increase to be evaluated. It is stated that the increased fuel consumption might be in conflict with energy conservation objectives and could be considered a "wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy" unless there is a "clear overriding benefit ". 4San Joaquin Raptor /Wildlife Rescue Center v County of Stanislaus, (1996) Fifth District Court of Appeal. This is a different San Joaquin Raptor decision than the one cited in the letter. 4 0 '1 t ;aPo{,7PO{ 'MT YHd '1nCCN A Ulmnj 17,AY1 A.i1 PC '7 TAJ Qn_f _Mnr Response: The waste hauler was not required to provide information on the total miles traveled or the total fuel consumption for the four cities' total waste collection and hauling system. It is not possible, therefore, to compare the total system numbcrs. The conclusion of nonsignificance in the Initial Study was based on the size of the increased mileage compared to the general size and scope of the overall system. The waste collection and hauling system provides services for four cities, and collects waste on a weekly basis from approximately 29,250 households, over 5,000 commercial bins (some accounts have more than one bin) and 126 debris boxes. In that context, the additional 33.3 miles per existing truck shift' per week was not considered to be a significant increase. The issue of whether or not the increased fuel consumption is wasteful and unnecessary must be decided by the four cities in the context of determining the most efficient overall design of their solid waste management system. Allocation of resources and the determination of what is or is not wasteful or unnecessary, including the selection of the appropriate disposal site, is a subjective judgment. The quotation in the letter cites Appendix F. of the CEQA Guidelines, which are suggestions for how to write an energy analysis in an EIR. There is no requirement in CEQA for establishing an overriding benefit for a project evaluated in an Initial Study. The letter raises a number of questions, regarding the analysis in the Initial Study. None of the questions raise issues not addressed in the Initial Study, nor is there any information provided which would conflict with the conclusions reached in the Negative Declaration. 'A truck shift was defined in the Initial Study as a truck and a driver working a full shift. 5 !. 'a I�UP,7Pnl 'nV YYa ion qy � SNimry ni �vn wi n1 :7 Iva OP -1. -A1nP ATTACHMENT E City Council Minutes - Junes 19., 1996 C. Newby Island Landfill Contract City Manager Peacock presented the staff report and noted that Campbell and Monte Sereno had recently taken action similar to the one recommended. WOLFE /MORAN TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO FINALIZE NEGOTIATIONS AND BRING BACK A RECOMMENDED CONTRACT FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Peggy 0 Loughlin, Matteoni Saxe & Nanda law firm, said she was representing Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Co. and Green Valley Disposal. Referring to the letter included as attachment B to the staff report, she asked that Council not approve the negative declaration for the following reasons: • The Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS /ND) did not assess the effects on landfill life or cumulative impacts. • The IS /ND contained an incomplete analysis of air quality impacts. • The conclusion of non - significance of traffic and energy use impacts may be unjustified. She concluded that the initial study for the proposed negative declaration is inadequate and additional information and /or preparation of a full EIR is necessary. Ms. 0 Loughlin said she had reviewed the response to the issues she had raised in the letter and had appeared the night before at Monte Sereno s council meeting and asked them for an opportunity to comment on the report that outlines the economic impacts and cost savings the City can utilize. She said Guadalupe and Green Valley would like to provide the cost information in terms of haul rate difference between Newby and Guadalupe. Councilmember Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs agreed that this is a matter of a difference of opinion between parties and has to do with economics and competition. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. Mayor Jacobs returned the agenda to Item 6. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. City of Saratoga Budget, 1996 -97 and 1997 -98 (continued from June 5) 1) Resolution adopting budget 2) Resolution adopting appropriations limit 3) Resolution adding to salary classes and permanent position classifications 4) Resolution authorizing permanent positions 5) Resolution adopting fee schedule SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Y EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 9 Y 6 MEETING DATE: January 15, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk 1'61 �.? Cs AGENDA ITEM 7C--, CITY MGR. SUBJECT: ENDING DATES OF PLANNING AND LIBRARY COMMISSION TERMS Recommended Motion: If a change is desired, direct staff to prepare resolution changing future Planning Commission terms to expire in April of odd - numbered years and future Library Commission terms to expire in October of even - numbered years. Background: In October 1996, in connection with the most recent interviews for Planning Commission, the staff suggested that the City Council might wish to consider changing Planning Commission terms so that they would not expire immediately before a City Council election. The City Council directed the staff to prepare a report on a possible change in early 1997. This is that report. Report Summary: If the Council would like to pursue this idea, it would be relatively easy to do so by switching terms with the Library Commission. Planning Commission terms would then expire in April of odd years, and Library Commission terms in October of even years. The transition could be handled in several ways. The simplest method would be to extend the terms of all incumbent Planning Commissioners by six months to April of 1999 (Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Pierce) and 2001 (Bernald, Patrick, Siegfried) and appoint Library Commissioners to 3 1/2 -year terms ending in October of 2000 (Ceppos, Grantham, Towse) and 2002 (Foscato, Manzo, McLaughin, Sessler) Next month we will start Library Commission recruitment. Under the new system, the three people appointed to those seats would serve the terms expiring in 2000. The four people appointed in April 1999 would serve terms expiring in 2002. After the transition, all terms would be for a normal four years. The Community Development Director, Administrative Analyst, and Planning Commission Chair have stated that they find no difficulties with this plan. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: Staff will advertise vacancies according to the new schedule. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: None, except that Planning Commissioners would continue to be appointed immediately before an election. Attachments: 1. Commission Term Expirations 74 Current: 10/98 10 /00 10/98 10/98 10 /00 10/98 10/00 Current: 4/97 4/99 4/97 4/99 4/99 4/99 4/97 PLANNING COMMISSION TERM EXPIRATIONS Abshire Bernald Kaplan Murakami Patrick Pierce Siegfried Ceppos Foscato Grantham Manzo McLaughlin Sessler Towse Proposed Extension to: 4/99 4/01 4/99 4/99 4/01 4/99 4/01 LIBRARY COMMISSION TERM EXPIRATIONS Appoint to: 10 /00 10/02 10 /00 10/02 10/02 10/02 10 /00 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0, - I") AGENDA I7 MEETING DATE: JANUARY 15, 1997 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEA SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Restrooms - Approval of Design Services Agreement RecommgndedM_Qt2nLE0_ : 1. Move to accept the proposal from Warren B. Heid & Associates dated December 19 to provide design services for the restroom project and authorize staff to enter into a standard professional services agreement in the amount of $3,500. 2. Move to direct staff to establish a new Capital Project budget for the project. Report Summary: Following up from the Council's direction provided on October 22, the Hakone Foundation has solicited proposals from qualified architectural firms to provide design services for the new restroom facilities at the gardens. Because of the relatively small scope of work, only three architects were contacted, one of whom chose not to respond to the Foundation's solicitation. A sub - committee of the Foundation charged with developing the project reviewed the two proposals which were received and has ranked the proposal from Warren B. Heid & Associates (attached) as the better of the two. The Foundation is now recommending that the City accept this proposal and enter into an agreement for the identified scope of work. Staff has also reviewed the proposal and is satisfied with both its contents and the proposed cost for the services. Mr. Heid, as you know, is a well respected local architect who staff is certain is well qualified to perform the necessary design development work. His firm has successfully worked for the City in the past. The Foundation would like to proceed with the design work at this time while rental activity at the Gardens is at a minimum. Their desire is to complete the design work this spring but to hold off construction until later this year during the next slow season. Completing the design now however will allow them to better market the Gardens during the upcoming heavy booking period by allowing them to at least show prospective rental parties what improvements are planned for the Gardens in the coming year. Staff also believes that now is an appropriate time to move forward with the design work since activity on other capital projects is light, and staff has adequate time to devote to the oversight of this phase of the project. In order to proceed with the design work, staff is recommending that the Council accept the attached proposal from Warren B. Heid & Assoc. and authorize staff to enter into a standard professional services agreement for the work for a fixed fee of $3,500. The difference between this amount and the amount in the proposal is the $850 fee for construction administration services which staff does not feel is necessary to approve at this time. If the Council approves this recommendation, it should also direct staff to assign the.project a Capital Project number and budget and to return with this information at the next Council meeting with the appropriate budget amendment resolution. Fiscal Impacts: The recommended fee for design services is $3,500 which would be paid out of the Park Development Fund (Fund 31). The authorized budget for the entire project is $100,000, the remainder of which would also come from the Park Development Fund. There is a sufficient balance in Fund 31 to fund the entire project budget. Advertising,-Noticing and Public Cgntact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The proposal from Warren B. Heid & Assoc. would not be accepted and the design work on the project would not proceed. Staff would follow whatever other direction the Council may give. 1. A standard professional services agreement in the amount of $3,500 will be executed with Warren B. Head & Assoc. 2. A budget amendment resolution for the project will be prepared and a Capital Project number and budget will be developed. Attachments: 1. Proposal from Warren B. Heid & Associates dated December 19. 2. Letter from Hakone Foundation dated December 27. WARREN B. HEID AIA & ASSOCIATES 114630 BIG BASIN 'NA`( SARA SGA - CALIFORNIA 951:70 • 4 C 8 367 93 05 WARREN B. HE!D AIA S EVSN M. BE ^RING AAA. =,�.;< 4C8 3C-7 37� December 19, 1996 Hakone Foundation Post Office Box 2324 Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Kay Duffy, President Dear President Duffy and the Hakone Foundation Board, This letter is in response to the letter from the Hakone Foundation dated December 16, 1996 requesting a proposal from this office to provide architectural services for a new restroom facility at Hakone Gardens. After receiving the letter I called Syd Dunton to ask questions on what was required with our proposal. He said that we were not to provide any of the listed items with the proposal, but to include all of this work as the requirement of services. This office will produce the following documents under a fixed fee program so that our fee will be known for your $100,000 budget. The construction documents will include: 1. Site Plan with all required dimensions for locating the new building, fire access road, parking, paths, etc. 2. Floor Plan with all A.D.A. requirements identified. 3. Exterior Elevations following the style suggested on the drawings that accompanied the letter. 4. Foundation Plan and details 5. Framing details including special roof framing to meet the Japanese style. 6. Special details including ridge member, eave and overhang details, window details, etc. 7. Electrical Plan with electrical requirements including lighting. 8. Plumbing Plan identifying plumbing fixtures and sewer piping layout to meet the existing sewer line. 9. Landscaping including any fencing, screens, benches, and pathways in the immediate area of the restroom building. 10. Specifications for all items involved with the building except that the City of Saratoga shall provide the Division /Section on the General Conditions and other such City requirements to accompany our specifications for bidding and construction. 'rroposai to Hakone Foundation For Services for Restroom at Hakone Gardens December 19, 1996 - Page 2. we plan to provide all architectural and structural requirements to meet the requirements of the uniform Building Code. Our fixed fee for the above work is as follows: Design Phase and Consultation for that Phase $800.00 Construction Document Phase - Architectural et al $1,500.00 Construction Document Phase - Structural $1,200.00 Construction Administration Phase .$850.00 Total fixed fee $4,350.00 This fee does not include any hours for special requirements for approval from the City of Saratoga, additional consultation with the Hakone Foundaion Board other than the programmed ten (10) hours for the design requirements, or any consultation during construction other than the programmed ten (10) hours for review of construction and payment request review. If addition hours are required the hourly rate is $100.00 for the principal architect, $85.00 per hour for the Project Architect, and $65.00 for the Draftsperson. All reimbursable expenses, such as the costs for the printing of the drawings and the specific- ations, will be billed at our cost. It is our hopes that all can be accomplished with the hours estimated and required to provide our services with this fixed fee. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the Foundation as we have enjoyed our association with previous building design. Sincerely, Warren B. Heid AIA WBH:hw Hakone- Foundation December 27,, 1906 City of Saratoga - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue - Saratoga California 95070 Aun: Larry Perlin, City Engineer Re: Hakone Gardens Rest Rooms - Dear Mr. Perlin, . We drew up a "Request For Proposal" for the rest room facilities for Hakone Gardens and mailed it to three (3) architects. We evaluated the responses and chose to work with Warren Heid of Saratoga. -_ Warren Heid AlA &Associates, in turn, has sent a contract (copy enclosed) to us for approval. The Foundation accepted °the corifract and now asks you to review the contract and make recommendation to the City Council to award the contract As you know, the City has an ear - marked $100,000 for the entire budget and the architect's fee would come directly out of this figure.. ; We are aware of the difficulties of the time frame because of the rental season for the Gardens and also of unseen variables such as weather, etc. but sincerely wish to push on ° :r this project. , liT We look forward to working with the City and are confident that the fob -will go -along" , harmoniously s J Sincerely, ', ' Syd Dunton `. ..... t Rest Room Committee Lv y 4ii yY. y, t i eucl:. contract Post Office Box 2324, Saratoga, California 95070 -0324 -4994 .408/741 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. fly' AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: JANUARY 15, 1997 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Report on issuance of emergency purchase order Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the report. Report Summary: Section 2- 45.070(c) of the Municipal Code requires a report on emergency purchases in excess of $5,000 to be submitted to the City Council at the next regular meeting following the purchase. This memo satisfies that requirement with respect to an emergency purchase made in December for the completion of striping and signaqe work along Saratoga Avenue. As the Council may recall, there were considerable problems with the work performed by the striping sub - contractor working for the City's general contractor on the 1996 Pavement Management Program. Included in this contract was the installation of striping, markings and signaqe along Saratoga Avenue necessitated in large part by the installation of the new traffic signal at Scotland Dr. The original work performed by the striping sub- contractor was of such poor quality that I directed the general contractor to remove the sub - contractor from the project. I further advised the general contractor that the City would contract separately with another striping contractor to correct the work which had been performed and to complete the remaining work which was still unfinished. The general contractor was informed that the costs for this work would be deducted from their contract with the City. In early December, the City obtained 3 bids from known reputable striping contractors to correct and complete the work. The low bid was submitted by Chrisp Company of Fremont for $8,621. An emergency purchase order was issued to this firm in the amount of their bid and the work was completed towards the end of the month. The cost for the work was then deducted from the retention payment owed the general contractor. Fiscal Imr)acts : Since the cost for the emergency work was deducted from payments owed to the general contractor, there were no additional costs to the City as a result of making this emergency purchase. Sufficient funds for the work existed in Activity 31 (Street Maintenance), Account 4510 (Contract Services). Advertising. Noticing and public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. Follow U8 Aetions: None. Attachments: 1. Municipal Code Section 2- 45.070(c). -.r 2- 45.060 The appropriate account and funds shall be encumbered immediately after the issuance of the purchase order. 2- 45.070 Authorization for purchase orders and contracts; emergencies. (a) The Purchasing Officer is hereby authorized to issue purchase orders and award contracts for supplies or services where the cost thereof does not exceed Five Thousand Dollars. (b) Contracts or purchase orders for supplies or servic- es involving a cost in excess of Five Thousand Dollars must be approved or awarded by the City Council. (c) Notwithstanding Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Section or any other provision of this Article, the Pur- chasing Officer may purchase supplies or services having a cost in excess of Five Thousand Dollars in the event of emergency requiring the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and precluding action by the City Council. In such instances, the Purchasing Officer shall submit to the City Council at its next suc- ceeding meeting a written report describing the circum- stances of the emergency, the supplies or services pur- hased, and the cost thereof. 245.080 Use of brand names. (a) Brand name or equal specifications may be used when the Purchasing Officer determines that (1) No other design or performance specification or products list is available; or (2) Time does not permit the preparation of another form of purchase description which does not include a brand name specification; or (3) The nature of the product or the nature of the City's requirements makes use of a brand name or equal specifi- cation suitable for the procurement; or (4) Use of a brand name or equal specification is in the City's best interests. (b) Brand name or equal specifications shall state that substantially equivalent products to those designated will be considered for award. (c) V'd'­­�e a brand name or equal specification is used in a solicit; :.i an, the solicitation shall contain explanatory language that the use of a brand name is for the purpose of describing the standard of quality, performance and characteristics desired and is not intended to limit or restrict competition. 2- 45.090 Basis of award. (a) Purchases of supplies or services will be made on the basis of the bid or bids mos* advantageous to the City. In adr', � `nn to price, the criteria for determining the 24 most advantageous bid shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Compliance with the bid specifications. (2) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services required. (3) The ability of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services promptly, or within the time specified, without delay or interference. (4) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the bidder. (5) The quality of the bidder's performance on previous purchases or contracts with the City. (6) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with the ordinances of the City. (7) The sufficiency of the bidder's financial resources to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services required. (8) The quality, availability and adaptability of the supplies or services to the particular use required. (9) The ability of the bidder to provide future main- tenance, repair parts and services for the use of the sup- plies purchased. (10) The number and scope of conditions attached to the bid. (b) Where a formal competitive bidding procedure is required and the contract is not awarded to the bidder offering the lowest price, the Purchasing Officer shall prepare and place on file with the records of such contract a written statement of the reasons for the award. Such statement shall be open to public inspection. 2- 45.095 Recycled paper. (a) The Purchasing Officer shall establish and maintain procedures and specifications for the purchase of paper and paper products which give preference, whenever feasible, to the purchase of recycled paper, and paper products containing recycled paper. (b) The Purchasing Officer shall purchase recycled paper and paper products, instead of unrecycled paper and paper proclu-i—s., whenever such recycled paper and paper products ace available at no more than the total cost of unrecycled paper and paper products, and when fitness and quality are equal. (c) The Purchasing Officer may provide a preference to the suppliers of recycled paper or paper products equal to five percent of the lowest bid or price quoted by suppliers offering unrecycled paper or paper products. (d) The term "recycled paper," as used in this Section, shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 10391 of the State Public ti'ontract Code. C. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: JANUARY 15, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAL SUBJECT: Recommendation for funding Baylor Avenue Traffic Calminq Study RecQmmencd d Mg ionds)_ : Move to accept staff's recommendation for funding the Baylor Avenue Traffic Calming study. Report Summary: On December 18, the Council approved a $- Traffic Calming study for Baylor Avenue. staff to recommend how to fund the study budget authority and then, if necessary, contingency reserve. Upon review of the status reports, staff has identified the existing budget authority and recommends follows: 1,000 proposal for a The Council directed first from available from the Council's six month expenditure entire $4,000 from funding the study as $2,000 from Activity 29 (Development Regulation), Account 4510 (Contract Services). $1,000 from Activity 29 (Development Regulation), Account 4545 (Inspection Services). $ 500 from Activity 38 (General Engineering), Account 4510 (Contract Services). $ 500 from Activity 38 (General Engineering), Account 4520 (Engineering Services). Expenses in each of the above four accounts are running less than anticipated, enough so that the noted amounts can be transferred without affecting service levels for the remainder of the fiscal year. If the Council accepts this recommendation, a budget transfer resolution authorizing the transfers will be placed on your February 5 agenda. Fiscal Impacts: As noted above. Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The recommended funding will not be approved. Staff will await further Council direction. Follow Up Actions: A budget transfer resolution authorizing the recommended transfers will be prepared for the February 5 Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Expenditure status reports through December 31 for Activities 29 (Development Regulation) and 38 (General Engineering). 12/31/96 FUND 0001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT DIVISION �, ON TRANS TRANS ENCUMB POSTING, ACCOUNT DATE CODE NUMBER REFERENCE VENDOR 3010 BEGINNING BALANCE 12/05/96 22 PAYRLL 12/19/96 22 PAYRLL ENDING BALANCE 3030 BEGINNING BALANCE 12/05/96 22 12/19/96 22 12/31/96 22 ENDING BALANCE 3040 BEGINNING BALANCE 5330 BEGINNING BALANCE ENDING BALANCE 5583 BEGINNING BALANCE ENDI�'G BALANCE 5700 BEGINNING BALANCE 12/31/56 19 ENDING, C.4LANCE TOTAL ORGANIZATION PAYRLL PAYRLL 961217 DECISIONMATE FUND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM CITY OF SARATOGA EXPENDITURE AUDIT TRAIL PERIOD ENDING 12/31/96 wwm� ORIGINAL BUDGET 43,361.00 43,361.00 11,864.00 11,864.00 196.00 196.00 PAGE 11 ENDING BALANCE 4100 BEGINNING BALANCE YEAR TO DATE ENDING BALANCE 0 4510 EGINNING BALANCE OUTSTANDING 12/13/96 21 17005 17,197.02 12/20/96 21 17006 100.00 12/21/96 13 PAYROLL FRINGES ENDING BALANCE 05 BEGINNING BALANCE 0.00 12/13/96 21 22,774.85 12/21/96 13 0.00 ENDING BALANCE 0 4545 EGINNING BALANCE PAYROLL FRINGES 12/13/96 21 17007A 0.00 12/13/96 21 17008A 840.65 ENDING BALANCE 5330 BEGINNING BALANCE ENDING BALANCE 5583 BEGINNING BALANCE ENDI�'G BALANCE 5700 BEGINNING BALANCE 12/31/56 19 ENDING, C.4LANCE TOTAL ORGANIZATION PAYRLL PAYRLL 961217 DECISIONMATE FUND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM CITY OF SARATOGA EXPENDITURE AUDIT TRAIL PERIOD ENDING 12/31/96 wwm� ORIGINAL BUDGET 43,361.00 43,361.00 11,864.00 11,864.00 196.00 196.00 PAGE 11 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 69107 McDOWELL ASSOCIATES, INC. 69207 WILLIAM COTTON & 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 750.00 0.00 - 555.00 - 555.00 4,800.00 - 750.00 69105 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILVER 0.00 BUDGET YEAR TO DATE ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET•BALANCE/ ADJUSTMENT EXPENDITURES OUTSTANDING DESCRIPTION 0.00 17,197.02 0.00 26,163.98 100.00 .1,694.57 100.00 PAYROLL FRINGES CONSULTANT SERVICES 11694.56 7,250.00 PAYROLL FRINGES 0.00 20,586.15 0.00 22,774.85 0.00 51007.19 0.00 6,856.81 NOV.LEGAL SERVICES 170.73 PAYROLL FRINGES 4,605.00 170.73 0.00 PAYROLL FRINGES 12,877.50 840.65 1,035.00 PAYROLL BENEFITS 0.00 6,189.30 0.00 5,674.70 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 69107 McDOWELL ASSOCIATES, INC. 69207 WILLIAM COTTON & 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 750.00 0.00 - 555.00 - 555.00 4,800.00 - 750.00 69105 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILVER 0.00 0.00 555.00 4,800.00 - 195.00 30,000.00 0.00 69087 DINI, GOLFREDO 0.00 69101 LEWIS, HOWARD 14,122.28 30, 000. _': 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.00 0.00 0.00 196.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 20,877.72 14,122.28 15,000.00 440.00 - 440.00 CITY SURVEYOR 5,459.10 - 5,459.10 CONSULTANT SERVICES 0.00 7,250.00 TRANSFER TO 4515 2, 000 26,776.82 8,223.18 14,445.00 r 2,675.00 0.00 1,375.00 1,930.00 NOV.LEGAL SERVICES TRANSFER FROM 4510 4,605.00 0.00 0.00 81122.50 12,877.50 9,000.00 1,035.00 - 1,035.00 INSPECTION SERVICES 787.50 - 787.50 INSPECTION SERVICES $1,000 9,945.00 11,055.00 9,000.00�� 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 34,503.00 0.00 14,375.00 0.00 20,128.00 961201 2,875.00 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION. 34,503.A* 0.00 7,250.00 0.00 17,253.00 174,899.00 0.00 86;102.27 19,278.18 69,518.55 12[31%96 DECISIONMATE FUND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM CITY OF SARATOGA EXPENDITURE AUDIT TRAIL PERIOD ENDING 12/� FUND 0001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT . DIVISION ��� TRANS TRANS ENCUMB POSTING ORIGINAL ACCOUNT DATE CODE NUMBER REFERENCE VENDOR BUDGET 3010 BEGINNING BALANCE 79,681.00 12/05/96 22 PAYRLL 12/19/96 22 PAYRLL ENDING BALANCE 79,681.00 3030 BEGINNING BALANCE 21,818.00 12/05/96 22 PAYRLL 12/19/96 22 PAYRLL 12/31/96 22 961217 ENDING BALANCE 21,818.00 3040 BEGINNING BALANCE 1,010.00 ENDING BALANCE 1,010.00 4100 BEGINNING BALANCE 200.00 ENDING BALANCE 200.00 4120 BEGINNING BALANCE 200.00 01/03/97 21 69248 STAPLES ENDING BALANCE 200.00 4510 BEGINNING BALANCE 1,200.00 ENDING BALANCE 1,200.00 4515 BEGINNING BALANCE 11500.00 ENDING BALANCE 1,500.00 4520 EGINNING BALANCE 7,300.00 ENDING BALANCE 7,300.00 4545 BEGINNING BALANCE 12,000.00 12/13/96 21 170078 69087 DINI, GOLFREDO 12/13/96 21 17008D 69101 LEWIS, HOWARD ENDING, BALANCE 12,000.00 5330 BEGINNING BALANCE 600.00 ENDING, BALANCE 600.00 5583 BEGINNING BALANCE 200.00 12/06/96 21 17369 68816 CELSOC ENDING BALANCE 200.00 5700 BEGINNING BALANCE 68,058.00 PAGE 18 BUDGET YEAR TO DATE ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET BALANCE/ ADJUSTMENT EXPENDITURES OUTSTANDING DESCRIPTION 0.00 31,694.82 0.00 47,986.18 .3,099.54 PAYROLL FRINGES 3,099.54 PAYROLL FRINGES 0.00 37,893.90 0.00 41,787.10 0.00 8,954.94 0.00 12,863.06 371.97 PAYROLL FRINGES 371.96 PAYROLL FRINGES 1,517.51 PAYROLL BENEFITS 0.00 11,216.38 0.00 10,601.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,010.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,010.00 0.00 20.63 0.00 179.37 0100 20.63 0.00 179.37 0.00 72.26 0.00 127.74 46.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 118.53 0.00 81.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 500 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 domino 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 0100 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 700.00 0.00 6,300.00 1,700.00 5700 700.00 0.00 6,300.00 1,700.00 0.00 6,068.14 2,931.86 3,000.00 1,050.00 - 150.00 INSPECTION SERVICES 22.50 - 22.50 INSPECTION SERVICES .0.00 7,140.64 2,759.36 2,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600.00 0100 1 "i.00 11.58 174.42 11.58 -11.58 HANDBOOK CA /FED WETLANDS 0.00 25.58 0.00 174.42 0.00 28,360.00 0.00 39,698.00 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Zb l AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 15, 1997 CITY MGR. / ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT: ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT POLICY Recommended Motion(s): Approve updated policy. Report Summary: Background- California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 2- 20.035 requires the City Council to annually review and approve the City's investment policy. The investment policy drives the City's investment management functions. It serves as a guide for setting and achieving investment objectives, defines rules and establishes benchmarks, prohibits and /or restricts investment instruments and reduces the exposure to liability of both staff and City Council. Compliance with the policy is paid close attention to by the City's auditors and rating agencies. Discussion- Last year, the City extensively updated its investment policy to follow the Model Investment Policy developed by the Municipal Treasurers' Association of the United States and Canada and to comply with legislative changes made to the California Government Code in the wake of the "Orange County Debacle ". Those changes resulted in a fiscally sound and legally compliant policy. For the past year, the policy has served City Council, management staff and the public's interest well. Accordingly, staff recommends no major changes to the policy at this time. However, three minor "housekeeping" changes are recommended. Those changes are: 1) Section 2.2.3 - exclusion of notes and loans from the investment policy as they are covered by separate agreements, 2) Section 6 - more restrictive requirement for staff to disclose any personal investments which could be related to the performance of the City's portfolio and 3) Section 8 - definition of acceptable collateral. The update policy is attached with changes highlighted. The policy was reviewed by the Finance Advisory Committee at their December 16th meeting. The Committee unanimously recommended Council's adoption of the policy, as updated. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: Issue updated policy to broker /dealers and other interested parties. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: An opportunity to advance the City's investment policy, procedures and controls would be forfeited and the current policy would continue to be followed. Attachment c: \execsumm \exsmol06.97 It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the entity and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. 2.0 Scope: This investment policy applies to-all financial assets of the City of Saratoga. These funds are accounted for in the City of Saratoga's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include: 2.1 Funds: 2.1.1 General Fund 2.1.2 Special Revenue Funds 2.1.3 Capital Project Funds 2.1.4 Debt Service Funds 2.1.5 Trust and Agency Funds 2.1.7 Any new fund, unless specifically exempted 2.2 Exceptions: The following financial assets are excluded: 2.2.1 Deferred Compensation Plans - Investments are directed by the individual plan participants. 2.2.2 Debt Service Funds Held by Trustees - Investments are placed in accordance with bond indenture provisions. 3.0 Prudence: Investments shall be made with judgment and care - -under circumstances then prevailing - -which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investments, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. 3.1 The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. 4.0 Obiective: The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City of Saratoga's investment activities shall be: 4.1 Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the City of Saratoga shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To attain this objective, diversification is required in order that potential losses on individual securities do not exceed the income generated from the remainder of the portfolio. 4.2 Liquidity: The City of Saratoga's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City of Saratoga to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. 4.3 Return on Investments: The City of Saratoga's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the City of Saratoga's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. 5.0 Delegation of Authority: Authority to manage the City of Saratoga's investment program is derived from the following: California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and Saratoga Municipal Code Section 2- 20.035. Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the City Manager who shall be responsible for supervising all treasury activities of the Finance Director and who shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: safekeeping, wire transfer agreements, banking service contracts and collateral /depository agreements. Such procedures shall include explicit delegations of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transactions except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the City Manager. The City Manager shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a systems of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. 6.0 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest: Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the City Manager any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business within this jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/ investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City of Saratoga, particularly with regard to the time of purchases and sales. 7.0 Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions: The City Manager will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security broker /dealers selected by credit worthiness who are authorized to provide investment services in the State of California. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 15C3 -1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by state laws. All financial institutions and broker /dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the City Manager with the following: personal interview, firm description and audited financial statements, proof of State of California registration, completed broker /dealer questionnaire and certification of having read and complied with the City of Saratoga' s investment policy and applicable depository contracts. A periodic review of the financial condition and registrations of qualified bidders will be conducted by the City Manager. A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and broker /dealer in which the City of Saratoga invests prior to any transaction. 8.0 Authorized and Suitable Investments: The City of Saratoga is empowered by statute, and further limited by this investment policy, to invest in the following types of securities: ELIGIBLE SECURITIES AND CRITERIA The following is a summary of the authorized investment instruments (as permitted by Government Code Section 53601) and the applicable limitation to each: Tam to Type Guarantee Limits Maturity LAIF State Fund $20,000,000 U.S. Treasury Bills U.S. Treasury U.S. Treasury Notes U.S. Treasury U.S. Govt. Agency Issues (e.g. FNMA, GNMA) Certificates of Deposits (Calif. Banks or Savings & Loans Co.) Negotiable Certificates of Deposits Passbook Savings Account and Demand Deposits Federal Agencies FDIC or FSLIC 20% /portfolio per instit. Issuing Bank 20% /portfolio per instit. Issuing Bank Minimum necessary for current cash flow To one year 1 - 5 years limos . - 5 yam 3 yxrs 14 cis or over The City of Saratoga shall not engage in leveraged investing, such as in margin accounts or any form of borrowing for the purpose of investment. The City of Saratoga shall not invest in instruments whose principal and interest have no backinci i `e <5 �t�' `a m Exampiesof these instruments are options and future contracts. The City of Saratoga shall not invest in "derivatives ". The City of Saratoga shall limit permissible investments to the highest Moody's, Standard & Poors or equivalent rating. .See Glossary for description of above securities. 9.0 Collateralization: Collateral ization will be required on certificates of deposit. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be 1020 of market value of principals and accrued interest. The City of Saratoga chooses to limit collateral to the following: Refer to Section 8.0 for a listing of eligible securities. Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the entity has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied to the City of Saratoga and retained. The right of collateral substitution is granted. 10.0 Safekeeping and Custody: All security transactions entered into by the City of Saratoga shall be conducted on a delivery- versus - payment (DVP) basis. Securities will be held by a third party custodian, in the City of Saratoga's name and control, designated by the City Manager and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. 11.0 Diversification: The City of Saratoga will diversify its investments by security type and institution. Limits are provided for in Section 8.0. With the exception of U.S. Treasury securities and authorized pools, no more than 20% of the City of Saratoga's total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or with a single financial institution. 12.0 Maximum Maturities: To the extent possible, the City of Saratoga will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City of Saratoga will not directly invest in securities maturing more than five (5 ) years from the date of purchase. However, the City of Saratoga may collateralize its certificates of deposits using longer -dated investments no to exceed ten (10) years to maturity. Reserve funds may be invested in securities exceeding five ( 5 ) years if the maturity of such investments are made to coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of the funds. The City of Saratoga will retain a general operating reserve adopted annually by the City Council. The amount of active deposits and inactive investments with a maturity of one year or less shall always be equal to or greater than the required general operating reserve. The report discussed in Section 15.0 shall demonstrate this policy is in effect. 13.0 Internal Control: The City of Saratoga shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures. 14.0 Performance Standards: The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and the cash flow needs. 14.1 Market Yield (Benchmark): The City of Saratoga's investment strategy is passive. Given this strategy, the basis used by the City of Saratoga to determine whether market yields are being achieved shall be a short term U.S. Treasury Bill. 15.0 Reporting: The City Manager is charged with the responsibility of including a market report on investment activity and returns in the City of Saratoga's Cash and Investment Report. The report will be in compliance with California Government Code Section 53646. 16.0 Investment Policy Adoption: The City of Saratoga's investment policy shall be adopted by City Council. The policy shall be reviewed annually by the Finance Advisory Committee and any modifications made thereto must be approved by the City Council. GLOSSARY Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) The LAIF was established by the State of California to enable treasurers to place funds in a pool for investments. There is a limitation of $20 million per agency subject to a maximum of ten (10) total transactions per month. The City of Saratoga uses this fund when market interest rates are declining as well as for short - term investments and liquidity. U.S. Treasury Bills Commonly referred to as T -Bills these are short -term marketable securities sold as obligations of the U.S. Government. They are offered in three - month, six -month and one -year maturities. T -Bills do not accrue interest but are sold at a discount to pay face value at maturity. U.S. Treasury Notes These are marketable, interest - bearing securities sold as obligations of the U.S. Government with original maturities of one to ten years. Interest is paid semi - annually. U.S. Government Agency Issues Include securities which fall into this category. Issues which are unconditionally backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, e.g. Small Business Administration Loans. 0: \FILT \INVPLCY SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA IT MEETING DATE: JANUARY 15, 1997 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, HEA SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing submittal of an application to MTC for TDA Article 3 funds in FY 97 -98 Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Resolution. Report.Summarv: Each year the City is allocated Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to complete bicycle and pedestrian related projects. In Santa Clara County, the funds are administered by the Congestion Management Program of the Valley Transportation Authority. Seventy percent (70 %) of the funds are allocated to each jurisdiction on the basis of population share, while the remaining thirty percent (30 %) are awarded on a competitive basis. In FY 97 -98, Saratoga's guaranteed allocation is projected to be $17,002 (see attached table). For the past two years the City has been accumulating its allocations to complete the next identified priority project, a sidewalk along the west side of Quito Road between Cox Avenue and Sousa Lane, currently designated as Capital Project No. 9501. To date, the City has accumulated $58,181 in TDA -3 funds for this project and has previously committed to contribute an additional $20,000 in local funds. Thus, the total resources available for the project at this time are $78,181. The estimated total cost of the project is $103,200, leaving a funding shortfall of $25,019. For the FY 97 -98 funding cycle, staff is proposing to submit an application for its guaranteed allocation of $17,002 and $8,017 in discretionary funds ($25,019 total). Staff is confident that its request will be approved since this project has been given favorable consideration in the past. Assuming this occurs, the project would then be fully funded and could be completed in FY 97 -98 as it is currently programmed, probably during the sprinq /summer of 1998. MTC's procedures require a Resolution authorizing the submittal of TDA -3 funding applications to accompany the application. The attached Resolution would satisfy this requirement. It is therefore recommended that the Council adopt the attached Resolution. There are none as a result of adopting the Resolution or submitting the application. Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution would not be adopted and staff would not be authorized to apply for the TDA -3 funds. Potentially, the City's guaranteed allocation amount would be re- allocated to the other agencies in the County. 19080 . The application and Resolution will be sent to MTC. Attachments: 1. Resolution authorizing submittal of an application for TDA -3 funds. 2. Projected FY 97 -98 TDA -3 funding for'Santa Clara County. 3. Excerpt from adopted budget - Capital Project No. 9501. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 FUNDS IN FY 97 -98 WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code Sections 99233.3 and 99234, makes funds available in the nine county Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Region for pedestrian and bicycle purposes, and - WHEREAS, all cities and counties in each of the nine MTC Region counties are eligible to claim funds under TDA Article 3, and WHEREAS, the MTC is reauesting applications from eligible project sponsors for TDA Article 3 funding in FY 97 -98. NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does herebv authorize the submittal of an application to MTC for TDA Article 3 funds in FY 97 -98 for the following project: Quito Road Pedestrian Walkway between Cox Ave. and Sousa Ln. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manaqer and /or the Director of Public Works are authorized to enter into any agreements pertaining to the allocation and use of said funds on behalf of the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of the following vote: AYES: NOES: ,�,. "SENT : ABSTAIN: i C'i ry M ark 19 by re FY 1997/98 TDA Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Fund Calculation TOTAL POPULATION COUNTY CITY 111196 CALIFORNIA 32,231,000 1,323,000 TDA 3.0 Estim,L to for FY 97198 $926,100 Guarantee (70 %) Fund $396,900 Discretionary (30 %) Fund PAGE 1 $858,075 Adjusted Guarantee Fund $464,925 Adjusted Discretionary Fund $1,323,000 Total TDA 3.0 Estimate for FY 97198 FOOTNOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT EQUAL SUM DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. Source: California Department of Finance, Report 96 E -1 TFCA Trade: This note indicates that all or part of this years guarantee was traded for funds in the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) program. Population Data Source: California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit POP Adjusted SANTA CLARA 1,612,300 Percent Guarantee Amt: Guarantee Amt: Campbell 38,250 2.37% $21,971 $0 TFCA Trade Cupertino 43,650 2.71% $25,072 $25,072 Gilroy ' 34,000 2.11% $19,529 $19,529 Los Altos 27,300 1.69% $15,681 $15,681 Los Altos Hills 7,800 0.48% $4,480 $4,480 Los Gatos 28,950 1.80% $16,629 $16,629 Milpitas 59,700 3.70% $34,291 $34,291 Monte Sereno 3,280 0.20% $1,884 $1,884 Morgan Hill 27,950 1.73% $16,054 $0 TFCA Trade Mountain View 71,300 4.42% $40,954 $40,954 Palo Alto 58,500 3.63% $33,602 $33,602 San Jose 849,400 52.68% $487,893 $487,893 Santa Clara 98,000 6.08% $56,291 $56,291 Saratoga 29,600 1.84% $17,002 $17,002 Sunnyvale 126,100 7.82% $72,431 $72,431 Unincorporated 108,500 6.73% $62,322 $32,322 TFCA Trade 100.00% $926,089 $858,063 FOOTNOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT EQUAL SUM DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. Source: California Department of Finance, Report 96 E -1 TFCA Trade: This note indicates that all or part of this years guarantee was traded for funds in the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) program. Population Data Source: California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1996 —1998 j 'ROJECT NO.: 9501 MANAGER: ^ublic Works Director PROJECT NAME: Arterial Street Sidewalks Improvements NHUJLU I UESURIPTION: Installation of sidewalks and pathways along the City's arterial street system where none presently exist. Identified locations are along Saratoga Ave., Quito Rd., Cox Ave., Prospect Rd., Allendale Ave., and Fruitvale Ave. The project is funded through state Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds. RESOURCES FUND _ 01 GENERAL 10 TDA FY 95 -96 $0 0 FY 96 -97 $0 0 FY 97 -98 $20,000 83,203 TOTAL RESOURCES $0 $0 $103,203 Construction 0 0 97,303 Project Administration 0 0 900. Indirect Cost Allocation 0 0 0 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY $0 $0 $103,203 EXPENDITURE AREA FY 95 -96 FY 96 -97 FY 97 -98 Personnel $0 $0 $0 Design 0 0 5,000 Construction 0 0 97,303 Project Administration 0 0 900. Indirect Cost Allocation 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSE $0 $0 $103,203 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: I AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: January 15, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: QoMmAity Development CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: SD -95 -005; CONSTANTIN, 15261 NORTON RD. Appeal of Planning Commission Building Site approval for an existing 46,600 sq. ft. hillside parcel of record located off Norton Rd. A Lot Line Adjustment request was also approved as part of the application to merge a 51,400 sq. ft. parcel off Kittridge Rd. above together with the lower Norton Rd. parcel to create a single lot. The Lot Line Adjustment /merger has not been appealed. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Building Site approval may be requested to ascertain what off -site improvements would be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on -site development is proposed at this time. Recommended Motion Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal. Staff would then prepare a Resolution reflecting the City Council's action for the next available Council meeting. Report Summary Background: An application to develop the upper Kittridge Rd. parcel with a 4,390 sq. ft. two -story residence was first presented to the Planning Commission at a May 1991 public hearing. Following neighborhood testimony opposing the project, and Planning Commission deliberation, the application was continued to a study session meeting in order to have the City's Geotechnical Consultants present to address specific slope stability concerns. In summary, the consultants stated that physical construction on this extremely steep lot would contribute to stabilizing the slope, via foundation piers, retaining walls and slope stabilization measures. Between this study session meeting and the next anticipated hearing, the City Attorney's office raised questions regarding the legality of the parcel itself. It was agreed by the City Engineer and the City Attorney that the application should be put "on- hold" until a complete title Constantin Appeal Memo Page Two research could be performed to determine how the lot was created, and whether or not it was created properly according to the Subdivision Map Act provisions and applicable local ordinances in effect at the time it was created. Once the legality of a parcel is confirmed by a local jurisdiction, a Certificate of Compliance is issued. This is a common practice in older communities, especially with mountainous terrain, to restrict the development of lots which were never intended as building sites. The property was ultimately granted a Conditional Certificate of Compliance and returned to the Planning Commission for consideration. Noting that there are probably few parcels within Saratoga's jurisdic- tion that are as physically or topographically as constrained as the upper Kittridge Rd. lot, the Planning Commission denied the applicants' request to develop the steep lot with a >4,000 sq. ft. structure. This denial was appealed to the City Council, which unanimously upheld the Planning Commission's decision. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Constantin, own both the rejected lot and an adjacent vacant lot located below off Norton Rd. Tentative Building Site Approval: As provided for in Saratoga's Subdivision Ordinance, a property owner may apply for what is called Building Site approval. This application process allows someone to determine what type of on and off -site improvements would be required to develop the property. While it is not frequently used since it does not confer any actual permits to build, it does allow property owners who may want to sell their land to let prospective buyers know what type of physical improvements to anticipate. Tentative Building Site approval would establish the conditions which would need to be met in order to grant a Final Site approval. This is the same process as receiving a Tentative Subdivision Map approval and then being granted a Final Map approval once all of the required conditions have been met. The City's Public Works and Engineering Department, the Saratoga Fire District, and all other applicable utility and safety agencies, have reviewed the plans and provided their comments. Staff further finds that the proposal meets all minimum City development standards and is recommending approval of the Tentative Building Site request for the lower portion of the two lots per Exhibit "A" and contingent on the requirements discussed below. Lot Line Adjustment: The proposed Lot Line Adjustment is really a lot merger. Following the denial of the Constantins' request to develop the upper parcel, the City filed a notice of Intent to Merge with the Santa Clara County Recorder's m Constantin Appeal Memo Page Three office. This involuntary process has been temporarily put on hold as a result of these pending applications. The Constantins have agreed to merge their two parcels voluntarily if the City grants the Tentative Building Site approval for the joined lots at the lower pad location. Staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment complies with all applicable Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements and is conditionally recommending approval of the request. The upper parcel is currently designated as RHC /Hillside Residential and the lower parcel RVLD /R1- 40,000. Prior to Final Site approval by the City Council, the Planning Division will.need to process General Plan and Zoning amendments to "down- zone" the lower parcel to RHC /Hillside Residential to ensure that the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps are consistent with the new parcel boundary, otherwise the single new parcel would be partially within two different land use designations. As a condition of approval, the Planning Commission required that a private open space easement be recorded along all of the former upper parcel to prohibit any future development on these steep slopes. Basis of Appeal The attached correspondence from the appellants, the Phipps, expresses their concerns that the property is an unsuitable building site. The following are summary responses to the issues raised in their letter. Geologic Stability of Site: Several geotechnical investigations have been done on the property over the years, beginning in the late 1970's. The City Engineer has granted a geologic and geotechnical clearance of the project based on the conclusions of these studies, the most recent of which was performed by Earth Systems Consultants in June, 1996. Further specific investigations would be performed at the time any actual construction plans were submitted for Planning Commission review. The property is constrained by potentially unstable soils which would need to be corrected in order to build a home on the site. These conditions are not unusual in the City's foothills and can be mitigated. In fact, there are existing single family homes all around the subject property which are built on land with similar geological constraints. Slope of Site: The average slope of the the upper Kittridge Rd. 1 future building pad (i.e. and of this appeal) as Development on slopes of permitted by City Code. combined lots, including the severe slope of ot, is 62 percent. The slope at the proposed the subject of this Building Site application indicated per Exhibit "A" is 25 percent. less than 30 percent at the building pad is Constantin Appeal Memo Page Four View Obstruction: Any future home proposal on the lower Norton Rd. site will require Design Review approval by the Planning Commission. One of the purposes of the Design Review process is to ensure that future construction does not unreasonably impact neighbors' views, privacy or solar accessibility. Santa Clara County General Plan and South County Plan Conformance: The subject property is within the City'.s jurisdiction and is governed by Saratoga's General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan, not the County's. However, Saratoga's General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan contain similar hillside protection criteria as cited by the appellant for the County. Staff finds that this proposal is consistent with all applicable City development codes for the hillsides. Much of the criteria cited, and Saratoga's development criteria, is intended to regulate proposed lots through the subdivision review process - it is not necessarily criteria applicable to existing lots of record. Public Notice A public notice was mailed to surrounding home owners within 500 ft. of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. Fiscal Impacts None. Follow -up Actions Staff will prepare a Resolution reflecting the City Council's action for the next available Council meeting. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion If the City Council determines that the Building Site approval cannot be granted, the City may be deeming the property unbuildable - likely subjecting the City to inverse condemnation litigation. Attachments: 1. Appeal Letter (with attachments) 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 13, 1996 3. Staff Report dated November 13, 1996 4. Map, Exhibit "A" james \memo.cc \constntn Appeal Correspondence Appeal espondence • The Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070. • 15270 Norton Road Saratoga CA 95070. 8677957 10 December 1996. Ref: SD -95 -005 & LL 95 -004, Constantin, 15261 Norton Rd, & 20855 Kittredge Rd. Subject: Appeal of a Building Site Approval. We believe that development of these hillside parcels as a building lot is contrary to the orderly development of Saratoga, and contrary to the General Plan of Santa Clara County, and that a building site approval should not be approved. Physical Constraints of the Sites. These two sites, off Norton Road, are designated "Pd" and "Ms" on the city geologic hazard map. Pd "Areas of potentially unstable ground; moderately steep to very. steep,.. susceptible to deep landsliding "; and Ms "Areas of unstable ground ", with "moving shallow landslides ". The latter is the only currently unstable site in the neighborhood, (my emphasis). See appendix 1. The site slopes are approximately 65 %, which is greater than those of AU site which we know to have been developed in the city. (See "Staff Analysis ", May 8, 1991). 'The Priorities of Residents. Associated with the steep slope, the site has an extensive view of the valley from Fremont to Blossom Hill. Correlated with this, the wooded hillside provides a natural backdrop to those who live in the valley. In a survey conducted by the city in 1990, residents of Saratoga showed strong support for planning policies to preserve views and the feeling of open space The physical feature which most characterized open space was "natural undisturbed hillsides ", see appendix 2. The level of civil engineering necessary to mitigate the physical constraints and geologic hazards, such as the scalping of the loose soil and the channeling of the rainfall, combined with the clearing of the field of view of the residence, would make it difficult to conform with the priorities of the residents for "natural undisturbed hillsides ". Local Government Goals In defining "Goals for Managed, Balanced Growth ", the Santa Clara County General Plan, drafted 1994, proposes county wide policies relevant to this case. The plan, (see appendix 3, section 5. 1), proposes that development in rural areas should: (a). Be consistent with maintenance of the rural character and the preservation of natural beauty; (b). Assure the long term conservation of natural resources including soils,..water resources, wildlife and plant communities; (c). Minimize human exposure to potential safety and health risks and minimize potential damage to property. 0 0 (d). Minimize the need for the provision and maintenance of government services and facilities. Local Government Policies In defining policies, the South County Joint Area Plan, (appendix 4), states in SC 15.2 that development in hazardous areas should be; (a). Kept to a minimum by encouraging uses least disruptive to the soils and vegetative cover. (c). Prohibited on known active landslides (d). Prohibited in areas where increased runoff from the addition of impervious surfaces -would increase the probability of down slope landsliding and in section SC 15.7: Development should not be allowed in areas where access is provided by a single road that could be damaged by faulting or landslides, or where access could be cut off by wildfires.... Norton Rd is a single access road which has been blocked by wildfires several times in the last ten years, and Kittridge Rd has been blocked by landslides in several places, including the top of this lot. Summary The rights of the individual are a very high priority. We are uncomfortable to interfere with someone else's plans, but building affects many parties beside the owners. We have attempted to provide an objective basis for balancing the priorities of these parties. We are not saying that it is impossible to build on this site. The staff have described the physical constraints, and the geotechnic consultants have indicated the engineering which would . be needed to mitigate them. We see that the geology, the slope, the optimization of the field of view, and the effects of drainage changes, will probably cause radical disturbance of the natural hillside, and probably cause the residence to be large to justify the expensive engineering. There is also a fire hazard associated with the single road access. These effects concern the neighbors deeply. The priorities expressed by the 1990 Saratoga opinion survey, and the goals of the County General Plan, and of the South County Plan, are consistent and strongly opposed to development which causes disturbance to the natural hillsides. It is unlikely that any residence on this site can avoid what will be seen as a serious disturbance of the natural undisturbed hillside by the residents of Saratoga and Santa Clara valley. These residents have done everything that they can to express their deep concern although they are unaware of this example. We recognize that the present plan is a compromise, much better than the previous plan to build two residences on this site, but that does not imply that this is an appropriate site for any residence. If the council does not resist development on such a constrained site where will we see resistance to hillside development throughout the valley? We urge the Saratoga City Council to reject the building site approval. L and B Phipps. r AREAS OF POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE GROUND Pmw - Steep to Very steep slopes underlain by bedrock, subject to mass wasting by soilwcreared, fractured rockfall activity. _ P► slumping and Pfs - ✓ Ps Large areas of potentially unstable moderately steep to stee artificial till on settlement P debris localized placement Subject to l ' landsliding, and d d debris flow activity where might not have met engineering standards. - Gentle to moderately steep slopes P es underlain by relatively material including landslide debris weak bedrock. Commonly less than 10 feet k. Susceptible and to shallow landsliding and soil creep activity. Susceptible - Moderately steep to very steep slopes underlain by or adjacent to relatively unstable landslide debris, commonly more than 10 feet thick. Susceptible to deep landsliding. AREAS OF UNSTABLE GROUND �'� Moving shallow landslides, commonly less than 10 feet thick. Md - Moving deep landslides, more than 10 feet thick. Mrf = Moving deep landslides, more than 100 feet thick high, oversteepened slopes, subject to large -scale sloughingl, slumping and possibly catastrophic rock falls. AREAS OF POTENTIAL SURFACE IA ULTING Psf - Zone of potential surface faulting and associated ground displacement within 100 feet of a trace of the Berrocal Fault Cl7"V' OF SARA TOGA 1990 C&MUNITY SURVEY RPSULTS A Summary of the Results of the Open Space Assessment Survey of Saratoga Residents Conducted During February and March 1990 Prepared by MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN 1802 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (415) 845 -7549 Ciry of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Resulls IV. HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SURVEY EY RESULT v "14AF` S A summary of the main Survey findings is presented below and on the next few pages. Results from th Background Information section of the survey, Questions 13 through 18, are summarized in Section III and 5 of 'his report Detailed results for each question are included in Section V. Detailed survey results begin on OvErall Findings • Overall, survey respondents showed s g f }F�tor open space, park and recreation service improve- Merits, m meets. They favor a number of planning su o Preserve views and the feeling of open pace 1es to acquire ne:v areas, to utilize available areas and to rove Open space means natural, undeveloped land to about half of the survey respondents, while the other defines open space as parkland or landscaped land. • haft When asked to rank specific physical features that may characterize open space, respondents ranked • u���"1118i'rd�s as the most important feature, followed by neighborhood parks, recreational parks and undeveloped land. , About a third of respondents think that existing open space in Saratoga is very limited or non-existent, though some describe the existing open space as pleasant and beautiful. • t, Each of the four proposed strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space and park improvements is supported by at least two - thirds of the sample. Respondents' willingness to pay $65 per year through a specal assessment reflects sunnnrt rnr a ,,,,;�,;,,, and I11AInrnns' n of 1 ess A -10 O The Vision *e Plan • Introduction and OvfrOieu, --- -- -_ « - -_ t ' 3.2 Establishment of long term urban growth "l C1nCg n;i�i h boundaries clearly delineating urban from non -urban areas. 1. Coordinated Countywide Planning and 4. Urban Development Appropriately Located Cooperative Plan Implementation 1.1 Local planning and im P implementation that is 4.1 Urban development located only where it consistent with a framework of integrated a. Endanger public health and countywide plans and policies aimed at safety, b. Deplete natural resources, and meeting the needs of current and future county residents and protecting environ- c. Diminish the natural beauty of the mental resources. Local plans and policies county's physical setting. that take into account regional and state goals, plans and policies. 4.2 Urban development only within city urban service areas. 2. Balanced Development 5. Rural Development � P Appropriate to 2.1 A balance achieved and maintained Rural Areas between: a. The amount of employment and the 5.1 Development in rural areas which: amount of housing, a. Is consistent with maintenance of the rural character and the b. The cost of housing and the incomes preservation of natural beau of workers and other households; and C. The amount of growth, the available b. Assures the long term conservation of water supply, and the capacity of P ty infrastructure, natural resources, including soils, minerals, water resources, wildlife, including sewer and transportation facilities. and plant communities. c. Minimizes human exposure to 2.2 A mix and location of employment, - potential safety and health risks and housing, and transportation services that: minimizes potential damage to property. a. Enables convenient commuting; ✓+ d. Minimizes the need for the provision b. Provides easy access to goods and services; and maintenance of government c. Reduces need for reliance on an services and facilities. automobile; and d. Promotes public transit and pedes- 6. Compact, Transportation- Efficient Urban Development trian and bicycle mobility. 3. Planned, Orderly Urban Expansion 6.1 Compact urban development patterns that reduce the need for long distance com- 3.1 Expansion of the urban area only when it public transsportationrved efficiently by occurs in a logical, orderly, and efficient manner, consistent with countywide plans and policies and the ability of local 6.2 Long term economic viability of agricul- agencies to anticipate and provide neces- ture enhanced. sary urban services and facilities in a cost - effective manner. A -10 0 l-tpp ev a 1 '�( South County Joint Area Plan Policies SC 15.2 Development in hazardous areas should be: a. kept to a minimum by encouraging low - density, low- intensity uses and the types of uses least disruptive to the soil and vegeta- tive cover; j b. regulated in such a way that it minimizes disruption of the environment and does not trigger or accelerate the hazardous processes which exist in South County; c. prohibited on known active landslides and limited in areas where such development might initiate sliding or be affected by sliding on adjacent parcels. d. prohibited in areas where increased runoff from the addition of impervious surfaces and drainage would increase the probability of downslope landsliding, or where addi- tional projects would add to the cumulative ✓ effect of increased runoff, unless a downslope drainage improvement plan has been approved; and e. clustered, with dwellings grouped on the least hazardous portion of the least hazardous portion of the the property. SC 15.3 Development in less hazardous areas should be limited and designed to reduce risks to an acceptable level. SC 15.4 Development in fire hazard areas should be minimized. When development is permitted, it should be planned and constructed so as to reduce exposure to fire hazards and to facilitate fire supression efforts in the event of a wildfire. Actions which increase fire risk, such as increas- ing public access roads in fire hazard areas, should be avoided because of the great environ- mental damage and economic loss associated with a large wildfire. SC 15.5 Development should be prohibited in floodways and regulated in floodplains to minimize flood damage and be consistent with the federal flood insurance program and Santa Clara Valley Water District regulations. SC 15.6 Development should be limited along the shores of reservoirs which can be expected to sustain damage from seismically- induced seiche waves. SC 15.7 The current policy restricting development in areas of poor accessibility should continue. Development should not be allowed in areas where access is provided by a single road that could be damaged by faulting or landslides, or where access could be cut off by wildfiees, trapping residents or workers. Development may be allowed in areas where a second im- proved access road has been provided for emergency escape. Also, alternative north - south access roads should be developed through the South County for use in the event that the South Valle}, Freeway is damaged in a major earth- quake. SC 15.8 Natural streamside and riparian areas should be left in their natural state, in order to preserve their value as percolation and recharge areas, natural habitat, scenic resouces, recreation corridors and for bank stabilization. If flood control projects needed to protect presently existing development make this infeasible, disruption should be minimized, maintaining slow flow and stable banks through design and other appropriate mitigation measures. SC 15.9 Wildlife, rare and endangered plants and animals, and heritage resources should be identified and protected from loss and destruc- tion. SC 15.10 Existing development regulations should be continued, with monitoring to determine their effectiveness. Policy changes should be made only after review by all three jurisdictions. Planning Commission Minutes � Planning inutes PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the variance as far as the parking spaces were concerned as it is not known what off -site parking spaces are to be proposed. Planner Walgren clarified that the applicant is proposing 14 parking spaces, 25% of which are to be compact spaces which are what the Code requires for this particular project. He indicated that the City Arborist recommends the elimination of one of the parking spaces in order to. break up existing asphalt to allow the large coast live oak tree more breathing room. Therefore, staff recommended deviation from the parking spaces by one space . subject to the variance findings as listed in the report. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -016 WITH THE FINDINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -96 -009 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -043. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. 4. SD -95-005 & LL -95 -004 - CONSTANTIN, 15261 NORTON RD. & 20855 KITTRIDGE RD.; Request for Building Site approval for an existing 46,600 sq. ft. hillside parcel of record located off Norton Rd. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also requested to merge a 51,400 sq. ft. parcel off Kittridge Rd. above together with the lower Norton Rd. parcel to create a single lot. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Building Site approval may be requested to ascertain what ' off-site improvements would be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on -site development is proposed at this time (cont. from 10/23/96 at the request of the applicants; City review deadline is 3/4/97). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that letters have been received and distributed to the Commission from Mr. and Mrs. Phipps who reside on Kittridge Road and the Cheesemans who have cited their concerns regarding this proposal and also expressing concern that none of the neighbors were notified of the public hearing for this project. He confirmed that noticing was sent out to the residents within 500 feet of this project. Commissioner Patrick asked staff if by merging these two parcels and approving a building site on the lower parcel, what would that mean to the upper parcel (i.e. can accessory structures be built on the upper parcel)? Planner Walgren stated that prohibiting construction on the upper parcel could be handled through a recorded open space easement and not affect the buildability of the lower parcel. Staff did not recommend such a condition because the code prohibits development on any slopes of 30% or greater. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 5 - indicated that there is no portion of the upper Kittridge Road parcel that has a slope of 30% or less. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the merger has not taken place? City Attorney Riback responded that the City was pursuing a mandatory merger with the properties and that the intention to merge has been recorded against the properties placing future purchasers on notice of the intent of the City to have the parcels merged. It was his belief that the City put this action on hold when the property owners indicated that they were willing to merge the properties. He stated that the city has not waived its right to merge the lots should the property owners elect not to pursue the merger. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, requested approval of a building site and lot line adjustment. She stated that two years ago, the Planning Commission and the City Council denied a request for lot line adjustment. Following the denial, the City recorded an intent to merge the parcels. She felt that the denial of the original lot line adjustment was based on incorrect information. As such, her clients were left with no use of their parcels until a resolution could be reached. She informed the Commission that the Constantins are in agreement with a merger, allowing one single family residence to be built on it with the stipulation that both applications are approved. She stated that the geotechnical reports have identified two acceptable building sites on these combined parcels. She stated that it is understood that a single home would be built on the merged lots. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that it has been suggested that buildings be permanently be prohibited in the area outside of the building pad. She asked if the Constantin would be agreeable to recording an open space easement on the upper portion? Mrs. Fanelli stated that it was the intent to build on the lower portion within the building envelop. She stated that she would not object to reserving the area outside of the building setbacks in an open space easement. Beverley Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, stated that the site has been defined in the City's geologic map as being unstable. He stated that site has an average slope is. 65% and is accessed by a single road. He felt that it would require radical disturbance to the fragile shallow soil in the steep hill to have a home built and that construction of a home would affect the geologic condition. The steep slope provides an excellent view of the valley. Therefore, the residents in the valley would also view the home that is to be built on the hill. He stated that the residents expressed a strong support of preserving open space in a 1990 survey. If a permit to build is granted, he felt that it would set a precedent and allow construction on this slope. Regarding notification, it was true that the neighbors were notified of the original meeting but noted that the hearing was continued several times without renotification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Mrs. Fanelli stated that she was in possession of the January 1996 geotechnical report and that it determined that a building site exists if the appropriate mitigation measures are followed. Planner Walgren stated that this item was originally heard in September 1996 by the Planning Commission and that the application was continued to October 23, 1996 at the applicant's request. At the October 23 meeting, a second continuance was announced to tonight's meeting. When continuances are announced, new notices are not mailed out to adjacent property owners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:27 P.M. Commissioner Abshire felt that this was a good compromise to solve the problem and stated that he would support the request with the stipulation that the upper portion be reserved as open space. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was satisfied with the geotechnical report that this home would not impact any of the neighboring homes. She stated that she would support the request with the dedication of open space for the upper portion of the site. Commissioners Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments and stated that he has a high degree of confidence in the geotechnical work by Mr. Cotton, geotechnical consultant. Commissioner Bernard concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she could support the request as long as the approval is conditioned upon the preservation of an space easement. She recommended that the resolution return to the Commission with the condition requiring dedication of an open space easement for its review and approval. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the approval was contingent upon the merger. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would support the merger followed by the approval of a building site. City Attorney Riback recommended that the Commission take action this evening subject to review of the language relating to the open space easement at its next meeting. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -004. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 7 - PIERCE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD- 95 -005 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IT INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES AN OPEN SPACE DEDICATION AS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSION. THE RESOLUTION TO RETURN TO THE COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1996 FOR ITS APPROVAL. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH_ COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. 5. V -96 -011 & SM -96 -002 - PAK; 21441 TOLLGATERD; Request for Variance and Site Modification approval to construct a new 704 square foot three -car carport and a new pool pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is requested to allow the carport to be located within the front and exterior side yard setbacks. The subject parcel is 1.2 net acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that letters were received in opposition to the request; one letter being co- signed by the Araldis, Martins, Achkars and Gail Frizzel and a separate letter from Richard Geno in opposition to the request He informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that the variance application be continued to January 8, 1997 so that he could respond to the concerns expressed in the letters and work on the existing garage configuration and driveway access so that the variance request could be withdrawn. He indicated that the site modification for the swimming pool could be considered this evening. Staff recommended approval of the site modification and continuance of the variance to January 8, 1997. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the -public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, stated that based on the concerns by the neighbors regarding the variance request, he would request that it be continued. Regarding the site modification request, he stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He informed the Commission that the pool pad would be dropped 2.5 feet from the lawn area and that 'the parcel would eventually be landscaped. Fencing material is proposed to be a green mesh netting and that it is to be installed at the pool deck. He stated that approximately 60% of the trellis is to be removed and that the retaining wall would be of poured concrete and that it would be heavily screened with landscaping. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about the size of the trees. She felt that larger oak trees should be planted initially. Planner Walgren stated that it has been common in other developments to require that 50% of the trees be a minimum of 24" -boxed minimum to provide a mix in sizes. He stated that the Commission could condition this to install 50% 24" boxed trees. Mr. Cunningham asked w' is the likelihood of the survival of I -er specimen sized trees Staff Report �;L,lk4 �. Sta eport REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004 Application No. /Location: 15261 Norton Rd. & 20855 Kittridge Rd. Applicant /Owner: CONSTANTIN. Staff Planner: James Walgren, idCP Date: November 13, 1996 APN: 517-14-081 & 071 Director Approval: norion na./ nittridge Md. • • File No. SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004; Norton Rd. /Kittridg.e Rd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 5/04/95 Application complete: 9/04/96 Notice published: 9/11/96 Mailing completed: 9/12/96 Posting completed: 9/05/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Building Site approval for an existing 46,600 sq. ft. hillside parcel of record located off Norton Rd. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also requested to merge a 51,400 sq. ft. parcel off Kittridge Rd. above together with the lower Norton Rd. parcel to create a single lot. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Building Site approval may be requested to ascertain what off -site improvements would be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on -site development is proposed at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve the Building Site and Lot Line Adjustment requests by adopting the attached Resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Correspondence 3. Resolutions SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004 4. Map, Exhibit "A" • • File No. SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004; Norton Rd. /Kittridge Rd. STAFF ANALYSIS Pcl 1 /Norton Rd. Pcl 2 /Kittridge Rd. ZONING• GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION• PARCEL SIZES• PROJECT DISCUSSION: Background: R -1- 40,000 Residential -Very Low. Density 46, 600• sq. ft. .Hillside Residential Residential - Hillside Conservation 51,400 sq. ft. An application to develop the upper Kittridge Rd. parcel with a 4,390 sq. ft. two -story residence was first presented to the Planning Commission at a May 1991 public hearing. Following neighborhood testimony opposing the project, and Planning Commis- sion deliberation, the application was continued to a study session meeting in order to have the City's Geotechnical Consultants present to address specific slope stability concerns. In summary, the consultants stated that physical construction on this extremely steep lot would contribute to stabilizing the slope, via foundation piers, retaining walls and slope stabilization measures. Between this study session meeting and the next anticipated hearing, the City Attorney's office raised questions regarding the legality of the parcel itself. It was agreed by the City Engineer and the City Attorney that the application should be put "on- hold" until a complete title research could be performed to determine how the lot was created, and whether or not it was created properly according to the Subdivision Map Act provisions and applicable local ordinances in effect at the time it was created. Once the legality of a parcel is confirmed by a local jurisdiction, a Certificate of Compliance is issued. This is a common practice in older communities, especially with mountainous terrain, to restrict the development of lots which were never intended as building sites. The property was ultimately granted a Conditional Certificate of Compliance and returned to the Planning Commission for consider- ation. Noting that there are probably few parcels within Saratog- a's jurisdiction that are as physically or topographically as con- strained as the upper Kittridge Rd. lot, the Planning Commission denied the applicants' request to develop the steep lot with a >4,000 sq. ft. structure. This denial was appealed to the City Council, whom unanimously upheld the Planning Commission's decision. • • File No. SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004; Norton Rd. /Kittridge Rd. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Constantin, own both the rejected lot and an adjacent vacant lot located below off Norton Rd. Tentative Building Site Approval: As provided for in Saratoga's Subdivision Ordinance, a property owner may apply for what is called Building Site approval. This application process allows someone to determine what type of on and off -site improvements would be required to develop the property. While it is not frequently used since it does not confer any actual permits to build, it does allow property owners who may want to sell their land to let prospective buyers know what type of physical improvements to anticipate. Tentative Building Site approval would establish the conditions which would need to be met in order to grant a Final Site approval. This is the same process as receiving a Tentative Subdivision Map approval and then being granted a Final Map approval once all of the required conditions have been met. The Saratoga Fire District, and all other applicable agencies, have reviewed the plans and provided their comments. Staff further finds that the proposal meets all minimum City development standards and is recommending approval of the Tentative Building Site request for the lower portion of the two lots per Exhibit "A" and contingent on the requirements discussed below. Lot Line Adjustment: The proposed Lot Line Adjustment is really a lot merger. Following the denial of the Constantins' request to develop the upper parcel, the City filed a notice of Intent to Merge with the Santa Clara County Recorder's office. This involuntary process has been temporarily put on hold as a result of these pending applications. The Constantins have agreed to merge their two parcels voluntarily if the City grants the Tentative Building Site approval for the joined lots at the lower pad location. Staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment complies with all applicable Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements and the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and is conditionally recommending approval of the request. The upper parcel is currently designated as RHC /Hillside Residen- tial and the lower parcel RVLD /R1- 40,000. Prior to Final Site approval by the City Council, the Planning Division will need to process a General Plan and Zoning amendment to "down- zone" the lower parcel to RHC /Hillside Residential to ensure that the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps are consistent with the new parcel boundary, otherwise the single new parcel would be partially within two different land use designations. Since the City has already processed the State Government Code limit of four General Plan CJ • File No. SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004; Norton:Rd. /Kittridge Rd. map /text amendments this year, this application will not be heard until early in 1997. Neighborhood Concerns: The attached letter form the directly adjacent neighbor to the east cites his concerns that the property is geologically unsafe to build on. Several geotechnical investigations have been done on the property over the years, beginning in the late 1970's. The City Engineer has granted a- geologic and geotechnical. clearance of the project based on the conclusions of these studies, the most recent of which was performed by Earth Systems Consultants in June, 1996. Further specific investigations would be performed at the time any actual construction plans were submitted for Planning Commission review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve the Building Site and Lot Line Adjustment requests by adopting the attached Resolutions. RECEIVED SEP 211996 PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Paul L. Curtis, Director of Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 15291 Norton Road Saratoga, CA 95070 A.P.N. 517 -14 -082 September 19, 1996 Ref: Notice of Hearing Wednesday, September 25, 1996 at 7:30PM SD -95 -006 & LL- 95 -004 (APN: 517 -14 =081 & 071 ) - Constantin, 15261 Norton Road & 20855 Kittridge Road. Dear Mr. Curtis: William Cotton and Associates, geologic consultants, were contracted by the City of Saratoga in 1978. They determined that the property at 15261 Norton Road is a moving shallow landslide area and should not be developed. This designation has borne out to be accurate. In the 1980's a landslide started in the 20855 Kittridge Road property above 15261 Norton Road and continued into the 15261 Norton Road property. This landslide brought down 100 foot tall trees along with mud and rock that covered the 15261 Norton Road property. In addition to being unstable the 20855 Kittridge Road property is very steep with an average slope of 73 %. Both properties are in close proximity to the Berrocal earthquake fault. Merging the two referenced properties for the purpose of gaining a building permit would not solve the inherent problems of building structures on either of these properties, which in addition to potential for collapse of any structure built on these properties would endanger our home and eliminate our privacy. My family urges a denial of this property merger. Sincerely, David Arnold 15291 Norton Road Saratoga, CA 95070 A.P.N. 517 -14 -082 January 8, 1997 Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ref: Notice of Hearing Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 8:30PM SD -95 -006 & (APN: 517 -14 -081 & 071) Constanti ^, Applicant; Phipps, Appellant. Dear Ms. Cory: The subject property has not improved as a potential building site with the joining of two properties or with the myriad of applications for building on these sites. There are still several fundamental inherant reasons that make this property unsuitable for a building site: 1. William Cotton and Associates, geologic consultants, were contracted by the City of Saratoga in 1978. They determined that the property at 15261 Norton Road is a moving shallow landslide area and should not be developed. This designation has borne out to be accurate. In the 1980's a landslide started in the 20855 Kittridge Road property above 15261 Norton Road and continued into the 15261 Norton Road property. This landslide brought down 100 foot tall trees along with mud and rock that covered the 15261 Norton Road property. 2. In addition to being unstable the 20855 Kittridge Road property is very steep with an average slope of 73 %. Both properties are in close proximity to the Berrocal earthquake fault. 3. Merging the two referenced properties for the purpose of gaining a building permit does not solve the inherent problems of building structures on either of these properties, which in addition to potential for collapse of any structure built on these properties would endanger our home and eliminate our privacy. My family urges a denial of this building site approval. Sincerely, I&R David Arnold RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -005 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION BUILDING SITE APPROVAL RESOLUTION CONSTANTIN; 15261 NORTON RD. 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 Building Site approval for two separate parcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -95 -005 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed Building Sites, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, are consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed Building Sites and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated November 13, 1996 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exemption for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code Sections 66474 (a) - (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said Building Site map, and approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and 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; and WHEREAS, this Tentative Building Site approval is contingent on-the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and associated General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments. The applicant shall obtain City Council approval of the General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments and record the Lot Line Adjustment prior to Final Site approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the map for the hereinaf- ter described Building Sites, which map is dated November 7, 1996 and marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. Unless the requirements of Sections 14- 45.040(a)(1) & (2) are satisfied, the owner (applicant) shall prepare and file a Parcel Map of the site for recordation. Prior to submittal of the Parcel Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner ,(applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Parcel Map, if necessary, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Building Site map, along with the addition- al documents required by Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. C. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. f. The updated geotechnical study prepared by Earth Systems Consultants dated June 1996 shall be referenced on the Parcel Map. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless for any geologic or geotechnical conditions not addressed in this report. The Hold Harmless Agreement shall be referenced on the Parcel Map and shall indemnify the City from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and /or erosion related damages. g. The owner (applicant) shall record a private "open space easement" across the former Parcel 2 (APN 517 -14 -071 - 20855 Kittridge Rd.) encompassing all of the upper parcel down to the 970 ft. contour elevation. This easement shall be kept open and free from buildings, structures and other built improvements. The following improvements may be permitted within the open space easement: • Drought resistant indigenous landscaping and irrigation. • Paths and walkways having pervious material. • Open style fencing, subject to Saratoga's hillside fencing ordinance. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, if required, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Parcel Map for examination. 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or some later date to be specified on the Parcel Map, if necessary. IT the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Parcel Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 5. If required, the owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County Recorder the requisite statement indicating that there are no liens against the property or any part thereof for any unpaid taxes or special assessments. A copy of the statement(s) shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to Parcel Map approval. 6. Prior to Final Site approval any outstanding City Geotechnical Consultant fees shall be paid. 7. The approved Building Site site development plan establishes that a building site does exist which meets the City's required building setbacks and maximum slope- development requirements for. No trees are approved to be removed. Alternative building locations may be considered that still meet then current Zoning Ordinance requirements. 8. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic- es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 9. Developer shall install a fire hydrant that meets the Fire .District's specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 10. The following fire protection requirements shall apply to future residential construction: a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and .maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. C. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. d. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. e . A passing turnout 10 ft. wide and 40 ft. long as required by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. f. Construct a turn - around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33 ft. outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the Fire District. g. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the, proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire Dis- trict. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 12. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 1. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effe.ctive fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 26th day of November, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None ww, ( `C. 10 Chair, Planning Commi sion ABSTAIN: Pierce ATTEST: Secret ry, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -004 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CONSTANTIN; 15261 NORTON RD. & 20855 KITTRIDGE RD. APN 517 -14 -081 and 517 -14 -071 WHEREAS, a Lot Line Adjustment between two parcels has been filed with the Community Development Director of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment approval will be consistent with the General Plan and the regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will not conflict with easements for access through or use of, the properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does approve the Lot Line Adjustment as shown on Exhibit "A" and directs the applicant to file a deed or record of survey pursuant to Section 66412 (d) of the Subdivision Map Act with the City Engineer for checking and recordation. Section 1. The applicant shall obtain City Council approval of the General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments as a condition of, and prior to, recording the Lot Line Adjustment. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, this 26th day of November, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None //_ Chair, Planning Commission ABSTAIN: Pierce ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission J�A R Pf 509 RE ) 0i S 'Il {or•P alb A1s All O \\ VICINITY MAP la'O Ie 7 ItIOOOO X " I " A b it! n ° ll ELEJaGOA DAYJM: C]TY O 4) D I Vf,� l OF iAAATOGA 4 Da N ti 4 a ar CIVIL R COAI I T. LO.h -, LARA) fALM C CIVIL cwvt• /r0.1J JLTAJTI) AAAEO rA INOJ •894 ,L• A A OOQGC { AIIOrI TEI f fCA1191L1TY of A SIJLLE 1,Tt 1) TH11 CA.AfIL[D MAP li (OIL Tt4-T TI ✓C D DEVELOPMeIJT. DEt141J IHAWIJ 1114,21C.4 1 or I 1 MAP PY OOCES Pa LY,140T P4LDi1161) 04 C CD11114LC -4: DEIAILGI TPPOOAAPHIL t 1 COJIYAJLTIOJ LJOPaC. 9W1.10A4Y 11JR01 Wo111L TP PITCCEE. Acl­ SITE DEt16AJ. _A1 A ,,C P AT4A � I _ �.B � _ 2 27ifol qs 4 400 0 0 � �O7 Y4iG 'All AILNEILP 0,1T!II,rERI1fA5 M9Y PE I KWl0I461.SLP U:..11L•ST [l177E: PAQI.(H15. R/JILNES.IETAACI( EE CIrArCllll rOl:�rtl�url;'�.OtRC Lt$SMp C(OLCG:CCOrArAl016.f ANY.MU Cr AL UMT lrvV 1:- LOA= YVMI."m gowK UTILITIES -- \ L, P�(�P�� I \ I C SEWALE CoLiJELT N!E) w OJ 744RTO.r R0, V •t � � }. GAS r ELEtT. P[r ( E WATE2 SAILATaGA rIFL MJT. Mt ITE12 CO. Ew,tT,r.y. UI[- JACAJf PP • I Gat'^ •A�at Il PAOr— 1nr- slj". FAA- , i 1 1 4 ,i y- 064.5 i '� • • I I PI ELfJ .. . OA1J t.C.c.. S 1 1 I w�-O k.1 1 a iT ^ls I 11lA� �•� 10 � \ I 1 ll , o✓ � . �f j I I .� e ° ! � ..•.�. ��DJ I I AVERAGE SLOPE COMPGTATIMS C0J-1OJE LC AIGI 11 LDIITOJrL LEAIGTH {O $10 Ib L. F-1 q(Aa 14-6 6 S0 I9i '10 IL(e 060 IIAB q4O 39z 810 LLS 910 ♦55 nBo LL16 100'1 AID ,q0 2$S 1'114 394 900 112 ;oLO ]TD 910 lab D14 3b0 4x0 1At• IOID i(L. qS0 Isb Iola 114 -- Lot i qA-o 1 1000 1L. b4t' q f0 0 � 1010 L 0 O SN' >_xo/ L -R. 1080 S] 1 q�0 qI.O 1L9 ID•(.101 S z.z$• 5' GvZ.1 "7. - •rrA.ou.I.i. A0AL1j= 98.000 Car, t .. Ou1r�ER: (0131 FRAAJCIIC"I C, uRT SA.) SOIE CA 9i1L0 / \ SSCA•O'n•- " loc R DODGE l A PAJ ilT'Ih -ll IS, S E F'LAI-f �rG0 rc•`'1 TENTATIVE MAP - OF The 1'IER6EE or LAJPI or JONI,( It CLED_Cof(SIANTV K1TT121 UC1E ROAD R 001trOrl ROAD. SARA.TO&A(IA. 10- LD- 199' -. �m9A rc ✓ "a.lr JPa+ DODGE 6 ASSOCIATES. SURVEYING ADO PLA.1, f•1t(: CW.". . ninGE 1111LF' ♦ 7101 MON112UMA DR. CAMPO(LL. CA 95001 I -11-91 2N •C. ALOL [.1. }0/ -]79 -1(71 .. Ou1r�ER: (0131 FRAAJCIIC"I C, uRT SA.) SOIE CA 9i1L0 / \ SSCA•O'n•- " loc R DODGE l A PAJ ilT'Ih -ll IS, S E F'LAI-f �rG0 rc•`'1 TENTATIVE MAP - OF The 1'IER6EE or LAJPI or JONI,( It CLED_Cof(SIANTV K1TT121 UC1E ROAD R 001trOrl ROAD. SARA.TO&A(IA. 10- LD- 199' -. �m9A rc ✓ "a.lr JPa+ DODGE 6 ASSOCIATES. SURVEYING ADO PLA.1, f•1t(: CW.". . ninGE 1111LF' ♦ 7101 MON112UMA DR. CAMPO(LL. CA 95001 I -11-91 2N •C. ALOL [.1. }0/ -]79 -1(71 6.A DOCUMENTS CONCERNING REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT 1. Letter from staff to Mr. Phipps explaining appeal procedures, including postponement requests. 2. Letter from Mr. Phipps requesting postponement, with attached objections from appellant's agent. 3. Letter from staff to Mr. Phipps stating that appeal hearing will not be postponed. � of SAIR�9 ti 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (cc 400g8) 895�6. � COACH =FRS: December 12, 1996 Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Mr. P. _ _B-... Phipps Gillian Moran 15270 Norton Road Karen Tucker Saratoga--CA 95070 Donald L. Wolfe Dear Mr. Phipps: We have received your application for an appeal of building site approval for a project at 15261 Norton Road. We have also received the appeal fee. This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of January 15, 1997, which was the next available regular meeting. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you should find it necessary to request a continuance, you may do so once without charge with the written consent of the applicant. Any subsequent requests or continuance must be accompanied by a fee of $340. By copy of this letter, the applicant is instructed to submit 9 copies of any maps or drawings of the project. Whatever was submitted to the Planning Commission must be submitted to me unchanged by January 6. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Printed on recycled paper. Planning Department Applicant (Constantin) �g „?,n., c 95t 2 0 From : PHONE No. : 408 395 6546 Jan.08 1997 5:46PM P02 JAH -09 -1997 17:27 CITY OF SnRnTOGf•L /nDM I N . 15270 Norton Road ?3ar.atngei, CA' 95070 (409) 967 -7957 January 8, 1997 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 409 868 1290 P -02/02 REP EE JAN 8 1997 CITY M.P,,NAGV- A. P . N .: 517-14 -043 I would like to request that tho public hearing scheduled by the Saratoga City Council for January 15,1997, on the Appeal of a Request for Building Sitc Approval, be continued to a subsequent Council meeting. A surgical procedure has made it uncertain that I will to represent my appeal at the originally planned date. I apologize for any inconvenience and extra work that change may incur for the applicanto, the City Council, the staff. Thank you for your consideration in these unforeseen circumstances. Sincerely, P. Q . A��r Peter B. Phipps Betsy Cory: be able this and This continuation is unacceptable as I will not be in town to represent. Mr. and Mrs. Constantin on FebitueYy 5, 1997. Delaying this hearing would force the Constantins to further postpone the work required to obtain final building site approval. If Mr. Phipps had filed the appeal. in a timely manner, this appeal Could have been heard In the month of c Aeember , Virginia, Fanelli E U � 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe . January 9, 1997 Peter B. Phipps 15270 Norton Road Saratoga CA 95070 . Dear Mr. Phipps: We have received your request for postponement of your appeal hearing, which is scheduled for January 15. As you know, the written consent of the applicant is required for such a postponement. Virginia Fanelli, the applicant's agent, has submitted her written objections to the appeal. Therefore, the appeal hearing will continue as scheduled on January 15. Your appeal will be submitted to the Council in writing. In addition, you may designate a person to represent you at the hearing if you wish. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, A,,- L &�,, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Mrs. Fanelli Printed on recycled paper. F R I 1.6:1:5 20800 Kittridge Road Saratoga, CA 95070 January 9, 1997 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: 868 -1280 Dear Members of the Saratoga City Council, Re: SD -95 -006 & A.P.A.: 517 -14 -071 & 081 & 071; Constantin, 20855 Kittridge Rd. and 15261 Norton Road. We oppose the approval of a building permit at 15261 Norton Road. It has been consistently shown that 20855 Kittridge Road is not a suitable building site and that was a parcel of record. The same objections that we have to the Kittridge Road site also apply to the Norton Road site. It also is not a suitable building site and will require variances to the building codes even though it is a parcel of record. The building code is supposed to provide protection of the hillsides, but the building project SD -95 -006 & APA 517 -14- 071 & 081 on Norton Road will require too many exceptions to be acceptable within the framework of the Code. At a time when the people of Saratoga have made it very clear that offensive hillside development on wooded hillsides is not acceptable, it is very offensive that the City Council is considering issuing a building permit for this site that will require massive scraping of the soil. There are already too many buildings on this hillside that are terrible eyesores. In my letter written last year, I stated that "The Citizens of Saratoga hold natural vegetation as their highest priority according to the results of a survey paid for by the City. Why was the survey done if we are not going to pay attention to the results ?" We hope that the City Council will not allow this kind of high impact, both visually and ecologically. We highly object to this proposed building site on Norton Road. We hope that the City Council will enforce the building codes and not grant this building permit. Some of the candidates who ran for City Council and won the election ran on a strong committment to protect wooded hillsides. We hope that they will stand behind these campaign promises regarding this site. Please include this letter in the official record as we will not be able to attend next Wednesday's meeting due to a previous engagement. Thank you. Sincerely yours, �Q v Gail and Doug Cheeseman • • • i[ I] VICINITY MAP J�4 cp of 5J� 3 1 P,S l 1 4 T I �1 I l ,Da I ¢+ J 1 I SOT .•- "'- - LC', 1 \�0 6• JA pap' ,Dy' Oyc O,o / � 10AP, 1 %V' D IY . -PAJ[M1E.�r A90 KQJL: NOlAl1UEi0E1h;THR+C VFRIry IRIFS M4Y PE'7ICW J f°e I n R$1AtAP V '.A I !LIST N =- EASEMiNIS, PLAN LINES. SETIMCK BECi. taACiFf )IUt1EiFft�laliI:;`- .nnpl[: UH1 `5AN0GEOLOGCCONDfI1OD6,EAW.AM CII AJ UIMY tNEt IT r'r0 ANYC,:VK: 13"155sio"•1401910,ML ,q0 ti 4 8y Z Alto ss� r—Arelldl I A - 1� ELEt/a'o,J DIa.JM; CITY •F fA(WrOLA 4) DaNCu)A -f, JALLS A,iO F&TEn)Tln� al"_ z) Ta.CoIAPR'1 IAKEO FROM TOPO MAPS fouTPRIAT(Pea DESIGA) 6Y T.i.r,ouiACIG QY CIVIL 4 CDfJt .L WAS. .. LAQQT fAL.M CIVIL CN6C•/r04JJLTAJT1) Aoe EO ra 1140t.) A OOObt 4 All OCim -eel FCASIGILII'Y OF R fIe14LE -SITS !) T1111 C —Irti,En MAV IS eOa T 4-.&Tl ✓C DEJCLUPMCnIT. DESI(uJ SNISVrI It AIJ1 iiD MAP PI IPOti( Ori LY, r10T FOL De116A OR CDALTALC 7.e4; DE iAILE.i To Op(.AAPdIL L : o C0fjtTU)C_T10J LJOP.IC. 9WI40AQ1 10RiiY 1JOA/L To PRCCEEt� AC1 ✓AL SITE OES16Ai. 1.6 A r a COP �![�� �•1= ao SC PO�y,H Corz 16INAL) ,� I 27S90 b40 P^ � oo° 7' ' \ , '• UTILITIES -- \ L A CAW. 1' \ 1' �k [oI.iJECT n Al �\ V, 1 ' I / 1 \ / �C4,�A ITV• 001 110EL10R! R0. ��� 1 '1 1 i �� *• GA1 A ELitl. PCs l E IN I 11 \ WATER- SARATO6A 41. \ ` MJT, lLilTElI CO. E,cliT..a(A U3E- JnCAJ: 1 �` ��r1 �•(t \ ` Pe OPot CV Ir[e- SIJ(.L[ FAM,f w I Hopi[ DVhl !, eVe I ► PV ELCY. OAVJa %00 � Lq 10, b 3 [.lp & I / O Z. I o i0 A .0 (((�� q10 191° I630 3100 '�a i3f I AP/J %'1-1-1+-71 181 920 184- 1040 3i z, 4IQ Isle IOln 310 J? .•F \r 3 ITC I�LAr C 4, -- LOT " qao I(_x- 1060 2671 elf Of 1 1070 Z10 TENTATIVE M /\P SN. 2207 L.Fr. logo S] OF TIi P_ MEQ6ER Of -L/1.I DI OF JDI I ( 4 CLED COr(SVniNT)f{ q�p O z �7 �r� �• O.Oo 119.7. L Tu,nL bz lot L.CT qV FCITT121DC,,E ROAD 4 002iOt1 ROAD. SARATobA /(A. 0.001L9 • ID-W01 ' S- 2•ZSX 10-20 -1993 S- (02 1 "7, LSaA 1SAIT • AF).* E4 DODGE d ASSOCIATES, SURVEYING ADO sITIE vLAA,,' • fa•9(: 110. dl. f1fR6E A%nLE• % 2j41 MONTEZUMA DR. CAMPBELL, CA 95004 "% AIWA- ox.....w16 AtA£1�= 88.000 S�2F7 f. 1-31-4c 2[Jft.eLD4.I1k. 408. 379 -3474 w1 rJ AAte iwl. e•lt �4 A[V_�IAO• �AfA , 1:11 fY• " -•, 900 � �t r r - p•A i i • i N � AVERAGE SLOPE C C011PUTATIONS S SW �^ I A CO4TOJ4 L LEANG-111 C COIJTO\.)rL L L-E036TH P PP�PVIEli' �D 840 I If. L. F-, 9 9Es0 I I(o$ L.F-T _ �u1nIER: 1 ID / 3 _ � 1o13L I RA,JCIf CAri COU11T 810 L LAS 4 490 4 4Dfi. r rw �1 %� S SAJ Tofc to ♦i1Z0 BBo' L LmlO 1 1000 4 410 erTO Z Zia I IO10 3 390 / / R ROGU 1L DODGfi Z. I o i0 A .0 (((�� q10 191° I630 3100 '�a i3f I AP/J %'1-1-1+-71 181 920 184- 1040 3i z, 4IQ Isle IOln 310 J? .•F \r 3 ITC I�LAr C 4, -- LOT " qao I(_x- 1060 2671 elf Of 1 1070 Z10 TENTATIVE M /\P SN. 2207 L.Fr. logo S] OF TIi P_ MEQ6ER Of -L/1.I DI OF JDI I ( 4 CLED COr(SVniNT)f{ q�p O z �7 �r� �• O.Oo 119.7. L Tu,nL bz lot L.CT qV FCITT121DC,,E ROAD 4 002iOt1 ROAD. SARATobA /(A. 0.001L9 • ID-W01 ' S- 2•ZSX 10-20 -1993 S- (02 1 "7, LSaA 1SAIT • AF).* E4 DODGE d ASSOCIATES, SURVEYING ADO sITIE vLAA,,' • fa•9(: 110. dl. f1fR6E A%nLE• % 2j41 MONTEZUMA DR. CAMPBELL, CA 95004 "% AIWA- ox.....w16 AtA£1�= 88.000 S�2F7 f. 1-31-4c 2[Jft.eLD4.I1k. 408. 379 -3474 w1 rJ AAte iwl. e•lt �4 A[V_�IAO• �AfA , 1:11 fY• "