Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAA� SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 2,(00-) AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: February 21, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development, CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: B SUBJECT: Independent Order of Odd Fellows - 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located off Fruitvale Ave. The application includes General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review requests to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Odd Fellows' representatives are also requesting that the City of Saratoga enter into a Development Agreement with the Odd. Fellows to assure that upon approval of the project they may proceed with the project in accordance with existing rules and regulations. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Recommended Motion: 1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overri -.- Con, G iderat ion . 3 . Approve the Area "G" General Plan Text ��;.� r:::. r: t a �,,,,,d by the Planning Commission. 4. Approve the Use Permit and Design Review requests as recommended by the Planning Commission. S. Introduce the Ordinance to approve the Development Agreement as recommended by the Planning Commission. Project Description: The International Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application includes General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review requests to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Phase I of the proposed Master Plan includes the remodel of the IOOF Home, the expansion of the Villa apartments and the removal and replacement of the Health Center. Phase II represents Odd Fellows, long term plans for the property, which includes two new apartment structures and 19 single -story duplex cottages. The proposed Master Plan would result in an overall net increase from 170 to 307 housing units and from 68 to 99 nursing beds. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS Page Two Project Overview: In January 1994, Odd Fellows submitted an application to redevelop their senior care and living facility. The initial applications included requests for Use Permit approval to allow the expansion of an "institutional" type of land use within a residential zoning district. A Design Review application was also necessary for the structures themselves. .The General Plan designation for the majority of the 37 acres is Quasi Public Facilities. This designation was adopted for Saratoga's first General Plan land use map in 1960, reflecting the fact that the senior care home existed prior to Saratoga's incorporation as a City. The oldest structure on the property, the IOOF Home, was reportedly built in 1911. The General Plan designation for the 10.6 acres of undeveloped land at the south end of the facility is Residential -Very Low Density, allowing for a maximum density of 11 single family homes. In March 1994, Odd Fellows included an application for General Plan Text Amendment to allow 11 single story duplex senior cottages on the 10.6 acres, for a total density of 22 senior dwelling.units. The overall development proposal required a geologic and geotechnical review clearance before it could be accepted as a complete application. The City's Geotechnical Consultants granted this clearance March 6, 1995 based on their review of submitted geotechnical investigations and their site visits. The State Permit Streamlining Act requires that local jurisdictions render a decision on an application within one year for projects which require an EIR to be prepared. The City Council will therefor need to either approve or deny the associated application requests by the March 6, 1996 Council meeting. Environmental Review: Staff's environmental Initial Study determined that the project may result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared to further assess these potential impacts. In order to provide as much public participation in the review process as possible, staff held two public "scoping" meetings in May 1994 to allow those interested to comment and add to the administrative Initial Study. This final document was then distributed to environmental consultants to solicit Requests for Proposals. Following interviews with several firms, paneled by staff, a Planning Commissioner and a City Councilmember, the environmental consulting firm Michael Brandman Associates was selected to prepare the EIR. City and MBA staff then invited interested residents to two informational site visits in October and November 1994 to have the applicants walk the property and explain their proposal and to further solicit input into the preparation of the EIR. While CEQA requires a 45 day public review and comment period, MBA's completed draft EIR - Volume I, the Draft EIR, and Volume II, the Technical Appendices - were noticed and circulated for an expanded 60 day period in April and ending in June 1995. The comments generated during this period were each responded to by MBA and bound as Volume III, Responses to Comments. Volumes I, II and III comprise the Final EIR. Volume IV is an addendum report only and not part of the FEIR. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS Page Three The Planning Commission held public hearings on the FEIR on September 27, October 11 and November 8, 1995. At the November meeting, the Commission concluded their review and recommended certification of the FEIR to the City Council. Laura Worthington- Forbes, project manager for MBA, will be present at the City Council meeting to discuss the FEIR and answer any question the Council may have regarding the document. Planning Commission Issues: The City Council has previously received the complete FEIR, milestone staff reports and Planning Commission meeting minutes, a draft copy of the Development Agreement and a complete set of project plans. Over the past year the Planning Commission has grappled with many environmental and project issues and concerns. Rather than reiterate this past record, the following bullets summarize the Commission's most recent February 14th meeting comments wherein they recommended approval of the proposed Master Plan: Development Agreement The Development Agreement prepared by the applicants was accepted as an appropriate means to ensure that the duplex cottages component of Phase II on the 10.6 acres subject to the General Plan Text amendment would be built. The Commission completed a careful paragraph -by- paragraph review of the proposed Development Agreement and the attached Agreement reflects their recommended changes in strilreeeti and text. The Commission's primary concerns were the following: • Require that an open space easement be recorded prior to issuance of any permits around the perimeter of the 11 duplex cottages on the southern 10.6 acres to permanently restrict any future development potential. • Ensure that the 11 duplex cottages component of the Master Plan would be carried -out by requiring that they be constructed before any permits would be issued for either the Phase I or Phase II apartment buildings or cottages. • Require that the proposed Crisp Ave. and Chester Ave. landscaping be installed prior to issuance of any permits in order to provide early landscape screening. Requirement For Saratoga Fire District Aerial Truck Odd Fellows' representative objected to the EIR requirement (and therefor a project condition of approval) that they pay for a new aerial fire truck for the district. They feel that the existing Mutual Aid Agreement that the Fire District has with the Santa Clara County Central Fire District sufficiently mitigates the health and safety impact of this project. As the draft February 14th meeting minutes reflect, the Commission did express reservations about the requirement, feeling that it may be in excess of the project's proportional impact or burden. Because of the amount of information submitted to the Planning Commission at the "eleventh hour ", however, the Commission adopted the Use Permit and Design Review Resolution as prepared, with the fire truck requirement, and sent the matter up to the City Council for further consideration. Correspondence is attached from both the Odd Fellows' representative and the Fire District's representative. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS Page Four Public Notice: Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of the subject properties and to individuals who have requested notification and a notice was placed in the Saratoga News. Follow -up Actions: Final Resolutions and Ordinance will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Development Agreement^ 2. Resolutions to: a. Certify Environmental Impact Report b. Adopt CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration C. Approve Area "G" General Plan Text Amendment d. Approve Use Permit and Design Review 3. Ordinance to Approve Development Agreement 4. Draft Planning Commission minutes dated February 14, 1996 5. Correspondence james \exesumm \oddf11ws Development Agreement Certify Adopt CE Approve Area. "G" & Approve Resolutions to Environmental Impact Report, QA Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration,, General Plan Text Amendment Use Permit and Design Review Ordinance to Approve Development Agreement Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated February 14, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 8 - PATRICK AND PIERCE VOTING NO. DRAFT The Commission recessed at 8:36 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:48 p.m. 3. GPA -94 -001, UP- 94-001 & DR- 94-004 - INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS; 14500 FRUITVALEAVE.;The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master .Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application requests for General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review approval have been heard at several Planning Commission public hearings. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and recommended for certification by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Odd Fellows' representatives are now requesting that the City of Saratoga enter into a Development Agreement with Odd Fellows to assure that upon approval of the project they may proceed with the project in accordance with existing rules and regulations (cont. from 1/24/96; City review deadline is 3/6/96). --==----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the development agreement has been noticed for tonight's meeting and that it was prepared by the applicant's representative. The development agreement would allow the applicant a 10 year window period to build out as the applicant feels that this time period would be necessary for a project of this type and scope. In exchange, the applicant would offer the city the following: 1) a guarantee that there would be an open occupancy availability to all seniors; 2) program to provide early notification to Saratoga seniors of unit availability; 3) allows for perimeter landscaping adjacent to Crisp Avenue to be installed prior to commencement of construction of the buildings; 4) open space easement; 5) proposed additional drainage improvements beyond what the scope of the impact of the project; and 6) a guarantee that should the project be approved, that the 11 units proposed on the 10.6 southern acres would be developed. Planner Walgren recommended that the public hearing be opened on the development. agreement and that the development agreement be discussed. Should the Commission find the development agreement acceptable, staff would recommend that the development agreement, the general plan text amendment, the use permit and the design review applications be forwarded to the City Council for approval. He informed the Commission that the State's Permit Streamlining Act requires that local jurisdiction complete its review of projects such as this one within a one year period. He indicted that this project would be nearing that one year time limit (March 6, 1996). Planner Walgren read into the record correspondence received from the following individuals: Jeffrey Schwartz, San Marcos Road, (summarizing eight topics of concern, many of which deal with the procedural review of this project); Linda Callon with the law firm of Berliner Cohen, - representing the Odd Fellows (addressed the fact that a letter was received from the Law Offices of William D. Ross, representing the Fire District, contesting the EIR •b PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 9 - requirements and conditions of approval which would require the purchase of an aerial fire truck for the Fire District. Being challenged was the connection of the impact that the project has and that of providing a fire truck), and a letter from William D. Ross (supporting the Fire District's request for the fire truck). Also distributed to the Commission this evening was a packet of information containing a series of correspondence between the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks addressed to Mayor Jacobs, responded to by City Manager Peacock and a second letter from the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks addressed the water quality of the creeks as well as the City Manager's subsequent response to that letter. Planner Walgren indicated that the author of the letter, Mr. Whetstone, performed storm water quality tests at various outfall locations below the property and raised concerns regarding the water quality at the Odd Fellows site. Planner Walgren noted that some of the drainage systems came from adjacent development and not from the Odd Fellows' site. He informed the Commission that City Attorney Riback has reviewed this information and was prepared to answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff where this new information would fit as the Commission has already reviewed the final EIR? Planner Walgren responded that the letters address hydrology to a degree -but that primarily, the letters are commenting on the level of bacteria in the storm water found downstream and contesting that it was not properly addressed in the EIR. City Attorney Riback clarified that the letters were addressed to the Mayor and that this would be included as part of the City Council packet. In the interest of full disclosure, the City wanted to make sure that the Commission was made aware of these correspondence. He indicated that they have been responded to by City staff. It was the City's belief that the response was more than adequate, that the issues raised were dealt with adequately in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and that there was no need to further consider this matter other than as described in the City Manager's letters. Commissioner Abshire asked staff if exhibit "A "consists of the 22 pages of .plans that were included in the Commission's packet. Planner Walgren indicated that the 22 pages of plans were to be identified as exhibit A. Commissioner Abshire requested that the applicant identify the changes that have been made. Planner Walgren clarified that the changes made to the plans were refinements to the plans to make them consistent with the changes that were made at the November public hearing. At the November public hearing, the Commission requested that the applicant address the various plan revisions (i.e., taking the cottages off the hilltop, reversing the roadway, eliminating the fire access road). Those changes were incorporated in the site plan but that the changes were not made consistently throughout the entire plan. Commissioner Kaplan noted that exhibit A was not the exhibit A to the development agreement. Planner Walgren clarified that the development agreement contains its own exhibits A, B an& C which are separate from the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Kaplan noted that exhibit C was not included as a part of the development agreement and asked what exhibit C was? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff did not receive a copy of exhibit C but that the description of exhibit C states that it is supposed to be a map that identifies the open space easement. He informed the Commission that the open space easement is shown on the plan set distributed to the Commission. Staff recommended that the open space easement be expanded along the entire drainage system and not just along the west edges as shown on the set of plans. Chairman Murakami noted that the public hearing remained opened from the last Commission meeting. Linda Callon, representing the Odd Fellows, requested that the Commission take action on the general plan amendment, use permit, design review and development agreement. She indicated that the Odd Fellows would like to provide more senior housing in Saratoga. A partnership is now being sought with the City through a development agreement to provide senior housing. The development agreement would give the Odd Fellows time to build out the project so. that the approvals are valid for a longer period of time than the two years that is generally given in the use permit and design review approval. She informed the Commission that the development agreement was structured after the development agreement that was granted to Greenbriar in April 1995, including a few modifications. She indicated that this project was special to Saratoga as it fulfills the Housing Element objective for senior housing and diversity of housing among seniors and Saratoga residents. Ms. Callon indicated that the last part of Exhibit B of the development agreement identities how the 10.6 acre parcel is to be developed. She indicated that an initiative is attempting to affect this part of the project. She indicated that Odd Fellows would agree to construct all of the duplex units on the 10.6 acres or that part of the duplex units would be constructed and that at that time, an easement would be dedicated that would restrict development on the rest of the property so that it follows the master plan. She identified a third option as being that if it is found that there are some reasons for not developing the cottages as part of phase I, that there would be a dedication of a private open space easement. This easement would either restrict future development to the master plan design of duplex units or an easement would be dedicated to restrict the 10.6 acre to the general plan and zoning that currently exists. She felt that this requirement would alleviate the fear expressed regarding future requests for intense development. Ms. Callon requested that the Commission modify the following conditions contained in the use permit/design review resolution: Condition 2.f. talks about asking the Odd Fellows to show a good faith effort to obtain an easement across 100 foot of property on San Marcos Road in order to combine the two private roads at the intersection of Fruitvale. She requested that this condition be deleted because the EIR did not find any significant effects even though it-acknowledged the peculiar intersection. She indicated that the Odd Fellows did not have a good working relationship with their neighbors. She would not be PLANNING CONMUSSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 11 - able to explain to her clients as to what is meant by a good faith effort. She noted that the City could condemn the property or request that both property owners dedicate an easement. Condition 52 - She acknowledged sending a letter to staff requesting relief from part of the condition which requires the purchase of a fire truck for the Fire District (as part of phase II). She noted that the EIR states that the Fire District originally wanted a prorata share of a paramedic or medical personnel. The factual analysis of the EIR indicate that there were 37 calls from the Odd Fellows in the year that it was analyzed and that there were 786 calls in the City. Of the 37 calls, only 4 calls were related to fire calls and that the remainder of the calls related to either a medical response or service call. The EIR concluded that it was a potentially significant impact to have an increase of 134 units on site and that it was fair to require some kind of medical response on the property. Instead of the requested 24- hour life support service personnel, the Fire District was now requesting that the Odd Fellows purchase a fire truck. She did not believe that there was anything in the fact analysis that states that there was a connection with what this project is proposing and the need for a new fire truck. She indicated that she received a letter late this afternoon from the Fire District which explained the laws that sets out when the Fire District can request items. She stated that facts have to support the legal analysis and that she did not believe that it does. She requested that a portion of the condition relating to the purchase of a fire truck be deleted as it is estimated to cost approximately $300,000+ to purchase a fire truck. The number of units to be increased is only 134. The purchase of a fire truck would add a $2,500per unit cost. Condition 59 - She sent a letter to the City addressing the Odd Fellows picking up the defense cost for the City should there be a law suit filed against the City. She indicated that this matter has been addressed in the development - agreement (paragraph 16, page 9). She requested that this condition be deleted or that the condition be amended to read: "To conform with Development Agreement, Section 16, page 9). Condition 60 is a liquidated damage provision that states that if the Odd Fellows is in violation of the conditions, that damages are to be imposed on a daily basis. She requested relief from this condition and that it be replaced with the standard condition which would allow for a public hearing to determine if there is a violation of the use permit and to determine whether the city would modify the use permit or revoke the use permit. Commissioner Asfour stated that he appreciated the fact that the applicants came up with the hydrology to help the neighborhood. He referred to the following sections of exhibit B of the development agreement: paragraph 2 - he noted that only a one week notice was being recommended prior to release of information. He recommended that the time be changed to 15 days. He referred to the last line of exhibit B and noted that the applicant was requesting deletion of conditions 3, 4 and 6. He recommended that condition 3 be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 12 - deleted because this condition should have been completed by that time (landscaping is to be installed immediately). Commissioner Kaplan noted that the discussion on the fire truck has been going on for a long time and that an objection was not previously raised by the applicant. Ms. Callon indicated that she did not come into the project until late in the process and that she was not aware of this requirement until it was listed as a condition in November.. She indicated that she met with the Fire District and requested that the condition be deleted. She informed the Commission that this issue has not be resolved. Commissioner Patrick asked if the Odd Fellows would be responsible for defending the City if a third party sued the City for any action taken by the City relating to the Odd Fellows development (paragraph 16 of the development agreement)? Ms. Callon responded that the Odd Fellows' counsel would select the attorney who is to defend the City unless the City elects to use separate counsel. City Attorney Riback indicated that Ms. Callon representation of paragraph 16 was his understanding of what was the intent of that paragraph. He informed the Commission that this paragraph was negotiated in the Greenbriar Development Agreement and that it was intended to protect the City's interest and to assure that the City does not end having to expend a great deal of funds to defend the applicant. Commissioner Asfour asked staff if condition 60 relating to noncompliance with any of the conditions of the use permit being constituted a violation of the permit was a condition that was applied to all approvals? Planner Walgren responded that condition 60 was a standard condition applied to all approvals. City Attorney Riback further clarified that the development agreement has a requirement for an annual review. It is at this point in time that issues relating to non - compliance are raised on the part of the developer. He indicated that he did not object to the deletion of condition 60. He indicated that the defense and indemnification was what was critical to the City. The developer would normally want to have control as to who defends the City. This was an issue that the City can take issue with. Commissioner Asfour asked City Attorney Riback regarding the two parallel roads and whether the Planning Commission could request condemnation of land and force the two roads to connect? City Attorney Riback indicated that in the : case of a subdivision map, there are provisions that states that a subdivider is to obtain the property interest of someone else's property. If it cannot be obtained, the City is required to move forward with condemnation if the condition is to be met. In this case, there is no such requirement in state law. The best that the City can do is to request that a good faith effort be made. He indicated that if the City really wanted to merge the two roads, that the City would need to condemn the property and make it a public road as property can only be condemned if it serves public interest. um PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Kaplan noted that the condition, as worded, requires that the applicant make a "good faith effort". If there was a hazard, she felt that the individuals residing on the other side would be more than happy to have somebody help them to improve a safety hazard. She stated that at this time, she would not be agreeable to force the Odd Fellows to do more than send a letter requesting an easement from the neighbor(s). She asked if there was more to this condition than the issue of "attempt "? City Attorney Riback did not believe that there was more to this condition than to have the Odd Fellows make a good faith effort. Susan Masiello, 19271 San Marcos Road, addressed the drainage problem on her property. She indicated that two of her property lines have been excavated because of trees and shrub problems. Ten days ago because of the storm, the drainage ditch was within two to three inches of overflowing and that the back drainage ditch was currently overflowing. She noted that the Odd Fellows' site has two culverts that dump water into her yard. When she noticed the second culvert, she contacted the city because she thought it was a plumbing problem. City staff inspected the site and that she was told that the water came from a spring located on the side of the hill on the Odd Fellows site. She expressed concern with the bacteria associated with water- bound streams. She stated that she has noticed an increase in the mosquito population. She expressed concern that additional buildings at the Odd Fellows site would flood her yard and family room. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the mosquito problem in Santa Clara County was a vector control problem as the County has ceased to mitigate the mosquito problem. Sara Stephenson, 12491 Jolen Court, stated that she was representing the League of Women Voters. She read a letter from the League in support of the provisions of Senior Housing in Saratoga. The League supports General Plans and zoning ordinances that facilitate the development of housing for seniors; supports undertaking ongoing evaluations of senior needs and housing restrictions; supports changes in local government regulations to reduce the cost of housing and encourages the construction of rental units. Based on these positions, the League encourages the City to facilitate and approve the plan for development of the Odd Fellows property. She indicated that the League does not take a stand on an issues unless it was studied. She informed the Commission that the League has studied the need for senior housing and that the League feels very strongly that this request needs to be facilitated. Chung Park, 14642 Via de Marcos, expressed concern regarding the cottages that. are to be located along the road located to the left of the site plan. He noted that a in previous document, he recalled seeing only half as many units proposed. The number of cottages proposed and their closeness lends itself to a sardine type of a look. He felt that the cottages would be incompatible with the overall atmosphere and the look and feel of the neighborhood. He requested that the landscape buffer. be extended along the bottom of the map depicted in consideration of the neighbors located at the bottom as well as the neighbors located- to the left of the property. 3 i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 14 - William D. Ross, attorney representing the Saratoga Fire Protection District, indicated that his remarks would supplement those of the written communication. He informed the Commission that it was the District's position that condition 52 dealing with the aerial fire truck was justified by substantial evidence. He pointed out that it was not the District's burden of proof to establish this once the issue is verified and that the burden of proof was that of the applicants. He noted that the issue was first raised on June 13, 1995 by the Chief in the draft EIR. This resulted in a response to comments which are designated as SFG 1 -8 contained in the response to comments portion of the final EIR. It was his belief that the applicant's representative first met with the District regarding condition 52 on February 2, 1996 and that the representative indicated that the Odd Fellows would not be willing to buy a fire truck. He referred the Commission to Public Resources Code, Section 21177 A and B which recognizes the District's obligation to raise this issue. Mr. Ross felt that there were some critical facts that the Commission should be made aware of and that all matters to be addressed. by the applicant would have to be substantiated. It was his belief that the Chief's analysis of June 1995 as well as those of William Maxwell, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District, attached as exhibit A, analyzed the methodology employed by the District to come up with the requirement for an aerial fire truck. It was believed that the characteristics of this project as proposed, justifies the purchase of the apparatus for the Fire District (i.e., doubling of senior population, characteristic of the footprint of the facility, the limited access to the facility, and the ability to have the aerial capability to rescue seniors from potential hazards). He did not believe that the applicant has a problem with the Advanced Life Support (ALS) requirements as contained in condition 52. He stated that the District's records for the calendar year 1995 shows that the existing facility accounts for over 10% of the medical assistance to the District. He noted that there are several General Plan policies regarding senior housing. It was his belief that the correct policy for determining consistency with the. General Plan contained in the General Plan Guidelines . (page 212) issued by the Governor's Office (1990). Specifically a project can be found consistent with the General Plan if it meets all of the. goals and policies of the General Plan. Pages 26 and 47 of the Safety Element clearly indicates that access is a major concern. Mr. Ross indicated that the District neither favors nor opposes the project but that if it is to be approved, it is believed that condition 52 is essential. Should condition 52 be deleted, it would create a problem with the. sufficiency of the final EIR because response to comment SF #1 indicates that this is a significant effect on the environment. Should the City approve the applications, it would be appropriate to add condition 52.1 which would stipulate that the applicant is to comply with all of the provisions of the State Building Codes which include the Uniform Fire Code because of the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 18938B. This condition would clarify the obligations and whether permits for authorization are discretionary or ministerial in the future. He felt that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the need for an aerial apparatus as this was a unique facility. The district does not want to appear before the City in years to come to justify why some incident occurred at this facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Ross what was so unique about this facility as compared to a three story condominium located in the downtown area. Mr. Ross responded that the EIR states that there are significant development concerns from a fire safety stand point capability and with the composition of the residents of the facility (seniors). He indicated that there were no other facilities proposed with limited access. He stated that he did not contest that there would be an incidental benefit to the balance of the city and that this would be the fifth 1500 GPM apparatus in the District. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission recommended certification of the EIR to the City Council and that it included the requirement of a fire truck. She asked the City Attorney if this was the time to reopen the EIR. City Attorney Riback responded that the EIR was not being reopened by discussion of this matter. The Commission was dealing with the question of whether this particular mitigation measure should be imposed as a condition of approval, or whether it should not be required or whether there was a middle ground between the two options. He did not believe that it was inappropriate to deal with this issue at this time. Commissioner Pierce -asked if Mr. Ross agreed with the estimated cost for the fire apparatus as being $300,000. Mr. Ross agreed with this estimate based on the statements made this evening. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the additional cost associated with an aerial feature? Mr. Ross responded that all fire apparatus manufacturers would state that it was not an additional cost. Commissioner Asfour stated that this requirement seemed to be a form of extortion. He asked why this has become an issue at the 11th hour? Mr. Ross directed this question to the applicant as this requirement has been in the public forum since June 1995. The requirement was applicable to this facility and that the district does not view this as being an issue of an extorsion for the reasons previously stated (not wanting to explain why the District was not able to save a resident). City Attorney Riback stated that the issue that is dealt with in the EIR was not the purchase of a ladder or aerial fire truck but that of making one available. If a fire apparatus is made available through the Los Gatos Fire District and a mutual aid agreement exists between Los Gatos and Saratoga Fire Districts or between the City and other Fire Districts, that may well satisfy the requirement of having an aerial fire truck available to respond to any incidents that may arise on this property. Mr. Ross indicated that he was familiar with the Mutual Aid agreement. The agreement states that only upon availability when not needed in the jurisdiction of origin would the fire apparatus be made available. There were no guarantees that this issue can be addressed. Commissioner Asfour noted that it was stated that there were four apparatuses in the district. He asked if this would be the only apparatus with an aerial ladder? Mr. Ross responded that this would be the only apparatus that would have the aerial capability -and that the other fire apparatuses have side ladder capabilities. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Siegfried noted that there was at least one, three story building in Saratoga. He asked Mr. Ross if he was indicating that the District could not service the facility with the existing equipmentT ' Mr. Ross responded that the existing structures could be serviced based on the characteristics of the building. - Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, felt that staff's advise to the Commission was wrong with regards for the need of an instant approval. He felt that the development agreement was an exercise to circumvent an initiative. The development agreement would not afford the protection that has been discussed for several months. He felt that it was a one sided agreement. The applicant can allow any of the agreed upon provisions to lapse and then return to request development at a higher density on undeveloped portions of the land. The senior access agreement was not well defined and does not offer true protection. The City has lost the open space that was to be preserved in previous approvals. The open space is now going to be an easement over what is left of the riparian corridor. He noted that one of the huge massive structures would be built into the riparian corridor. He addressed water quality and noted that the findings of, the "Friends" were 2.5 times that of the federal limit. If the Odd Fellows project is approved, there would be an increase if the City allows intensification of the -use. He noted that drainage plans were not provided. He indicated that the neighbors support the fire district's request. If the City was going to ignore the General Plan and allow three to four story structures in the middle of residential neighborhoods, he requested that the City makes sure that the fire department has what it needs to access the structures. He did not know why there was a rush to get this request to the Council. Other cities have development plans for large projects that go on for more than a year if an extension is secured. If an extension is not authorized, the project is denied. He felt that the Odd Fellows would go through months not telling the City that they have any intentions of buying a fire truck, leaving it in the agreements and than come forward at the last minute. He hoped that the Commission continues its deliberation to make this project work. Dom Richiuso requested that the City ensure that whatever is agreed to in the master plan is what is built out over time, making the master plan irrevocable. One way to ensure that the master plan is build out as approved is to provide for an open space easement anywhere where it is not buildable to prevent further development in the future. He did not know why the City had to give up things to the developer in return for a 10 year buildout. He addressed paragraph 4.2 (term of the agreement); 5.1 (if there is to be a change in the future, there need not be a public hearing and that the public would not be aware of proposed changes); 7.3 (moratorium not applicable - this was a way to circumvent this issue; it does not belong in this agreement); and 9.3 (no such operating memorandum shall constitute an amendment to this agreement requiring public notice or hearing - this was an example of what has happened in the past, keeping individuals in the dark). He indicated that exhibit B addressed only the 10.6 acres, specifically items 3, 4, and 6. He recommended that the entire project be included, not just the 10.6 acres). The last paragraph located on the last page states: "...maytake any action necessary to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. It was his interpretation of this section that if something changes, there can be an increase in density. He felt that the development agreement contained several loop PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY '14,1996 PAGE - 17 - holes. He could not understand why the city could approve the development agreement as it does not do anything that the city wants it do. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, acknowledged that the draft development agreement was submitted by the applicant's counsel and that it does not necessarily reflects the city's position. He addressed the "cancellation by mutual consent" and the use of a consent calendar without proper notification being given. He felt that the public should be included in some fashion in those provisions. Regarding exhibit B, item 3, page 1, it refers to a perimeter landscaping. He felt that the entire perimeter of the property should have the benefit of a landscape buffer because the view corridor would be impacted all around the property. Regarding the open space easement, he felt that it should be ensured that the 20- 30 acre site does not include additional development outside the building areas. He recommended that an open space easement also be required under section 6.a. should the project not develop as is stipulated under section 6.c. Commissioner Asfour informed Mr. Borelli that any item on a consent calendar can be removed from the consent calendar by the Commission or the public. The fact that an item is on a consent calendar does not mean that the item is being slipped under the carpet. Mr. Borelli commented that had the adjacent residents been notified of the material change that was accommodated under the consent calendar of phase III of Rogers and Brook, he could assure the Commission that the residents would have packed the chambers and raised their concerns. He requested that if there was a major material change being contemplated, that the neighborhood be notified, and that it not be placed on a consent calendar. Bob Finocchio, 19160 Crisp Avenue, stated that he would not enter into this type of an agreement as it does not protect the City. He felt that the ten year term for the contract was too long. He felt that if the applicant could not afford this development, the applicant should not apply to build this development. He asked what were the remedies should the applicant not follow through with the provisions of the agreement? He inquired as to the successors' ability to modify the project in the future. Ms. Callon indicated that the development agreement was fashioned after the development agreement entered into with Greenbriar. It was believed that the development agreement would give the Odd Fellows some security that they can build the project and at the same time to provide the City with some benefits that it may not otherwise have. She explained that the reason for the timeline was due to the time that was needed to get state approval for the skilled nursing facility. She noted that it takes 12 to 18 months to build a skilled nursing facility and that the rest of the facilities would not take as long to build. Construction of the project would not be more than a two to three year process. Regarding the Fire District's condition, she apologized for addressing this concern at this late of a date. She indicated that it was a condition of approval that was recently brought to her attention. She did not believe that the facts support what has been suggested to the Commission. The fact was that only four fire calls out of 700+ have occurred. The EIR states that the Fire District has three Class A 1500 GPM engines at this time. The agreement also states that 'i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 18 - not only is there a mutual aid agreement through the county but in fact there is an automatic aid agreement with the neighboring cities (Los Gatos and Cupertino). She felt that whatever fire protection was being provided was being made available through the automatic aid agreement. She noted that further build out was restricted by the General Plan and zoning. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked the City Attorney if there was a way for the City to grant an extension to the one year Permit Streamlining Act limit? City Attorney Riback responded that an extension must be agreed upon by the applicant and that the maximum extension that can be granted would be for a three month period. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the Commission review the development agreement sequentially. Commissioner Siegfried asked City Attorney Riback how binding this agreement would be? He indicated that the neighbors have requested that should the Commission approve the request, that it is done with. He did not get that sense from this agreement that this would be accomplished. He asked if there were other things that the City could do to ensure that this proposal would be the ultimate development that would be allowed on the site? City Attorney Riback indicated that he was not aware of any agreement or any other approvals that can be made that would be irrevocable so as to guarantee that the project is going to be built as approved. He indicated that the applicant has the right to build or not build the project. The applicants have agreed to record a private open space should the cottages not be built in response to this concern. He stated that there were no guarantees that the applicant would follow through with an approval.. after it is received. Comments on the " development agreement Page 2, Section 4.2, Term of the Agreement - Commissioner Kaplan noted that Ms. Callon has suggested that the 10 year period be retained because all of the preliminary approvals would cut off their right to build on a normal two year build out. She asked if there could be a revision to this section that stipulates that the initial processing of the application was not counted (the project is put on hold until the application is approved and that the project is ready to obtain permits, giving the applicant five years to develop from that date). City Attorney Riback indicated that there was nothing to prevent the city from amending the section as recommended by the Commission other than the applicant's failure to agree to the amendment. Commissioner Siegfried stated* that he did not have a degree of comfort with this agreement. He noted that the 1982 master plan was to be the final development of the land, noting that it is now 1996 and that it is being suggested that this was to be the final master plan with no further requests for development other than what is being presented. He felt that a 11� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE -. 19 - penalty should be built into the agreement master plan. City Attorney Riback agreed would develop as proposed. T.. should the developer not build according to the that there were no guarantees that the project Commissioner Asfour asked if the agreement limits the applicant to three options as listed in Exhibit "B "? City Attorney Riback responded that the agreement would limit the development potential of the site for the term of the agreement. He noted that the penalties for not proceeding in the manner as stipulated in the development agreement would need to be agreed upon by the applicant. City Attorney Riback noted that a question was raised with regard to Section 5.1- The right to develop and the phrase that states that "any amendment to any of them shall from time to time be approved pursuant to this agreement." He noted that state law stipulates that development agreements can amended and that an amendment may not occur unless it returns to the Commission and City Council through the public hearing process. Commissioner Patrick indicated that the term of the agreement means that the City and the developer are bound -by the agreement for a period of tune. She indicated that the agreement does not state that construction needs to take place. Commissioner Abshire noted that the developer has agreed to mitigate any drainage problems in the area regardless of whether this project develops or not. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the major concern was that of the 10.6 acre site. He felt that there has to be some way to tie down what is being developed in such a way that it becomes over and done with. The neighbors basic concern as to the overall project was that City and the developer do something that gets that 10.6 acre developed one way or another. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that he has stated at worksessions and at previous public hearings that the only way to guarantee that the 10.6 acres be developed was to require that the cottages be built. The question was that of how this can be accomplished. He indicated that there exists a planning term known as "leap frog development" whereby you skip over undeveloped land. In this case, the City could require as a condition of approval that the construction and occupancy permit issuance on the 11 cottages be secured prior to the issuance of any other permits. Paragraph 6.2 - Uniform Codes Applicable, Commissioner Kaplan noted that . the Fire District's attorney indicated that there were new fire standards. She noted that one item was not included in the paragraph relating to state permits for the health facilities. She suggested that should the applicant attempt to be certified for Medicare and for MediCal, that the applicants need to obtain state and federal approval (no mention to federal programs). City Attorney Riback indicated that the agreement could be amended to include reference to federal programs as well as reference to the Fire Codes. Paragraph 7.3 - Commissioner Asfour requested that City Attorney Riback interpret this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 20 - paragraph. City Attorney Riback indicated that the intent of this paragraph was to clarify what is already a law. He stated that when a development agreement is issued, it vests rights to the developer -to build a project in accordance with the standards -in effect at time of approval. It was his belief that this provision was intended to respond, in part, to the initiative. He noted that the initiative exempts projects that already have vested rights. The development agreement is a form of a vested right. Even without this paragraph, the state of the law was such that the development agreement would provide a vested right to allow the applicant to move ' forward regardless of the initiative. The purpose for inserting this paragraph was to clarify and emphasis this position. Paragraph 7.4 - Commissioner Asfour felt that there was language missing from the end of the paragraph. He recommended that the following be included at the end of the paragraph: "in no way affect or impair DEVELOPER'S vested rights under Agreement lad or something to that affect. Chairman Murakami agreed that paragraph 7.4 was opened ended. He asked if this paragraph could be amended? Commissioner Asfour asked if the vested rights expire with the expiration of the term of the agreement? City Attorney Riback responded that it would. Commissioner Kaplan noted that paragraph 7.4 contains language that the Commission objects to regarding the developer's right to build but not the obligation to develop the property in any order. She recommended that the language as suggested by Community Development Director Curtis be included in this section which stipulates that cottages are to be built prior to the issuance of other permits for the remainder of the facility. Commissioner Asfour stated that he. supported Commission Kaplan's recommended modification. However, he did not believe that this modification would be acceptable to the applicant. He felt that the language would need to be drafted and returned that would be acceptable to both parties. He recommended that language be included in exhibit B that would stipulate that should the cottages (not be built within a designated period of time, an open space easement is to be designated. He asked if this was a legal modification. City Attorney Riback responded that this recommendation was feasible, noting that this recommendation was different from what the Community Development Director's recommendation. Commissioner Patrick suggested that the Commission recommend the provisions to the City Council as an either or provision (the applicant is to build out everything, that the 11 cottages be built, or that should the cottages not be built within a specified time frame, the land is to be preserved as open space. City Attorney Riback indicated that the Commission could recommend alternatives to the City Council as to how it would like to see this project phased. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 21 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her understanding that the applicant would reserve the area around the riparian corridor as open space as well as the area located to the west. Planner Walgren clarified that there were two open space easements. One of the easements was a requirement of project approval for the entire length of the drainage corridor. The applicant's agreement would be that if the applicant only builds part or none of the cottages, that they would record an open space easement around everything on that 10.6 acre parcel that would otherwise be open, restricting development. It was his belief that the applicants were indicating that they would either build the cottages or that if the cottages were not built immediately, that an open space easement would be recorded. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern that should the applicant wait 10 years and if nothing is built, the City would have no recourse. Ms. Callon noted that paragraph 7.4,relating to the timing of development, was not an open ended paragraph. City Attorney agreed with the comments of Ms. Callon and noted that paragraph 7.4 references paragraph 5.3 and the additional conditions as set forth in Exhibit B. Chairman Murakami informed the applicant and the public present this evening that the Commission would not be able to consider agenda items 4, 5, and 6 this evening due to the lateness in the hour and that the Commission would be continuing these items to the Commission's next meeting. 4. UP -95 -007 - CONGREGATION BETH DAVID; 19700 PROSPECT ROAD, - CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION; 12033 MILLER AVENUE, Request for a joint Use Permit to allow Congregation Beth David and the Church of the Ascension to participate annually in the "Faith in Action" Rotating Shelter Program during the months of June and August respectively.' The program offers shelter; meals and employment assistance to a maximum of 15 transitionally homeless adults. The facilities are located directly adjacent to one another in the R- 1- 10,000 residential zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.. SD -95 -009 & V-95-014- NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single - family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. --------------------------------------------------- — -------------------- — ---------------------- 6. UP -95 -008 - KOLOTOUROS; 20201 MERIDA DR.; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a nonconforming commercial' trucking business to continue within a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 22 - residential zoning district. The subject property fronts onto Merida Dr. and abuts Prospect Rd. to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CONTINUE AGENDA ITEMS 4,-5, AND 6 TO ITS FEBRUARY 28, 1996 MEETING. Paragraph 9.3 - Operating Memoranda. City Attorney Riback noted that reference was made by a speaker regarding paragraph 9.3 relating to the Operating Memoranda. He indicated that the intent was to provide the normal standard operating procedure whenever there are minor clarifications or modifications to be made to the large project during the course of the project. Staff would need to decide whether the modification was minor or whether it has to return to the Commission or City Council for action. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that public hearing consent calendar items are noticed in the paper. However notifications are not mailed to the adjacent residents unless the item is advertised as a public hearing. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff make sure that any modifications for this project be placed on the public hearing calendar to address the residents concern about notification. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the examples as listed in paragraph 9.3. If you go from a skilled nursing to an assisted living, she felt that this was a dramatic change. She asked why these were considered insignificant alterations to the project? City Attorney responded that these were examples submitted by the applicant and that the applicant wanted this particular .language inserted. He recommended that the Commission ask the applicant the rationale for this section. Commissioner Kaplan felt that this language gives the applicant the option to amend the original plans. If the Commission agrees to a congregate care unit and that at a later date, the applicant wants to convert it to an assisted living quarters, she did not believe that it could be approved and recommended that it be stricken. Commissioner Patrick felt that this paragraph appears to state that the applicant can change those uses that cannot be seen from the outside. She felt that it should be made clear that the City does not expect that the cottages be suddenly changed to a dormitory. She felt that the language may affect density in the "for the instance" portion of the paragraph. She recommended that this section be deleted. City Attorney Riback indicated that this paragraph was submitted by the applicant to help clarify what this paragraph is intended to mean. If the language was not consistent with what the Commission wants to see, he recommended that the Commission delete this section. Commissioner Kaplan did not support the retention of the last sentence of paragraph 9.3 because it would - authorize the City Manager to execute an operating memoranda without Council approval. City Attorney Riback stated that staff already has the ability to approve PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY '14, 1996 PAGE - 23 - minor clarifications or modifications that do not affect density, intensity of use, bulk, mass, size, architectural design, etc., and would be similar to a field change order. Commissioner Kaplan felt that this sentence goes beyond a change order. She did not believe that an operating memorandum authority should be given to the City Manager without City Council approval if a procedure was already ' in place to deal with change work orders. She did not believe that it should be expanded. City Attorney Riback recommended that paragraph 9.3 be deleted should the Commission not feel comfortable with this provision. Paragraph 11.2 - Annual Review Process. Commissioner Asfour noted for the record that during the break he discussed with the attorney the last two sentences which reads: "Unless the City Council elects for the matter to be heard at a public hearing, the hearing shall be conducted by the Council as a non - public hearing. The burden of proof of good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement shall be upon the DEVELOPER. " He noted that the Commission has indicated that it would recommend public hearings on this project and that it be ensured - that any recommendations that are made by the Commission are applied throughout the agreement and that it contain no conflicts. Paragraph 11.3 - Termination. Commissioner Asfour asked City Attorney Riback if modification and termination of the agreement was a two way street? City Attorney Riback clarified that this section was contained in the Greenbriar agreement and that he argued for its retention because it gives the City the authority to terminate, cancel or modify the agreement if the applicant was not operating in compliance with the agreement after being notified. Paragraph 11.5 - Fee for Annual Review. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that this section be amended to require that the fees to be collected would recover all costs associated with normal procedures so that the City does not have to make up the difference if the cost is higher. Paragraph 16 - Attorney's Fees and Cost. Commissioner Patrick asked if a provision should be included that stipulates that the city can select a different attorney should it find itself in conflict with the attorney selected by the applicant. City Attorney Riback responded that this would be subject to a written consent by the City. Paragraph 17.1- Right to Assign. Commissioner Abshire asked if the City has the right to approve the company that the project is assigned to or can the City reject the assignment? City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that the applicant requested the deletion of this provision but that the City could reinstate the provision. Commissioner Kaplan noted that at one point, someone asked why this agreement was requested for a period of time and that it was not binding on its successors. She noted that paragraph 18 indicates . that the agreement runs with the land. So whomever may buy the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 24 - Odd Fellows' project, is bound by this agreement. She pointed out this stipulation to the public. Paragraph 19 - Bankruptcy. Commissioner Patrick asked if this was a valid paragraph? City Attorney Riback responded that the intent of this paragraph was for the City's benefit. Exhibit ' B Section 1 - Residency Criteria. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the criteria as listed under Section 1 relating to the residency criteria be tightened. She noted that this subsection gives first preference to individuals residing on the property. She recommended that a new subsection b. be added that would read: "Second preference will be granted to other Saratoga residents for a period of thirty days ". The existing subsection Lb. is to be relabeled as subsection l.c. Section 3 - Perimeter Landscaping by Crisp Avenue. Commissioner Patrick recollected that the Commission specified landscaping that was to be installed along Crisp Avenue because it would not be affected by any construction. She indicated that Crisp Avenue was not being given preference but that the Commission was trying to accommodate construction and the road. She was not aware of any landscaping that would be installed otherwise that would not be affected. Chairman Murakami and Commissioner Asfour recommended the installation of additional screening along the northern boundary of Chester Avenue. Commissioner Abshire noted that Mr. Park requested that landscaping be installed along Via de Marcos. Commissioner Asfour noted that installation of landscaping along Via de Marcos would be damaged due to construction.. . Chairman Murakami asked staff if the Commission's suggestion regarding landscaping should be addressed in this document at this time or should it be addressed at time of design review. Community Development Director responded that the Commission can, at this time, identify what part of the phasing the landscaping is to be installed. Should a problem with installation be identified, the issue would return to the Commission for its review. Section 4 - Open Space Easement. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he would like to see the open space easement expanded as addressed by Planner Walgren in his opening remarks. Not having seen exhibit C he was not sure what was being referred to under this section. At the request of Commissioner Asfour, Planner Walgren identified the location of the open space easement as following the ridgeline, taking in part of the upper drainage system. This is consistent with where the open space easement was recorded for the previous Rogers and Brook Phase III. Staff recommended that the open space be recorded on the other side of the drainage system, including both sides of the riparian habitat. He indicated that there was not a requirement to include Via de Marco in the open space PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 25 - easement at this time. However, an open space easement would include the western portion of Via de Marco should the cottages not be built immediately upon approval of phase I. Section 6 - Phasing. Community Development Director Curtis clarified the options available under Section 6 as being: 1) the applicant can construct the 11 cottages and receive occupancy permits prior to the issuance of building permits for new buildings; or 2). if the 11 cottages are not built within the 10 year term of the development agreement, that the remaining portion of the 10.6 acre site would revert to open space with the exception of the building envelopes. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not want the agreement to prohibit the upgrade of the existing facilities. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the applicant should be allowed to complete phase 1 which includes upgrading the existing buildings and the construction of the new skilled nursing facility. Nothing else would be allowed unless the cottages are built. If phase I is not built out, the applicant would not be allowed to build the new apartment unit(s). Commissioner Asfour requested that reference to condition 3 located on the last paragraph, last sentence of the second page of exhibit be deleted. The Commission noted the comments were expressed on drainage. City Attorney Riback stated that although the comments were received following the close of the public review period relating to drainage, the City looked into this matter. The City contacted the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. According to both of these agencies, the EPA standards referred to by Mr. Whetstone were not relevant to water quality health issues. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she has reviewed the correspondence and stated that she was satisfied that the concerns expressed were addressed by the City and that according to the final EIR, the concern would be mitigated. Planner Walgren acknowledged that the timing of the project was stated as a condition. He indicated that the normal review procedure would be to have the applicant request a grading permit from the city, this would activate the grading and drainage plan for the entire development. He indicated that staff was satisfied with this procedure. City Attorney Riback indicated that staff has noted the changes as recommended by the Commission to the development agreement and that staff would prepare a redlined version of the changes that were made by the Commission. Aerial Fire Truck Chairman Murakami felt that there was a safety liability. He noted that equipment of this type was needed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 26 - Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the requirement of the aerial truck be retained and forwarded to the City Council. However, he recommended that factual information be furnished to the City Council. Commissioner Asfour stated that he was disturbed by the fact that this issue was being presented at the eleventh hour. However, he would agree to forward this issue to the Council. Resolution No..GPA -94 -001. UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004 Condition 2.frelating to verification of a good faith effort to acquire and record a reciprocal vehicular ingress /egress easement to join the two private parallel roadways, Commissioner Kaplan stated that the Commission has come to force the parties to record the easement. She hoped that both parties recognized the safety concern. She felt that there would be a mutual benefit if there was some cooperation given from both sides. She felt that as long as a good faith effort was made, she would be satisfied that the condition was met. Condition 59 - Liability and Enforcement - to be deleted as it is covered under paragraph 16 of the development agreement. Condition 60 relating to noncompliance with the condition of the use permit and liquidated damages to be deleted (Commissioner Asfour indicated that he discussed this condition with the City Attorney and noted that this condition was covered in the development agreement). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NOTING THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: Development Agreement Paragraph 9.3 - Operating Memoranda to be deleted. Paragraph 11.2 - Annual Review Process. Amended to require that the annual review process be a duly noticed public hearing. Paragraph 11.5 - Fee for Annual Review. Amended to reflect that the fee to be collected for the annual review is to be the prevailing rate (amount not to be specified). Paragraph 17.1 - Right to Assign. Amended to reflect that the City has the right to reject the assignment. Development Agreement - Exhibit "B" Section 1 - Residency Criteria. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 27 - The addition of a new subsection Lb. to read: "Second preference will be granted to other Saratoga residents for a period of thirty days" - The existing section Lb. to be relabeled as section l.c. Section 3 amended to read: "Perimeter landscaping by Crisp Avenue Section 4 - Open Space Easement amended to read as recommended by Planner Walgren. Page 2, last sentence of the last paragraph amended to delete reference of condition 3. Section 6 - Phasing of the project to allow renovation of existing structures and construction of new health center. Before any other new development, the 11 cottages must be finalized or open space easement recorded. The intent is to guarantee that the only development on the 10.6 acre site is to be cottages. THE COMMISSION ALSO APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. GPA -94 -001 AND RESOLUTION NO.- UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -001, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS, DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO RESOLUTION UP -94 -001 AND DR -94 -001: Deletion of condition 59 - Liability and Enforcement. Deletion of Condition 60 - Noncompliance with any conditions of the user permit shall constitute a violation...." THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY '(7 -0). Community Development Curtis informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that this item be advertised before the City Council next week. As there has to be a quick turnaround of information, including the minutes, staff would be furnishing the City Council with minute excerpts from the recording secretary. The minutes forwarded to the City Council will be stamped draft as the Commission will not have seen them or approved them. Commissioner Siegfried noted for the record that the issue of compatibility has been raised repeatedly. When you look at the issue of compatibility of the apartment units, one would need to indicate that the apartment units are compatible with the public facilities that exist today which preexisted any of the residential property around it and that the duplex units were compatible with the residential _ property. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSIONER CONCURRED WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED'S STATEMENT REGARDING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Correspondence 6I k SLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOS GATOS SARATOGA MONTE SERENO P.O. Box 2865, Saratoga, CA 95070 -0865 Telephone (408) 867 -VOTE February 13, 1996 The Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Planning Commissioners, The League of Women Voters supports the provision of senior housing in Saratoga. League studies for the past many years have developed the following positions: . -Support of general plans and zoning ordinances to facilitate development of housing for seniors. *Support undertaking an ongoing evaluation of senior needs and housing restrictions and efficient permit procedures. -Support of changes in local governmental regulations to reduce the cost of housing and encouragement for the building of rental units. Based on these positions, we encourage you to facilitate and approve the plan for development of the Odd Fellows property. We believe this is a suitable place for senior residences. Respectfully, Z) Candace Pratt Co- President cc: Saratoga City Council 2/fq 0 1� RECEIVED VIA FACSIMILE AND UNITED STATES MAIL Mr. James Walgren, Project Manager Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Odd Fellows Home.of ;California /Master Plan Project - Condition -52;re :.Requirement of Purchase of Fire Truck-for Saratoga Fire District, Dear James: We have reviewed all the information available on the potential impact of the Master Plan Project on. provision of fire services, and believe that there is no evidence to support imposition of Condition 52 as it relates to purchase of a fire truck on this Project. We therefore request deletion of that portion of the condition. The draft EIR analyzed provision of fire services to the project site, and concluded that as existing, the Odd Fellows site had annual total calls of 37 out of 786 city -wide. Of those, only 4 calls were fire related- others were service or medical. In fact, the draft EIR did not mention adding a fire truck at all! That makes sense, since the District is requiring all buildings of the Project to have sprinklers. Instead, the District noted that most calls were medical, and wanted help in providing that response. Then apparently the Fire District changed its mind. In a letter on the EIR, the District said to drop the requirement for help in providing medical response and required that the Odd Fellows provide­ it.on site themselves. That makep.sense since the Project includes a skilled nursing facility. ,.But.then the District simply states that it needs a fire truck capable;of. accessing all \077 \211019.2 62- 020208809001 BERLINER • COHEN FEB. - 51996 ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLANNING DEPT. A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SANFORD A. BERUNEW ALAN J. PINNER TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD JEROLD A. REITON KELLY A SUTHERLAND ANDREW L FABER FRANK R UBHAUS ROBERT L CHORTEK TAMARA J. GABEL WILLIAM J. GOINES• LINDA A. GALLON ELEVENTH FLOOR JONATHAN D. WOLF REYNALDO A DURAN ROBERT W.HUMPHREYS ROBERTA S.HAYASHt KATHLEEN K SIPLE USA G ALVAREZ RALPH J. SWANSON JAMES P. CASHMAN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233 THOMAS P. MURPHY C. DAVID SPENCE PEGGY L SPRINGGAY STEVEN J. CASAD ROSS A KAY MARK R ZIESELL JOSEPH E. DWORAK NANCY J. JOHNSON FACSIMILE: (408) 998 -5388 ANDREW K JACOBSON R PRESCOTT JAUNKC1 SAMUEL L FARB TELEPHONE (408) 286 -5800 •A Professional Comoratlon OF COUNSEL HUGH L tSOLA' February 2, 1996 RETID SAMUELL J. COHEN• VIA FACSIMILE AND UNITED STATES MAIL Mr. James Walgren, Project Manager Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Odd Fellows Home.of ;California /Master Plan Project - Condition -52;re :.Requirement of Purchase of Fire Truck-for Saratoga Fire District, Dear James: We have reviewed all the information available on the potential impact of the Master Plan Project on. provision of fire services, and believe that there is no evidence to support imposition of Condition 52 as it relates to purchase of a fire truck on this Project. We therefore request deletion of that portion of the condition. The draft EIR analyzed provision of fire services to the project site, and concluded that as existing, the Odd Fellows site had annual total calls of 37 out of 786 city -wide. Of those, only 4 calls were fire related- others were service or medical. In fact, the draft EIR did not mention adding a fire truck at all! That makes sense, since the District is requiring all buildings of the Project to have sprinklers. Instead, the District noted that most calls were medical, and wanted help in providing that response. Then apparently the Fire District changed its mind. In a letter on the EIR, the District said to drop the requirement for help in providing medical response and required that the Odd Fellows provide­ it.on site themselves. That makep.sense since the Project includes a skilled nursing facility. ,.But.then the District simply states that it needs a fire truck capable;of. accessing all \077 \211019.2 62- 020208809001 r February 2, 1996 floors of the facility. That is extremely costly, perhaps $300,000, and is not required by the facts of the project. Thus, for example, no new building is greater in height than the existing buildings. If the Saratoga Fire District needs a ladder truck now to reach to the top of-the building, it would call for one from Los Gatos or Cupertino. And there is no general requirement that a fire department must have a ladder truck that can reach to the top floor of all buildings (particularly where they are sprinklered). This is surely not true in Sam Jose or San Francisco. Finally, the analysis provided in the EIR as to increased calls for service in general does not support this request. Assuming all the current annual total of 37 calls were to the Home's-existing 170 units (excluding the existing skilled nursing facility), the EIR calculates a generation rate of 0.2 calls per unit. (That rate included all types of calls, not just fire.) From that number, the EIR assumed an additional 35 calls would be generated after buildout of Phase I. However, in fact Phase 1 adds only 3 units; thus it generates only an additional 0.6 calls (say, one call). Phase 2 adds 134 units, which would potentially generate 27 more-calls, for a total of 28,.not 55 as stated in the EIR. In any case, none of this information establishes a need for a new fire truck. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, BER NER COHEN LINDA A. CALLON LAC:pb cc Michael Riback Paul Curtis George Means George Ivelich \077 \211019.2 62- 020206809001 -2 - Law Offices of William D. Ross William D. Ross Palo Alto Office: Nellie R. Ancel A Professional Corporation Diane C. De Felice 520 South Grand Avenue 425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 310 Suite 300 Palo Alto, California 94306 Carol B. Sherman Los Angeles, California 90071 -2610 Telephone: (415) 617 -5678 Of Counsel Telephone: (213) 892 -1592 Facsimile: (415) 617 -5680 Facsimile: (213) 892 -1519 File No: 228/3 February 13, 1996 VIA TELECOPIER & HAND- DELIVERY The Honorable Henry Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga _ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Independent Order Of Odd Fellows; GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, DR -94 -004, Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3; Commission Meeting Date February 14, 1996 Dear Chairman Murakami & Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") in connection with the application of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows ( "IOOF ") to allow expansion of their senior care and living facility on a 37 -acre parcel located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue within the City of Saratoga ( "City "). This communication comments on the effect of the application for expansion on the ability of the District to provide fire and life safety services to the facility consistent with principles of applicable law. The District supports the position advanced in this communication on an evidentiary basis with the analysis of Mr. William F. Maxfield, the former Chief, Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District which is attached as Exhibit "A ". The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission .February 13, 1996 Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The IOOF has applied for: (1) Amendment to the City General Plan; (2) Use Permit; (3) Design Review, and, (4) Development Agreement (collectively, the 'Project ") The Project would increase the number of residential units for seniors from 170 units to 307 units and the total number of nursing beds from 68 beds to 99 beds. The Project would result in increases in the senior population on the Project site from 238 individuals to 453 individuals. The total square footage in building area would increase from 146,537 square feet to 380,270 square feet, plus an additional 29,460 square feet of underground garage area. At final build -out the Project will include 143 living units in a building known as the Villas, two apartment buildings of 46 units and 52 units respectively, 19 duplex cottages, 30 units in a building known as the Home building and a 99 -bed care facility. Many of these units will include cooking facilities. The Villas, apartment buildings and Home building are all two -story structures. The environmental impact report ( "EIR ") prepared for the Project, among other things, proposed as mitigation that the Project be conditioned by requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement with the District to pay for or, cause to be paid for, one 1,500 gallon per minute aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all the Project facilities. EIR, Section 3.2.2.; Responses SFD -1, SFD -4; and, SFD -8. This requirement was in lieu of providing for an additional District fire fighter /paramedic position as proposed in the Project draft EIR. As additional mitigation, the EIR concluded that the applicant should agree to provide 24- hour, on -site advanced life support emergency medical service at the health care center which is part of the Project. The District has been advised that the applicant is challenging the condition which requires it , to enter into an agreement to pay for, or cause to be paid for, one 1,500 gallon per minute aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities. This communication demonstrates that the conditions proposed for imposition by the City on Project approval on behalf of the District are legally sufficient. The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 3 II. THE CITY HAS THE POLICE POWER TO IMPOSE THE CONDITION A. Applicable Law. The District is organized and governed by the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 [Health & Saf. Code, S 13800 et seq.] (the "Act "). The Act does not permit the District to charge a fee on new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or the acquisition of equipment. Health & Safety Code, section 13916(a). However, the City of Saratoga does have the power to impose the condition. The land use and planning powers that the City exercises through its General Plan and zoning laws derive from its police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare and its residents. California Constitution, Article 11, Section 7; See, Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32 -33 (1954 }: - The City General Plan is the "constitution" for development and is "atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calavares, 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183 (1984). The General Plan may, therefore, be a source of exaction and dedication requirements. Since all land use approvals must be consistent with the General Plan, conditions can be imposed to achieve these goals. See, J. W. Jones Company v. City of San Diego, 157 Cal.App.3d 745, 758 (1984) ( "Jones "). Further, the power to impose such conditions need not be exercised by the specific enactment of a City ordinance or regulation. Soderling v. City of Santa Monica, 142 Cal.App.3d 501, 506 (1983) ( "Soderling "). In Soderline, the City of Santa Monica required installation of smoke detectors and other improvements prior to a condominium conversion and based these requirements on broad language in its General Plan calling for the City to "promote safe housing for all" and "to protect the health and safety of the residents." In performing the environmental review of the Project and in assessing the effect of the Project on the District and its service capabilities, it is presumed that both the City and the District have performed their governmental duty in assessing the impact Health & Safety Code section 13916(a) has no effect on the validity of the proposed condition because, although the condition benefits the District, the legislative body that is imposing the condition is the City. Health & Safety Code section 13916 by its plain meaning is applicable only to actions of a board of directors of a fire protection district, not to actions of any other local government legislative body. Where the language of a statute is free from ambiguity, it must be given its plain meaning. Castaneda v. Holcomb, 114 CalApp.3d 939, 942 (1981). Therefore, the prohibitions contained in Health & Safety Code section 13916(a) do not apply to invalidate the condition imposed by the City requiring the applicant to provide the aerial fire apparatus to the District. The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 4 and the required mitigation. Evidence Code section 664. The obligation to satisfy the burden of proof for the involved City permits and entitlements is that of the applicant. Gong City of Fremont, 250 Cal.App.2d 568, 574 (1967). B. Applicable Ci!y Development Policies. Similar to the factual situation in Soderlina, here, the aerial truck condition proposed by the City for District benefit implements the City General Plan goal of reducing the danger of property damage and loss of life due to fire in both urban and rural areas of the City. (General Plan Safety Element Goal 4.0, p. 47). In addition, the condition implements the general purpose and goal of the General Plan Safety Element "to protect the community from any unreasonable risks associated with fire ..." General Plan Safety Element, p. 1. The condition requiring the aerial apparatus is also consistent with the recognition in the General Plan that: "access is a key component of fire hazard prevention, since fire fighting equipment must be able to reach the fire and people living in or visiting the area subject to the hazard must be able to escape in the event of a fire." General Plan Safety Element, p. 26. This condition also furthers the discussion in the General Plan noting that "development in areas of fire hazard should be guided by prevention requirements such as ... quality of year round fire fighting service, available evacuation routes, access routes level enough for fire equipment use ...." General Plan Safety Element, p. 26. Thus, the General Plan supports the proposed condition of development approval requiring that an aerial apparatus be furnished to the District. III. A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT NEXUS EXISTS BETWEEN THE PROJECT IMPACTS AND THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS It is well established that there must be a sufficient nexus between the project impacts and the conditions imposed to mitigate those impacts. Generally, a condition bn a project is valid if the following criteria are satisfied: A legitimate governmental interest is advanced for the regulation or exaction; The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February, 13, 1996 Page 5 The condition imposed substantially furthers that governmental interest; and, The condition does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the project, or deprive the owner of economically viable use of the property. See, Akins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980); Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).' IV. THE ALS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES REQUIREMENT The Advanced Life Support ( "ALS ") medical services requirement satisfies the nexus requirement. The health and safety of both the residents of the facility and the residents of the City would be advanced by having the ALS support available at the facility. The record demonstrates that in 1993, 8% of the calls for medical serve to the District were from the IOOF site. See, Project EIR, p. 3 -118. District records reveal that in 1995 approximately 10% of the medical calls to the District were from the Odd Fellows site (37 of 387 total calls). As the project will result in an increase of over 90% in senior population, it is expected that the incidence of medical service calls would increase. The condition requiring ALS services availability on the site furthers. the interest of the City in providing for the health and safety of its residents and that of the proposed project: The condition does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the project. The District does not provide ambulance service and responds to medical service calls with an engine and each engine crew consists of three individuals. As noted, the IOOF Home already constitutes a significant proportion of the District ` It is not settled that the "rough proportionality" standard established in the Dolan v. City of Tigard. 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994) ( "Dolan ") applies where the government is making a quasi- legislative decision as opposed to a quasi - judicial decision and where there is no dedication of real property requirement. See, Dolan v. Citv of Tigard. 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2320 n. 8; Parking Association v. City of Atlanta, 264 Ga. 764 (1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2268 (1995), rehearine denied 116 S.Ct. 18 (1995); Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 15 CalApp.4th, 1737 (1993) vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Dolan, California Supreme Court review granted, March 16, 1995, California Supreme Court Case No. S033642. Here, quasi - legislative decisions are involved respectively for the General Plan amendment and the Development Agreement and no dedication of real property is sought. The provisions of Government Code section 66000 et ss . do not apply, as the City has not exacted a "fee." Rather, the City is requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement with the District. The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 6 medical calls. By requiring the IOOF Home to provide ALS service on site, the District's apparatus and personnel will be available to respond to other emergencies within the City. The burden of this condition is not unreasonably excessive in that the applicant already intends to provide health care services on site and will in fact have a 99 person health care facility on site. V. THE AERIAL APPARATUS CONDITION SATISFIES THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT The aerial apparatus condition also satisfies the criteria that the condition promote a legitimate governmental interest and that the condition further that interest. The City has a governmental interest in providing for the public health and safety through provision of a fire apparatus which can be utilized to save both life and property and this condition furthers that interest. Both because ,of the physical nature of the grounds on which the Project will be located and the characteristics of the population of the Project, the condition requiring provision of an aerial apparatus does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the Project. Although the Project EIR indicates that the structures will not be constructed to exceed 30 -feet above grade, it is not always the case that the District apparatus will be able to be located at grade level due to the circulation plan for the project. In addition, described in lay terms, several of the structures will be quite large and will be housing large numbers of elderly people. Many of the apartments will be furnished with cooking facilities, a known significant cause of fires. An aerial or ladder truck is necessary to provide access to the roof so that fire fighting personnel may access the roof and freely move to rescue individuals, to provide a footing from which fire fighters may direct streams of water and to allow fire fighters to ventilate the building so that smoke, heat and gases escaper The District's current equipment consists of 24 -foot ground ladders. These are not sufficient both based on the scale of the buildings and the large number of occupants who may not be able to assist themselves as a firefighter is generally restricted to operating from the ladder. Further, the configuration of `the Project design may restrict the use of ground ladders because the ladders need to be placed at a 45 degree angle to the building. The life hazards attributable to this type of project require ' See, generally, Exhibit "A" communication from Mr. Maxfield; and, Fire Fighting Apparatus and Procedures (Third Edition, pp. 331). The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 7 provision of a ladder truck so that the roof of the buildings can be quickly accessed and rescue operations undertaken. There is no other facility, campus or project within the City with the same characteristics as the proposed project, in terms of scale, concentration of structures and the characteristics of the population of the project. In short, the aerial ladder is required to ensure that the District will be able to rescue trapped occupants, allow access for ventilating heat and smoke from the structure and to allow firefighters a direct route for extending hose lines. This condition does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the project because it is the only project of this type within the City. If this proposal had not come forward, the District would not have a need for this type of apparatus. In other words, this is not an apparatus that would primarily benefit existing residents and businesses within the City. Rather, this apparatus is necessitated by the nature of the project being proposed. Although the residents and businesses of the City may indirectly benefit, this does not invalidate the condition. See, Jones, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at 757. VI. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Even if it was established that the condition requiring an aerial apparatus was excessive, this is an item which could be included as consideration to support the Development Agreement currently before the Planning Commission. The public amenities and benefits achieved through a development agreement are not subject to the limitations of the nexus requirement because the agreement is a voluntary contractual agreement. The Development Agreement will insulate the Project from any changes in land use policies and regulations governing the site and in effect confers a vested right upon the applicant to construct the Project as approved. This is a significant benefit to the applicant. In exchange, the City may request as consideration that the Project applicant provide certain public amenities and benefits. Based on the foregoing analysis, the District respectfully requests that the City use its best efforts to negotiate to include the aerial apparatus as public benefit to be provided by the applicant under the Development Agreement. VII. CONCLUSION Based on the application of current law to the Project, identified impacts to the District exist because of the Project's unique characteristics in both planned The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 8 improvements and the composition of the resident population as a senior care facility so as to justify the proposed condition of mitigation contained in the Project FEIR. Your review and confirmation of the mitigation condition currently proposed is respectfully requested. Very truly yours, William D. Ross WDR:NRA:dlh Enclosure cc: Bob Egan, President and Members of the Board of Commissioners Saratoga Fire Protection District Ernie Kraule, Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District Rachel B. Hooper, Esq. Shute, Mihaly & Wienberger Linda A. Feinberg Callon Berliner Cohen & Biagini MAXFIELD & ASSOCIATES 2121 lloo c•r Court, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 -4648 February 13, 1996 Ernest Kraule. Fire Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (510) 935-347.3 FAX (51 U) 935 -FIRE; RE: Odd Fellows Home Renovation; Impact on Saratoga Fire Protection District. Dear Chief Kraule: Based on the request of the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District'), we have reviewed the proposed development of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (the "Project ") to renovate the existing facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue within the City of Saratoga ( "City") for its impact on District ability to provide fire and life safety services. Our analysis is based on the experience of our Chief Consultant, which is detailed in the attached Curriculum Vitae specifically extensive involvement in the analysis of development for its impact and resulting mitigation on the providing of fire services while, among other things, serving as Chief Executive Officer for the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District and our review of City and Project documents as described. Specifically. we have reviewed the Project Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), as well as conducted a field inspection of the subject facility and the current development within District boundaries. We have also reviewed relevant portions of the City General Plan including those portions of the General Plan Safety Element which relate to conditions under which development may be approved with respect to fire suppression, prevention and emergency medical issues. We have also reviewed the current District staffing levels. equipment and emergency response procedures including the response history of the District to emergency medical situations including verification through District records of representations made in the Project EIR that in 1993 8% of the calls for medical service were from the Project site and that in 1995 approximately 10 %, or 37 out of 387 total calls to the District for assistance were from the Project site. Further, based on the Project description, which will increase by over 90% the "senior" population of the Project .site, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in demand for District medical services. CUDEN: Firr Huil (ling /FIectrical /17echanical INVESTIGATIONS: Fire /Arson /F' plugion • Liligatipn 5uppcirt /Exl)rr1 W'ont.. LIFE N,1FF'6,: hi..A Anal"is /Planning & Fv,11u;16t >n /F1X% LEGISLATION: !)eccl,pment Analysis &Review Based on the foregoing review of applicable documentary material and existing conditions of development we are of the following opinion with respect to the proposed Project's effect on the District and the related need for mitigation of the development. 1. The proposed Project will have a significant impact on the fire fighting capabilities of the District. 2. The size of the proposed Project including its density, height of improvements, limited or restricted access, exposure to adjacent buildings as well as the age and ambulatory status and restrictions of the prospective residents requires the need for emergency response capabilities of an elevated platform' by the District. Specifically, in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed Project on fire protection services, the District should acquire a 1500 -GPM elevated platform (aerial, snorkel, tele- squirt) with the ability to access the upper floors of all facilities for emergency ingress and egress as well as to provide elevated streams of fire suppressant. The recommended mitigation measure is a more detailed description of that setup in the Project E1R. Project EIR, Section 3.2.2., Responses SFD -1; SFD-4; SFD-8; June 13, 1995 District communication to the City. Should you have questions concerning this matter, please contact our office. Sincerely, William F. Maxfield Chief Consultant WFM/bl Enc. - An elevated ttlstform is an aerial or udder truck firtfigh4os appemeas. Such an egaipm t 0006,0=a6m is noon ary to povido aouas to the tool sau_ture so that firefighting personnel may accem Omagh the roof end lively move to :Dive in&vidaale or property and to provide a :fable hose lic+m which 6refightasmay divas streams ofwater or abet fire aspptvsaants as a otna&gmtiott and to allow firefighters to ventilate the involved mudure fez dw esoepa of smoke, heat and any pm Saoaated K MAX]FIELD & ASSOCIATES 2121 Ilonver Court, Pleasant Hill, CA 3 -4648 CURRICULUM VITAE WII.LLAM F. MAXFIELD CHIEF CONSULTANT EDUCATION: B.A. Public Administration, St. Mary's College, Moraga, CA A.A. Diablo Valley Collcge, Pleasant Hill, CA (51 O) 935-34 73 FAX (51 U) 9.35 -FIRE SPECIAL TRAINING / EDUCATION: Building Construction for Fire Protection, Plan Check & Review, Code Enforcement, Fire Sprinkler Systems, Occupancy Hazard Identification for Public Assembly, Commercial, huhIstrial, Residential. P.C. 832 Peace Officer training (laws of arrest, search & seizure). Fire and Arm Investigation, Fire Cause and Origin, Fire Scene and Incident Reconstruction. California Fire Service Staff and Command School, Fire Service Instructor. Chief Consultant - MAXFIELD & MSQQATES Maxfield & Associates was established in 1993 following a successful and rewarding career as the chief executive officer of the Conte Costa County Fire District. (S30 Million budget, 298 full time employees, 85 part-time employees:) As Fire Chief, Mr. Maxfield was responsible for the overall Fire Protection System of the District including prevention and suppression of fires, rescue, emergency medical care, hazardous materials incidents, and enforcement of state and local statutes and ordinances. M&A speoaliz in - fire protection/ life safety inspections, fire investigations, labor relations, compensation and benefits nuveys, classification studies, fire service reorganization and consolidation studies. MAXFIELD & ASSOCIATES PROVIDES CONSULTING SERVICES IN: CODE /LIFE SAFETY - FORENSIC /INVESTIGATIONS LABOR RELATIONS - FIRE SERVICE CONSOLIDATION CODE/ LIFE SAFETY - Fire / Building / Electrical / Mechanical codes and ordinances, Standards, Policies and Procedures, Plan Checking Plan Check & Review for Code Compliance for Nov Construction and Remodel. Building & Site Planning and Evaluation for Fire Safety. Plan Review for Cost Containment & Code " Trade - Offs ". Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) review and evaluation. Disaster preparedness analysis and development of emergency response plans FORENSIC /INVESTIGATIONS - Fire / Arson / Explosion - Litigation Support / Expert Witness, Technical consultation, forensic investigation reports / services for attorneys and insurance claim adjustment professionals. Provide litigation support. testify as an expect witness, and provide depositions regarding: fire cause and origik explosions, hazardous materials, Fire and Building Code violations. LABOR RELATIONS - Departurtelual Orgaaization/Staff Evaluation and Reorganization- Contract Negotiations (M.O.U.) - Mediation - Personnel Management Regulations - Testing & Measurements - Assessment Labs - Promotional Exams - Oral Boards FIRE SERVICE CONSOLIDATION- A systematic approach to Political Consolidation, Functional Consolidation - Mergers - Joint Powers Agreements - Regional Consolidation CODES: F'ircyNuilding/Electrical /Mechanical INVESTIGATIONS: Fire/Arson /Expinainn - Utigadun Sujp?port/} xpert Witnt� LIFE SAFETY: Hisk Analysi. /Planning & Evaluation /F.IIts LEGISLATION: bevelopment Analy>.is & Ktview MER ACTIVITIES: Past Chainnan, Governor's Office of Emergency Services Fire & Rcscve Advisory Past Member Board of Directors, Fire District Associ2d= of Califomia Committet IRESCOPE Board of Directors (Incident Command System) Member, After Action Review Committee - Oakland Hills Fire - Oct. 1991 Member, After Action Review Committee - LOS Angeles Civil Riots - May 1992 Arbitrator, Contra Costa County Labor Relations Adjustment Board Planning Commissioner, 1975 -1980 PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES and ACTIVITIES: Intemational Association of Fire Chiefs California Fire Chiefs Association National Fire Protection Assocaetion - Fire Service Section - Charter Member Northern California Fire Prevention Officers Association Bay Area Fire Protection Forum Northern California Training Officers Association Fire District Association of Califomia - Past Director National Association of Fire Investigators California Conference of Arson Investigators California Fire Chiefs Association Legislative Commit tee - Past Member PUBLICATIONS: California Fire Journal: "Consolidation of Fire Services" " Emergency Medical Priority Dispatching" Fire Command: " Hazardous Materials Think Safety With Every Breath You Take" "Some Days Being lire Chief Are More Rewarding Than Others" Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks P. O. Box 37 Saratoga, CA 95070 February 5, 1996 Mayor Paul Jacobs City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave: Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: 741 -1132 Dear Mayor Jacobs: During the environmental impact report (EIR) study process and public hearings on the Odd Fellows project, a number of Saratoga residents expressed concern to us about drainage issues on and surrounding the Odd Fellows property. We understand that residents asked the City, both in writing and at public hearings, to thoroughly investigate the storm water run -off from the Odd Fellow's property onto surrounding properties with regard to biological contamination as well as flooding. It is our understanding that residents specifically mentioned old septic systems, an unlicensed trailer park, hazardous materials, and underground fuel storage tanks on the property. Given this background, we believe that a thorough investigation is required by CEQA. Apparently, however, neither the City nor the EIR consultants have investigated this matter. Accordingly this organization has paid for initial testing for bacteriological contamination of water flowing off of the Odd Fellow's property and onto the land of homeowners in the San Marcos Rd. area. Three samples were collected on the morning of January 16, 1996, in conditions of heavy rain. Sample A was collected directly from the culvert out -fall on San Marcos Rd. at the intersection of Campo Calle. Sample B was collected directly from the out -fall from the Odd Fellows property to San Marcos Rd. that is immediately East (20 or 30 yards) of the first location, along San Marcos Rd. Sample C was collected from the creektriparian corridor East of the Villas on the Odd Fellow's property that flows through the land of home - owners on San Marcos Rd. and then onto West Valley College. Sample C was collected approximately 30 yards upstream of the border of the Odd Fellow's property and San Marcos Rd. As you can see from the test results summarized below, some of the counts substantially exceeded the federal standards for water contact recreation, indicating that a health hazard may exist. Location Total Coliform E. Coli A 2400 500 B 9000 260 C 9000 40 EPA water contact rec. criteria: 240 200 While the responsibility for the present conditions may rest primarily or exclusively with the Odd Fellow's organization, it is the responsibility of the City to assure that no approvals are granted for intensification of use on that site until these problems are fully investigated and corrected. We would appreciate it if you would inform us as soon as possible of the City's intentions regarding such investigation. Sincerely, Don Whetstone President Enclosure: Copies of laboratory test results, three samples collected 1/16/96 7� ACINTQSN..LABS TEL :408- 946 -7376 1�1 NRO� LA90AATCItNM spa TAAO MWrL souLFVUSs sAM.IM CA *5qt -1101 "M as -ills Jack Svarta 2898 Joseph Avenue Cmwball CA 95008 %$wQle A Jan 24.% 13:33 No.001 P•02 0-32309 nAYC M10 "0UR CML =XQ GATE OATf R °SORTED... . • .. .:Tase ltsstadi U m m DEt►T i/j¢/96.4 :• •� ' • '.• �'• M�' M•f� •.! 801p :�3 REPORT ri o.. O o�a.csoec�rl DLiAPqDINTwAw UNWALOSMAPLE O wufNCimr SAMPLt Clvma a tMtPLt ORMAT SAWLE 01- 24 -19% 01 :25PM 20'd 8£8T TLC 80b BY 4 Fffj w 400 946 ?376 P.02 Aj.me ouI eral3l WdVZ:20 966T -20-20 PP ter• -1 Pow '���■���������������� .. DLiAPqDINTwAw UNWALOSMAPLE O wufNCimr SAMPLt Clvma a tMtPLt ORMAT SAWLE 01- 24 -19% 01 :25PM 20'd 8£8T TLC 80b BY 4 Fffj w 400 946 ?376 P.02 Aj.me ouI eral3l WdVZ:20 966T -20-20 i� nCIHTOSH..LAHS TEL =408- 946 -7376 Jan 24.96 14:20 No. P,Q2 • SnM E NO. 3 � MaivrosH Saa to 15 B- 32312 Cm NAEW% counlrr lUAItAM"(XMCOUfiOTkn RA I %Mica 2M TIMK ZM mOULEVARD COLLECTED 9r tnM jE CA n"j_jGa P" sr 3m Jack amrts 2895 Joaapb ki" L CwWbeu, CA 95008 RESUL TUBE NIA M OR p0R10lq po"Oft at W_ G.Ow . TOP ,rPT1vF MAM w CONFOMED 2. .mmlm- . N E.: U LJLFJ\KW IN TRANOT t3tWALID SAMPLE 13RwrAT3mpLe 01- 24 -19% 02:13PM 00•d 8£8I ILZ 80D Test starts t. �i/1619k 4i OEM CO H Q� •, r RE" ] 13 DOH= • . � 0 OTME71 j6P6GiFY1 • ' .': 8£.fRl,E01N BY tA80R717�GtiY oN>`Yj • • . .. • , .. a • to �� /t is , 141 Is /e v? It 1 16 xp omrwM 7 w �awo xt •r w is :i• •�.-. .. •1r f f 488 946 7376 P.82 Rj.me .Moog i aul. tb13l WdSE:ZO 9661 -20-20 I ..NCINTOSH..LAHS TE1:408-946 -7376 SrmP24 C McINTOSH COUNTY L11"RATOW" !M- MAIX70NE SCULEVMO COLLECTED BY BAN.tOBE Gl �tEt -t/tlT No�tt►rs -� ��� . Jan 24,96 13:34 N0.001 P.04 tiAMf,l F mci 0-32311 DA f E AMU NULOK (XMJ.&C ILL) DATE AND HOUR RECEWEO I . A... - -•- -- rJack Swartz 2898 Joseph Avenue Test started: U16/96.4:16 vu Campbell, CA 93008 COHDB►T_, 70: Q OTHER (Specify) •; •. C�tNVALW ~ • _ r• � ,• IN T"WR SAMPt! • ❑ mwrnoavr EAmP E c• • • .. ;moo , ©a ©aoQOe�mee ®mmm ®�� 488 94673% P•04 •: •. .. � as ��������������� 3: • Mamma C�tNVALW ~ • _ r• � ,• IN T"WR SAMPt! • ❑ mwrnoavr EAmP E DROUf1NE SAMPLE ORiPFAT SAW E , ON 01 -24 -1996 01:26PM 488 94673% P•04 E0'd eZeT TLC 80b AJ-mS Jalloag i olii t:rdl3l WdS£ :Z0 966T -20 -F0 •y l �•li' 1 M�.� 1 ti - '�' D .13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 February 9,- 19 9 6 - Don Whetstone, President Friends of Santa Clara. County. Creeks- P. O.. Box 37 Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Your,letter of February 5,. 1996 Dear Mr. Whetstone, COUNCIL MEMBERS: Aron Mane Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran - Karen Tucker'.. Donald L. We Your letter. to Mayor Jacobs has been referred to me for response. As, required by--California Environmental Quality Act regulations, the Environmental Impact .Report and the Mitigation Measures for the proposed Odd Fellows Project must address only the impacts caused by the project.- Existing water quality problems, if they exist, are not caused by the "future" implementation of the proposed project. As such, any current problem with water quality is outside the purview of the environmental review and project approval process. Nevertheless,. the 'Odd Fellows Master Plan Final EIR does discuss surface water quality and mitigation related thereto. See for example, pages 3 -61 and 3 -62 of the Draft EIR (Vol. I) and pages 4 -4 and 4-5-of the Final EIR (Vol. III). Thus, in describing surface water quality, the Draft EIR states in part as follows: 3.6.2.4 Surface Water Quality Development 'activities - would.. increase the potential of stormwater runoff transporting surface water contaminants from roadway surfaces.,' lawns, driveways, parking lots- and other exposed structural and landscape surfaces.into the storm drain system..... Typical_ urban.. and- . suburban .runoff-contaminants (i.e. heavy metals,, oils and-grease, pesticides,,... herbicides and.other. • synthetic organic compounds,'algal nutrients and bacterial and. viral contaminants),-- can, be expected in runoff reaching the storm drains serving the project area. Water quality could be' . substantially degraded during.construction activities due to the'-size- of the: area, and quantity of grading activities. This would be considered a significant impact. (DEIR, Vol. I, p. 3 -61) . Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2, relating both., to quality and quantity of -stormwater drainage, provides as follows: Printed on recycled paper. F Prior to issuance -of grading permits, the project .applicant shall submit final drainage plans which demonstrate that. downstream drainage. facilities can accommodate.the maximum peak surface water discharge generated by Phase'I and Phase II of project'.development. If existing downstream drainage facilities do not .have sufficient capacity 'to handle the maximum .peak-.•discharge, .the project applicant will be required to improve.'--the .existing .facilities to accommodate the projectIs estimated maximum' discharge flow, or provide on -site. retention facilities that will retain surface water runoff - during peak flow periods. -.If. existing downstream drainage facilities have .sufficient capacity to accommodate maximum peak surface water discharge (run -off), no further mitigation is necessary. The final-drainage plans shall also demonstrate that post- development . stormwater quality discharge from the project will not deteriorate -from existing stormwater quality. The final drainage shall also indicate how the site grading,• in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flow, catch basins, -storm drains, and flood water retarding, will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from stormwater runoff which may be expected from all. storms up to and including the 100 -year storm event. (DEIR, Vol. I, p. 3 -61; FEIR, Vol. III, pp.4 -5, 4 -6): Mitigation Measure 3.6 -3 also contains provisions relating to surface water quality as follows: Prior to issuance-of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit an erosion control program which indicates proper control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants will be implemented per NPDES permit requirements. The erosion control plan shall include the use of berms, storm grates, detention basins, overflow collection areas, filtration systems and sedimentation traps. (DEIR, Vol. I; p. 3 -62). Mitigation Measure : 3.6 -4 specifically addresses the requirement for pollution prevention in surface water runoff. It.. provides as follows: In accordance with NPDES requirements, the project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention'Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance. -of .a grading permit. Best Management Practices (BMPs).will be used to. maintain downstream water..; quality. These measures may include the.measures' identified in Mitigation.Measure 3.6.3. (FEIR, Vol. III, p. 4 -5). The issue of surface water. quality and its alleged relationship to present litigation regrading Saratoga Creek was.. raised in written comments on the EIR, along with concerns about drainage generally. These were responded to at length in the final EIR (see FEIR, Vol. III, pp. 3 -14 to 3 -19). 2 In addition' to the above,'the closure of four concrete underground storage tanks on the Odd Fellows Home property has been directed by the Environmental Resources Agency of Santa Clara County immediately upon the City of Saratoga's.acceptance of the EIR. In a .letter sent to the City on May 24, 1995, the agency stated, "Other. than these tanks, there are currently no other issues associated-with -this facility which pose particular concern to this Department." Further, the holding tank formerly for use by motor homes on the Odd.Fellows site has been capped at the order of the City's Community Development Director upon the.recommendation of the West Valley Sanitation District. The Public Works .Director has reviewed the drainage areas associated with the three locations cited in your letter where samples were taken. Location A is from a storm drain which takes drainage originating from,the Burgundy Way neighborhood, west of the Odd Fellows property. Location C is a tributary to Vasona Creek and collects drainage from properties to the south and east of the Odd Fellows site., The drainage area does not flow north onto West Valley College as you indicate, but rather flows east of the college campus and under Chester Avenue and Ten Acres Road., Location B drains that area of the Odd Fellows site which primarily consists of the main lodge.hall and parking lot. I note that you continue to make the inferential leap that EPA standards for water contact recreation should be applied to storm drains and drainage courses even when flows are .intermittent in nature. I know of no scientific or medical basis for such an inference. As you know, the City recently retained the services of an expert on water quality to assist us in our NPDES efforts. The results from the samples taken by the Friends during the conditions of heavy rain on January 16th have been forwarded to her for evaluation. Finally, you asked to be informed of the City's intentions. It is our intention to assure that the concrete tanks are closed soon after the EIR is approved. It is our intention to make certain that Odd Fellows complies with the mitigation measures and plan set forth in the.EIR, should the project be approved. It is our intention to continue to fully implement all of our responsibilities under our current NPDES permit. Sincerely, Harry Peacock, City Manager CC: City Council, City Attorney Public Works Director 03/05/1994 04:18 4088bI0583 tJ51 PAGE 01 V. t`d6 tf Santa Clara County Creeks . P. O. Box 37 r. -.. <. .. Saratoga, CA 95070 , aytir ftid Jtcobs City o�•Sarata 13777 Fi uitvale Av. . Sarat oga� -CA 95070;':. : fix:,..741 -1132 ''Subj r 11!lr. '.Peacock 8 t'eply 'to my 215/96 letter to you • r iacabs:: . �' may¢ :..•:... .. From the su .eLY lettet i gg"a -heir tharthe City oes not intend to require investi ation ' Of either (1} the scut�ce idf dtE;bacteriological pollution that flows from the Odd Fellows property,'br (2)' whethet! or.• not the proposed development will exacerbate that pollution. Il r#�1►,utiderstandttig °rs not-coriieet. please inform me. Reerdittg' Ivlr; Peacock's; assertion of an "inferential leap ". (3rd paragraph of the last page of the subject .lettelr) tk%e'draitiage in question produces persistent pools in various locations below: th i 04,iellows property, including a large pool that sometimes connplttely,inun ; _.s brf a bon of San.Marcos Road. Obviously this creates a "wilier f ; contact" situation, siYtc ' WId eii (and pets) in that area will certainly come in contac With'' ueb watt As it iertilins dwe for days after rainstorms. Regarding the'qudsebn as. to ghat level of bacteriological contamination may pose a significant, health thM4 W water contact situations, I• believe that several years ago the county Health Officer iintUii, Peacock a copy of one of the primary EPA documents on this snbj'ect If,`as'h�'says Nit. Peacock is unaware of any "scientific or medical basis ". fot the EPA criteria; 0i44tie should read the EPA documentation. which cites specific epideiniologiea swdies'coitilating the incidence of disease with coliform levels. (t raxghtbe jusu. able'to` ;unconcerned about bacterial counts that only slightly - exceed EPA,eritecia, buf.it i's. reckless to disregard counts that are vastly higher. Some of the: 14 6/96 tests; re sults•vvere i rly 40 times higher than the EPA criteria. Albag with otrherrelste factor$, the proposed development will result in a mijor increase in impervious'surfac�, hBnee,a.ma or increase in the amount of stormwater runoff. According to C'E• Q,A;(Appendix 6), a project is presumed to have a significant effect o» the a MronrpiAtaf`rt.will:: ; (f) suhs"�ty':degcaQe .water quality; and (uj•reate`a �S'uiic liealth;hazard ... Boib (0 6d:(4),4 i3' ti'-this case. Accordingly, the City is requtred•to evaluate this new impact and, under seCno!tt 1$0$8.5 (CEQA), to redraft the DE1R acid then to recirculate it Sincerely • Priesident J. ( '� February 13, 1996 .Don Whetstone, President Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks P. O. Box 37 Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Your letter of February 13, 1996 Dear Mr. Whetstone, R&U(n)(5& LIFORIVIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MF. MERB: Ann Marie BLVw Pei/ E. Jacobs G #07 Moran Karen Tucker Qon&d L. Kb* Your letter to Mayor. Jacobs has again been referred to me for response. As I wrote in my letter of February 9th, the results of the sampling.have been forwarded to our water quality consultant, Dr. Williamson, for evaluation. If the outcome of that evaluation indicates the need for further investigation, such an investigation will be undertaken. In.your February 5th letter you indicate the samples were taken during. a period of heavy rain. As you know coliform counts significantly increase during -such conditions. That.is why I feel it is important for Dr. Williamson to evaluate the data before launching any further investigation. As noted, our investigation has already concluded that two of the three drains take runoff from several residential neighborhoods which surround Odd Fellows. These would have to be investigated on a house by house basis for possible violations of the law. This will take a great: deal of time and resources so I am certain you will appreciate the fact that we will do this only if it. appears warranted, not just because you ask us. As with our other investigations, any violations found among 'homeowners•'will be corrected and legal action.taken.if necessary. The EIR has dealt: directly with the issue of exacerbation of.' pollution as extensive •'quotes. from the EIR, in my .letter of February 9th, indicate. During both the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR review periods neither the Regional Water Quality Control...,,., :: •.:.' .... ; :;; Board, the•Santa*Clara.Valley Water District or the Santa Clara County Health Department.' - commented on the existing water quality..:;.".:: issue you have raised..-..In light of this record, there•is no basis for your assumption that. -the project will, by increasing stor mwater. runoff, automatically result in a substantial degradation of water quality and create. a ,public health hazard. The. EIR identifies measures which are to be taken to insure that, any potentially significant negative environmental impact to water quality that. could occur as a result of the construction or operation of the project are reduced to a level considered less than significant. So in both cases .your understanding is incorrect. Printed on recycled paper. The inferential leap refers to your continual use of an inappropriate standard by applying the EPA standard for recreational bodies of water where extensive public contact, including total immersion can occur, and suggesting this same standard be applied to storm drains and drainage courses -which may occasionally have standing water for brief periods of time. I have never suggested that the standard was. inappropriate when properly applied, nor have-I suggested that.high' levels of bacteria should be totally disregarded when viewed in.the.appropriate context. To reiterate, the issue you raise involves the City's storm water management program and not the Odd Fellow's project and'its EIR. Sincerely, Harr R . Peacock, City Manager CC: City Council City Attorney Public Works Director Community Development Director s MEMORANDUM TO: James Walgren, Project Planner Michael Riback, City Attorney FROM: Linda Callon RE: Odd Fellows Master Plan - Development Agreement DATE: February 21, 1996 CC: George Means, George Ivelich FILE REF: 08809/001 D /6- Blanks to be filled in and other minor corrections to development agreement: p. l B. Applications filed in January and March of 1994 p.7 Paragraph 11.1 Annual Review date - first Council meeting in April 1f97 1 �I p. 11, Paragraph 17.2 If the Council takes out the required City consent to transfer the property as it was revised to read in para. 17. 1, then references to City Council approval in 17.2 need to be deleted. p. 12, Paragraph 21.1 Deductible dollar amount to be filled in- suggest "not more than $25,000.00 per claim." p. 13, Para. 23 Notices to Developer: Odd Fellows Home of California Attn. President, Board of Directors 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Facisimile: (408) 867 -7629 Exhibit A. Legal Description is attached. Exhibit B - paragraph 3 re landscaping on Chester: delete reference to an Ex. B -1; fill in Landscape Plan date as 1/31/96 and revise immediately thereafter to state: ... "in the vicinity of Crisp Avenue upon the southern portion of the parcel commonly known as "the 10.6 acre parcel "and Chester Avenue between the existing roadway and the existing perimeter fence on the northeast portion of the property. 6 b if its >t changed by Ci,,trGouncil- the second p��aph shoe i ksting villas alto as a� exception, since they must-be so th,at_the residents of th ome can move into them. r EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that certain property situate in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California - described as follows: PARCEL ONE: Parcel A, as shown on the Parcel Map of "A Portion of Section 7. T. 8S R. 1 W., M.D.B. & M.," filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on May 1, 1978, in Book 417 of Maps, page(s) 22 and 23. PARCEL TWO: Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Map entitled, "Lot Line Adjustment Parcel Map," being all of Parcel B & C, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Parcel Map," recorded in Book 417 of Maps, at pages 22 and 23, also being all of Parcel 2, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Record of Survey," recorded in Book 184 of Maps, at page 38, Santa Clara County Records, which trap was filed for record on September 22, 1988 in Book 591 of Maps, at pages 21 & 22 of Official Records, Santa Clara County. PARCEL THREE: Parcel D (Designated Remainder) of Tract No. 8316, according to the Map thereof filed on Mav 25, 19900 in Book 614 of Maps, at pages 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Santa Clara County Records. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the underground water or rights thereto, with no right of surface entry, as granted to San Jose Water Company, a California corporation by instrument recorded August 2, 1990 in Book L 438, page 470, Official Records. ARB No: 397 -12 -012, 013, 013.01, 014. 014.05, 014.06 [ RECEIVED 02/21 18:24 1996 AT 49899BS388 PAGE 3 (PRINTED PAGE 3) The ^McMullen Company TEL:916 -757 -1293 Feb 21'96 16 :42 No.005 P.03 ,� 4 The McMullen Company, Inc. February 21, 1996 Paul Jacobs, Mayor City of Sarawga > 1377 Fruitvale Avo. Saratoga. CA 95070 Dear Mayor Jacobs: I have been asked to comment on the file protection needs of the Odd Fellows/Saratoga complex. My qualifications include seven (7) years as California State Furs Marshal (1985 - 1992) and six (6) years as Fire Chief, City of Campbell (1979 - 1985). In total I have spent 30 years in the California Fire, Service. I hold AA, BA & MPA degrees with Fire Protection Specialties. The development in question will have a complete fine sprinkler and fire alarm systems. In addition, I would recommend adding a 35' ground ladder for fire department usage. In my opinion, the requirement for a 1500 gpm aerial fire truck is not necessary, since this scrnce is available from neighboring fire departments. As Fire Chief in Campbell, I set up auto aid agteememts with Central Fire and San Jose wherein, a ladder truck would respond automatically to the Pruneyard and Senior Citizen's - High Rise residential building on Winchester Blvd. Additional pumpers or ladder trucks would respond as requested under mutual aid.17his same system would be very effective for the Odd Fellows facility. If I can answer any questions, please contact me. Sincerely awes F. ullen, President The McMullen Company, Inc. JFM/cb 17S6Picasso Ave., Suite C • Davis, CA 95616 • (916.) 75 7 -1291 • FAX(916) 75 7 -1 293 C RECEIVED 92/21 18:24 1996 AT 4OB99BS388 PAGE 4 (PRINTED PAGE 4) 1 The llcMullen Company TEL:916- 757 -1293 Feb 21'96 16:42 No.005 P.04 JAMES F. MCMULLEN CURRICULUM VITAE July 1992 - Present Fire Protection Consultant. The McMullen Company, Inc., Davis, CA (1993 - Present) President of The McMullen Company, Inc., a fire protection consulting firm with both private sector and government clients. The McMullen Company provides executive level services which include fire and life safety evaluations; fire and building code development and analysis; fire safety product analysis; fire cause investigation and evaluation; fire department management reviews; project management; emergency management planning, training and exercises; as well as expert witness and litigation support. 1992 - 1993 Gage - Babcock & Associates, Inc. San Francisco, CA. The Senior Consultant for this Fire Protection Engineering firm. 1985 - 1992 California State Fire Marshal, Sacramento, CA Senior Fire Official for the State of California with responsibilities for fire prevention, regulations, legislations, public education, state fire academyy training and arson /bomb investigation. 1979 - 1985 Fire Chief and Emergency Services Director for the City of Campbell, - CA. Responsible for fire protection, emergency medical services and disaster preparedness /response for the City. 1977 - 1979 Fire Marshal - City of San Bernardino. Responsible for fire prevention, disaster preparedness, arson investigation and water supply for the city. 1962 - 1977 Fire Fighter to Chief Increasingly responsible positions in fire protection and emergency medical services, ( RECEI.VED 82/21 18:25 1996 AT 498999538B PAGE 5 (PRINTED PAGE 5) I The McMullen Company TEL:916 -757 -1293 Feb 21'96 o 16:43 No.005 P.05 Aug. 1984: Master of Public Administration (MPA) - Golden Gate University June 1978: Bachelor of Arts (BA) - University of Redlands (Management) June 1966: Associate of Arts (AA) - Mt. San Antonio College (Fire Science) LU • U •_ s 1972 - Present National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) -- Member of Fire Marshals Association of North America, Education, Building Fire Protection, Wildland, and Fire Service Sections. Member of Forest and Rural Fire Protection Committee. Member of the Board of Trustees of Learn Not To Burn Foundation, Chair of Technical Advisory Council and Security Bars Task Force. 1985 - Present Congressional Fire Services Institute -- Charter member of institute. Former chair of the Western Steering Committee for the Annual Fundraising Dinner. Also served as a member of the Institute's Urban Search and Rescue Task Force. 1989 - Present National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) -- Founding President and Member- Emeritus. 1979 - Present International Association of Fire Chiefs (Life Member) -- Served as Vice Chair of the Operation Life Safety Board of Trustees. 1992 - 1994 We .Tip Inc. -- Member of Board of Directors. C RECEIVED 82/21 18:25 1996 AT 4989985386 PAGE 6 (PRINTED PAGE 6) 1 The McMullen Company TEL:916- 757 -1293 Feb 21'96 16:43 No.005 P.06 1979 - Present Western Fire Chiefs Association Life member. 1974 - Present International Fire Code Institute -- Member of Institute and Wildland /Urban Interface Code - Industry Advisory Committee. 1972 - Present California Fire Chiefs Association Life member and former member of Board of Directors. Also served as liaison chief to the Northern California Fire Prevention Officers Section. Member of both the Northern California and Southern California Fire Prevention Officers Sections, and their Building Standards Committees. Member of the Training Officers Section. 1962 - Present California State Firefighter's Association Life member. 1995 - Present California Fire Foundation Advisory Board Member of board. 1989 - 1992 Panel for Fire Research of the National Research Council -- Member of panel of National Institute of Standards and Training (NIST) Center for Fire Research. 1985 - 1992 California State Board of Fire Services -- Served as Chairman, 1986 - 1992 California Chemical Emergency Planning and Response Commission -- Member and served on the Hazardous Materials Training Funding Committee. [ RECEIVED 02/21 18:25 1996 AT 4089985388 PAGE 7 (PRINTED PAGE 7) The - McMullen Company TEL :916- 757 -1293 Feb 21'96 16:44 No.005 P.07 1985 - 1992 California Fire Fighters Joint Apprenticeship Committee -- Management sponsor and member of the Board of Directors. 1985 - 1992 Governor's Special Arson Task Force -- Served as Chairman. 1990 - 1992 National Fire Fighters Joint Apprenticeship Training Program -- Management sponsor. 1991 - 1992 Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Operation Urban Wildfire" Task Force -- Member. 1985 1992 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. -- Corporate and Fire Council Member. 1989 - 1993 California Seismic Safety Commission. Commissioner and chairman of the Emergency Planning and Response Committee. James F. McMullen 1995 "Just how Protected Are 'Protected' Abovcground Tanks ?" American Fire JolirnaL July 1995, Vol. 47 No. 7, Page 28. John A. Ackerman, Publisher 1994 A son Investigation California District Attorneys Association and California State Fire Marshal. RECEIVED 02/21 18:26 1996 AT 4089985388 PAGE 8 (PRINTED PAGE 8) 1 The McMullen Company TEL:916- 757 -1293 Feb 21'96 16:44 No.005 P.08 1990 Guidelings For Integration gf Women Into The California J?ire Service Office of California State Fire Marshal 1988 TIBinincy and Edllc" Lion Master Plan. Office of California State Fire Marshal 1998 Fire Hydrant MUkings Along State and Freeways Office of California State Fire Marshal 1987 The ntial oxi Haxa .Relating. to the Use of Plastic ioe_ for Automatic F k Office of California State Fire Marshal 1987 Five -Year Master Plan Office of California State Fire Marshal 1987 Guide to Haz rdous Liquid �lpeline Onerators. Office of California State Fire Marshal 1987 EindiII,srq and R coinmgndationc of the, Task Force on J=enila.- ATson and FirPRPtting. Office of California State Fire Marshal 1987 r Provide Fire o WiQll- SY' Co atitil with-- t Reactive rhemicBls. Office of California State Fire Marshal [ RECEIVED 92/21 18:26 1996 AT 4089985388 PAGE 9 (PRINTED PAGE 9) 1 The. - McMullen Company TEL :916 -757 -1293 Feb 21'96 16:45 No .005 P.09 1986 An Analysis of ibe FeaSibility of Begiiiring the Installation f the pri klti r S_ All 1juildings C ns uc ed fa 4ecnpeaaX_• Office of California State Fire Marshal 1985 "Operation Campbell: A Planning Guide To An Effective Digaster Exercise" r annement R viev 1985 Vol. 2 No. 1 Page 26. National Coordinating Council on Emergency Management, Publisher 1984 AS>udy of the Feasibility of Adding Exit S' Qns or ether Devices Office of California State Fire Marshal 1991 "Recommendations on Reducing The Risk of Wildland Fire and Flooding in California." HeRort of t e ov rn is Task Force on hanmal Fire an d Flpod • George Deukmejian, Retired Governor of the State of California • Talmadge Jones, Sacramento Superior Court Judge • Robert Tbrasher, Adjutant General of the California National Guard (Retired) • Curt Weldon, Member of Congress, Vice Chair of Congressional Fire Service Institute • Joseph Medina, San Francisco Fire Department Chief • Thomas J. Zirkle, M.D., Executive Vice President of Loma Linda University Medical Center • George Miller, President NFPA i I ....: Merrit Smith Consutting Environmental Science and Communication 21 February, 1996 I Mr. Peacock, City Manager City of 13777 F 'tvale Avenue Saratoga California 95070 Dear Mrs Peacock: i Subject: i Odd Fellows Project Merritt Smith Consulting has been retained by the Area G+ Homeowners' Association (Association) to assist in their assessment of potential impacts of the proposed Odd Fellows Project roject). The purpose of this letter is to relate my preliminary assessment to you so that it be fully considered prior to any Council decision regarding certification of the Project Concerns regarding potential water quality and hydrologic impacts of the proposed Project were raised by the Association during the scoping and draft EIR comment phases of CEQA documen#ation. Your letter of 9 February 1996 responds to Association concerns and defends the adequacy of the EIR. Your letter appears to dismiss the water quality data submitted by the Association as being unrepresentative of local water quality conditions and not relc*t because, you assert, of the inapplicability of the EPA standards to local storm drains and intermittent waterways. The water quality data submitted by the Association substantiates its contention that land development such as that proposed adversely affects beneficial uses in local creeks. The studies conducted by the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program ( SCVNSPCP - of which the City of Saratoga is a member) are consistent with the Associations' data in this regard in that the density of bacteria of fecal origin in waters below developed area is virtually always greater than that in waters above developed areas. Contrary to your assertion, EPA water quality objectives for the protection of aquatic life and human health do indeed apply to intermittent waterways (see 40 CFR 131). The Regional Water Quality Control Board Also has established water quality objectives that apply to waters of the State, which includes intermittent waterways (see RWQCB's Basin Plan �%t�LA and RWQCB have promulgated standards for bacteria and many other water nstituents that apply to waters potentially affected by the Project. The Association has identified bacteria as one constituent in protected waters that is affected by development. SCVNSPCP studies indicate that the load of toxic trace metals and petroleum -based hydrocarbons also increases as a result of development such as the proposed, Project. I understand that the EIR does not disclose the existing conditions in those waterways with respect to water quality constituents that are potentially affected by the proposed Project. Without adequate information regarding existing conditions, disclosure of the range of potential impacts and, thus, an evaluation of the significance of any potential impacts is not possible. The EIR should include characterization of background water quality and describe the potential Project impact with respect to these constituents. 3675 Mt. piablo Blvd.. Suite 120 Lafayettey California 94549 -4935 Fax 510 284.6494 e -mail: m *cpurh2o @aol.com 1 Od E00 9Ni i- lnSN00 H11 WS 111 NY91^1 176179 1792 0 1 S t i : E 1 99 . 12 '9-71 4 t Mr. Peacock 21 Fury, 1996 Page 2 ; The EIR should also specify criteria by which any such impacts would be evaluated for signiticarcc. The EIR offers vague proposals for mitigating unspecified water quality impacts with development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Your letter indicates that the scope of the SWPPP will be limited to Project construction, and that the SWPPP would not address potential ongoing water quality impacts. Without disclosure of potential construction and ongoing Project impacts on water quality and the nature of the waterways to be protected, SWPPP authors can hardly be expected write a SWPPP that is protective of water quality, and City staff will be unable to evaluate SWPPP adequacy, If a SWPPP is to be used to mitigate significant water quality impacts, it should be included in the project OR. The City Council may be asked to certify that the existing Project EIR adequately describes existing conditions, adequately identifies potential Project impacts, and adequately mitigates significant adverse impacts (or makes a finding of over -riding considerations for unmitigated significant impacts). The Association does not consider the existing EIR to be adequate and requests that, at a minimum, existing basic information about water quality in project- affected waterways be included in the MR, existing information about the load of water quality constituents that could be expected to derive from the proposed Project be included in the EM, clear and quantifiable significance criteria be developed and presented in the EIR, and mitigation that can be monitored and enforced be specified in the EIR. Please provide this letter to the City Si elyi avid W Smith, Ph.D. S 10 2844490 Council. Thank you very much for your consideration. cc: Morris Jones, Area G+ Homeowners' Association Don "stone, Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks M%WRAVOOVa4sticrrirM1MOc ZOd E00 9NIi7nSNOb HlIWS iiTN 13W b9179 b92 0 I bI :E'I 99, 12 *23A 02/21/96 16:36 V . 0002/003 BERLINER - COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ANDREW D A. ASE RB2• ANDREW L FABER ALAN J. PINKER FRANK R UBHAUS TEN ALMADEN BOLR-BVARD JEROLD A. REITON KELLY A Sl1TiQi1ANp WXUAM J. GOINES' ROOMY W. HUMPHREYS LINDA A. CALLON ROBERTA S. HAYASHI ELEVENTH FLOOR ROBERT L CHORTBC JONATHAN D. WOLF TAMARA J. GABEL A. ouRAN RALPH J. SWANSON PEGGY L SPRWWAY JAMES P. CASHMAN STEVEN J. CASAD SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 KATHLEEN K SPLE THOMAS P. MURPHY USA G ALyA� C. DAVID sPENCE JOSEPH E. DWORAK SAMUEL L FARB NANCY J. JOHNSON FACSIIVIII.E: (408) 998-5388 ROSS A. KAY ANDREW K JACOBSON MARK PRESCO�JAUNICH TELEPHONE (408) 286 -5800 SON KIRSCH -A PICUMimW Cap=Won February 21, 1996 Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: City of Saratoga / Odd Fellows Project; Water Quality Issue Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: NWH L RETIRED SAMUEL J.COHEW 1996. This letter is in response. to the letter from Merritt Smith Consulting dated 21 February, The EIR analyzes water quality, drainage and runoff extensively and proposes a number of mitigation measures. No new issues are raised by this letter or by the previous correspondence: It is not reasonable to require that water quality in adjacent creeks be analyzed prior to issuance of entitlements, since that is already regulated through the requirement fora storm water Pollution prevention plan, as well as the City's NPDES permit process. All drainage discharge from the project will be pursuant to authorization from, and subject to regulation by, the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. To the extent water quality analysis will be required to obtain appropriate permits for drainage at the appropriate time, such analysis will be performed. Clearly, such permits will have to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's overall storm water management program and its NPDES permit. WAM16.01 el-W0690M 02/21/96 16:36 '$ Q003/003 Hang Peacock, City Manager February 21, 1996 The California Supreme Court has clearly expressed its disapproval of such last- minute delaying tactics by project opponents: The wisdom of approving this or any other development project, a delicate ink which requires a balancing or interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The Iaw as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced. Concurrently, we caution that rules regulating the protection of the environment must not_ be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development and advancement. i izens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 (1990). Please distribute this letter to the City Council. Thank you. Very truly yours, BERLWER COUEN iWW ALF:ct cc: Mike Riback George Means George Ivelich 61- MI0e809m —2- 02/20/96 11:22 %T 0002/018 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: CC: FILE REF MEMORANDUM The Honorable Mayor and City Codncilmembers Linda Callon #-I- Odd Fellows Master Plan Your agenda of February 21, 1996 February 16, 1996 City staff George Means, President, Odd Fellows and George Ivelich, Architect 08809/001 On behalf of the Odd Fellows, let me say that we are extremely pleased with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to you to approve the renovation and expansion of senior living facilities at the Odd Fellows site. We hope to receive your approval as well. In fact, to meet City deadlines, we need you to introduce the ordinance regarding the development agreement at your February 21" meeting, so that the ordinance could be adopted at your next meeting, on March 6. Because your meeting is in the next few days, I wanted to point out the specific issues of most concern to the Odd Fellows. The first set of issues involve the development agreement , which for the most part mirrors the agreement you approved less than a year ago governing the Greenbriar project. The proposed language sent to the Planning Commission was recommended for approval by staff and r d to by the Odd Fellows, but the Commission made some changes that we ask you to address. Meginning at p.6, we would like to reinstate Paragraph 9.3. It allows the staff to approve minor changes in the project, those changes that would not affect the maximum height, bulk, size or architectural style of the project, or do not increase the density, use or intensity of use, or those changes that are minor and therefore exempt under CEQA or do not require finther environmental review. We gave examples of changing the interior use from say congregate care units to assisting living units, etc. Attached is the paragraph as drafted. The project is complicated and will require refinement over time. The Odd Fellows needs some flexibility in minor modifications so that each little change doesn't come back through the Commission and City Council. /Next is p.11, paragraph 17.1. Although there is no intention to do so, the Odd Fellows believes it should be able to transfer its property with the development agreement intact without receiving consent of the City. Any new owner or assignee would be bound by the terms of the agreement, so there should be no particular City interest in determining who that owner should be. 02/20/96 11:22 %Y Z003/018 Finally, the Odd Fellows requests that the original Exhibit which sets forth special conditions governing the project be approved, except as to Condition) ing some extended period of time to give Saratoga seniors notice of availabilit - efore giving notice to the general public (15 to 30 days is OK if it can run concurrently with the preference for existing residents of the project ) and except for Condition 3 adding perimeter landscaping along Chester Avenue. The major problem lies with changes that attempt to forever tie down the use of the 10.6 acre parcel to the 11 cottage units described in the Master Plan. The agreed to Condition 6 gave the Odd Fellows the option of building the 11 units with Phase 1, or building part of the units with Phase 1 and dedicating open space so that the remainder of the property at a later date would be built out, or, if financing could not be obtained or it was determined infeasible to build the 11 units at that time, then the Odd Fellows would dedicate private open space that would restrict future development to EITHER the Master Plan or development of the property as residential under the original general plan and zoning. That is giving the City a great deal of assurance as to future development of the 10.6 acre parcel, but at least shows some respect for the fact that this is privately owned property. It severely restricts development and guarantees that it will be compatible with the neighborhood. As to the conditions set forth in the proposed resolution of approval for the conditional use permit and design review, the Odd Fellows respectfully requests deletion of Condition 2(f), p.4, which requires the Odd Fellows to make a "good faith" effort to acquire and record easements over San Marcos Road, a private road adjacent to the Odd Fellows' access road, to combine those roads at Fruitvale so there is only one point of access into the residential development and the Home property. No one established that there is any safety problem at that intersection- it's just oddly configured and has been for decades. The project is not going to generate significant new traffic. It is an unfair, expensive and implausible burden to ask the Odd Fellows to buy property from the neighbors. The only real solution if the City wants to reconfigure the roads is to use its power of eminent domain to procure the public easements. We also request deletion of the first sentence of Condition 52, which requires the Odd Fellows to buy a fire truck for the Fire District. Enclosed is my letter to staff explaining why this condition is absolutely not required and is unfair, along with the relevant analysis from the EIR. More to come on that subject. Thank you very much for your consideration. Please call me at anytime with questions or comments - (408) 286 -5800, x326. 02/20/96 11:23 V GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004; 14500 Fruitvale Ave. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS STAFF ANALYSIS Total Site Area 37 Acres _ General Plan Designation Northern 26.4 Acres: Quasi Public Facilities Southern 10.6 Acres: Residential -Very Low Density Zoning District Designation R -1- 40,000 Total No. and Type of Units IOOF Home Remodel: 30 assisted living apartments (currently 83 units - 53 units to be eliminated) New Health Center: 99 bed skilled nursing (existing 66 bed Health Center to be removed) Villas Addition: 143 assisted living studio apartments (currently 79 units) New Congregate Apartments: 96 independent living apartments New Duplex Cottages: 19 independent living duplex cottages Unit Tabulation TOTAL EXISTING UNITS: Phase 1 Net Increase: Phase 2 Net Increase: TOTAL PROPOSED UNITS: 10004/018 UNITS BEDS 170 68 3 31 134 307 99 000003 02/20/96 11:23 $ 10005 /018 in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a_reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council. If such modification or suspension- is infeasible in DEVELOPER's reasonable business judgment, then DEVELOPER may elect any one or more of the following in any sequence: 9.1.1 To terminate this Agreement by written notice to City; 9.1.2 To challenge the new law preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and extend the term for the period of time required to make such challenge. If such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified, except for the extension of the term and shall remain in full force and effect. 9.2 Amendment by utual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of State law. 9.3 Operating Memoranda. The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between CITY and DEVELOPER, and refinements and funkier development of the Project may demonstrate that clarifications with respect to the details of performance of CTTY and DEVELOPER or minor revisions to the Project are appropriate. If and when, from time to time, during the term 'of this Agreement, CI'T'Y and DEVELOPER agree that such clarifications or minor modifications are necessary or appropriate, they shall effectuate such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by CM and DEVELOPER, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by CITY and DEVELOPER. No such operating memoranda shall constitute an amendment to this Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Attorney shall be authorized to make the determination whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to require an amendment hereof pursuant to Paragraph 9.2. The parties agree that modifications which would be categorized as exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), or which, after an initial study, the CITY determines do not require any further environmental review, or do not increa_ the use, density or intensity of use or the maximum height, bulk, size or architectural style of proposed buildings may be effectuated through operating memoranda pursuant to this Section. For instance, as to use and interior design of the Project, a transfer of living units from one type to another type such as from skilled nursing to assisted living units or from congregate care to assisted living units would be allowed; or if the Odd Fellows do not require offices on the ground floor of the existing Home, then that space could be used for residential purposes. The City Manager may execute any operating memoranda hereunder without City Council action. 9.4 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be cancelled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the same procedure used when entering into this Agreement. \013 \209655.5 "- 020808809001 —6— 02/20/96 11:24 $ 10006/018 separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any judgment on this Agreement. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. DEVELOPER shall bear its own costs of defense as a veal party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse CITY for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by CITY in defense of any such action or other proceeding. DEVELOPER shall be entitled to select counsel to conduct the defense od CITY, who shall be authorized to represent CITY if CITY issues its written consent thereto as well as DEVELOPER If CITY elects to select counsel other than counsel selected by DEVELOPER, CITY shall be responsible for paying the fees and costs of counsel it selects and shall continue to be obligated to cooperate in DEVELOPER's defense of such action. CITY shall not reject any financial settlement acceptable to DEVELOPER, provided that DEVELOPER pays any and all consideration which is part of said. settlement;_ if CITY does reject any financial settlement acceptable to DEVELOPER, CITY may continue to defend such action at its own expense 17. Transfers and Assignments. 17.1 Rig t to Assign. DEVELOPER'S rights hereunder may be transferredl sold or assigned in conjunction with the transfer, sale, or assignment of all or a portion of the Property subject hereto at any time during the term of this Agreement, provided that no transfer, sale or assignment of DEVELOPER's rights hereunder shall occur without prior written noti J to CITY. -- — 17.2 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of DEVELOPER's rights and interests hereunder pursuant to the preceding subparagraph of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be re!eased from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Council approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Council expressly assumes the obligations of DEVELOPER under this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released with respect to all such assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Council approval. 17:3 Foreclosure. Nothing contained in this Section 17 shall prevent a transfer of the Property, or any portion thereof, to a lender as a result of a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and any lender acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, as a result of foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall take such Property subject to the rights and obligations of DEVELOPER under this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such lender be liable for any, defaults or monetary obligations of DEVELOPER arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such lender, and provided further, in no event shall any such lender or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building permit or occupancy certificate until all fees due under this Agreement (relating to the portion of the Property acquired by such lender) have been paid to CITY. \013 \209655.5 64- o2oeossosool —10— 02/20/96 11:24 $` Z 007/018 � 11: So long as the Agreement remains in full force and effect and DEVELOPER is not prevented by applicable law from developing the Project in accordance with the Master Plan and the terms of this Agreement, the following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above: 1. Residency Criteria. Residency privileges within the Project shall be made available in the following order of preference: a. First preference�*ffl be granted for a period of up to sixty (60) days to individuals residing on the Property at the time a unit becomes available for occupancy . b. Thereafter, units will be available for occupancy on a nondiscriminatory basis to members of the general public. 2. Program for Saratoga Seniors. As part of marketing and advertising activities, DEVELOPER will target Saratoga residents for early notice of availability of units. A program will include notice to the local newspaper, local senior organizations identified by the City of Saratoga and to those organizations or persons who request such notice in writing. Said notice will be given at least one (1) week prior to release of the information to the general public. 3. Perimeter Landscaping by Crisp Avenue. Prior to the construction of Phase 1 of the Project and not later than the date of issuance of the first building permit, DEVELOPER will install landscaping substantially as now shown on the "SITE PLAN /SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN" dated in the vicinity of Crisp Avenue upon the southern portion of the parcel commonly known as "the 10.6 acre parcel." 4. Open Snare Easement. Upon commencement of construction of Phase 1 of the Project, DEVELOPER will dedicate a private open space easement near the western boundary of the 10.6 acre parcel as more fully described in EXHBTT C. 5. Drain aee. Neighboring properties located at the westerly end of San Marcos Road have experienced occasional flooding and have requested City aid in correcting their drainage problem. Certain off -site neighborhood drainage improvements as identified in EXEMIT D are not required as a result of the Project. DEVELOPER will, however, construct said improvements coincident with construction of required Project drainage improvements. 6. Phasing. As part of Phase 1 of the Project, DEVELOPER will as to the 10.6 acre parcel: a. Construct all of the duplex cottage units (maximum of eleven duplex units), or b. Construct some of the duplex cottage units in a configuration that alone or in combination with dedication of a private open space easement restricts future development of \013 \209655.5 64- 020808809001 -1- 02/20/96 11:25 008 /018 the remaining property to substantially conform with the Master Plan, or c. Dedicate a private open space easement that restricts future development of this parcel to substantially conform either to the Master Plan or to the density, intensity and use allowed under the existing General Plan designation of Residential -Very Low Density and existing Zoning District designation of R-140,000. DEVELOPER may choose to implement either subsection 6a, 6b or 6c at its sole option. If DEVELOPER is prevented from developing any portion of the Project in accordance with the Master Plan or this Agreement as a result of any moratorium, lawsuit, voter requirement or court order, then to the extent the Additional Conditions relate to the portion of the Project that cannot be developed, said Conditions will be void and unenforceable, and CITY shall cooperate with DEVELOPER and take any actions necessary to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. For instance, if DEVELOPER is prevented from developing the 10.6 acre parcel, then Additional Conditions 3, 4 and 6 are void and unenforceable. \013\209655.5 64- 020808809001 -2- 02/20/96 11:25 V BERLINER . C OHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PAWHERBHIP INCLUDING PROFE9910HAL CORPORATIONS 0009/018 SANE CM A BEF&VAE - ALAN J. PWR*R TEN AL.MADEN BOULEVARD JEFCW A 19MLY A FiJi EMMO ANDREW L R UMVAJ9 ROOM 1. QROFIIBC TAMARA A eARM VMUPM J.60PIQ8' LNM A Gum+ ELBVE M FLOOR JONATHAM a VOMF FEMU O A OURAN w. HUMPHR6Y9 R06MA G. NAYABM K43ULM K SFIP USA G ALYAPEZ =FEBER RAIi'H J. sWANBw JAM® P. CASHh" SAN JOM CAL HOP 4M 9S117. -= 1HOAM8 P. MURPHY C. OOHS SPENCE PMY L SPAPIWAY S1EV@I L CASAO PRON A KAY M"K R mm I JOBEF" E OwkCW NANCY J. JOHNBOFI FAC551L Z (4" 998 -5386 ANCAEMI K JACOWN R PFGO*MTJAWCH SAMUEL 1„ FAR9 •A P '- * C100oadw February 2, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE AND UNITED STATES MAIL Mr_ James Walgren, Project Manager Community Development. Depa*t-+ e t 13777 Fruitvale. Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 OFD H" L 9XLA F0W= SAMUEL.. CCHDr Re: Odd Fellows Home of California /Master Plan Project - Condition 52 re Requirement of Purchase of Fire Truck for SaratoaA Fire District Dear James: We have reviewed all the- information available on the potential impact of the Master Plan Project on provision of fire services, and believe that there is no evidence to support imposition of Condition 52 as it relates to purchase of a fire truck on this Project. We therefore request deletion of that portion of the condition. The draft EIR analyzed provision of fire services to the project site, and concluded that as existing, the Odd Fellows site had annual total calls of 37 out of 786 city -wide. Of those, only 4 calls were fire related- others were service or medical. In fact, the draft EIR did not mention adding a fire truck at all! That makes sense, since the District is requiring all buildings of the Project to have sprinklers. Instead, the District noted that most calls were medical, and wanted help in providing that response. Then apparently the Fire District changed its mind. In a letter on the EIR, the District said to drop the requirement for help in providing medical response and required that the Odd Fellows provide it on site themselves. That makes sense since the Project includes a skilled nursing facility. But then the District simply states that it needs a fire truck capable of accessing all \077\211019.2 62- 020208809001 02/20/96 11:26 $ 10010 /018 February 2, 1996 floors of the facility. That is extremely costly, perhaps $300,000, and is not required by the facts of the project. Thus, for example,. no new building is greater in height than the existing buildings. SP the Saratoga: Fire District- needs a ladder truck now to reach to the top of the building, it would call: for, one from Los Gatos or Cupertino. And there is no general- requirement that a fire department must have a ladder truck that can reach to the top floor of all buildings (particularly where they are sprinklered)-_ This is surely not true in San Jose- or San Francisco. Finally, the analysis provided in the EZR as to increased . calls for service in general does not support this request_ Assuming all the current annual total of 37 call's were to the Home's existing 170 units (excluding the existing skilled nursing facility), the EIR calculates a generation rate of 0.2 calls per unit. (That rate included all types of calls, not just fire.) From that number, the EIR assumed an additional 35 calls would be generated after buildout- of Phase I_ However, in fact Phase. 1 adds only 3 units; thus it generates only an additional 0.6 calls (say, one call) .. Phase. 2 adds 134 units, which would potentially generate 27 more calls, for a total of 28, not 55 as stated in the EXR. In any case, none of this information establishes a need for- a new fire truck. Thank you- for your help in.'this matter. Sincerely, LINDA A. CALLON LAC:pb cc Michael Riback Paul Curtis George Means George Ivelich \077\211019.2 62- 020208809001 -2- 02/20/96 11:26 Tr ODD FELWVa MASM PLAN DRAn MR 39.4 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOI]DAK• ADVERM DWACrS 10011/018 Following implementation of the above mitigation ==ues, project impa on biological resources would We reduced to 2L level considered Ian than SiPffimw rmplemc=tiovL of the: proposed project in combination with buildoutof other projects approved for r development* within the City of Saratoga has the potential to adversely zff= the following biological riiu &-z &- wedand habitc 0 live oaLwoodlamd rr • riparian habitat and wildlife diversity 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTUXINS AND •FACILITIFS FIRE PROTECTION 310.1.1 KnAmamenad Condifions. IFTre r—reswon The City of Saratoga Fire District's fire prevention inspection and permit services are provided through the fire company located in the station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue, and through the Saratoga District's Fire Division. This station serves the west and southwest Portions Of the City Of Saratoga, and also includes some of Santa Clara County's unincorporated areas to the west and south of Saratoga. On a 24-hour basis, the fire station is staffed by six fall time firefighters, with a back-up reserve of 25 volunteers throughout both the pmjecr area and the city. Tbree dam A 1500 gallons per minute (gpm) engines are utilized as well as one reserve engine and out rescue vehicle. 11e fire District has indicated that one of the three class "A" engines will be replaced within the next two to three years- Additionally, the district anticipates that two additional firefighters will be added to existing staff within the next•three years. ane The Saratoga Fire District provides fire protection, emergency medical responses, fire inspection and other services for the project area Response time from the Saratoga Fire Station is estimated as approximately 4 minutes throughout the project area and 2-19 minutes throughout the rest Of the city. 19660001-3 3-116 MOLMCAL RESOURM if 0 Fi P 10 5 D 0 I r r 1 =7 i r ■ r r 'r 1 1 i irr ar it rx' r. .+;f t gt t :7 '� "� ` ', '�'•h?iwi'% ::n .•:� •f;�.�.. :: w. yY �.?;R �p'.?' ail L1 1111 I�r. ?..,;q.^.�Y:M.. ll:» ~�'�'�• ..':�`k:.:;.°.':a., •� I•�• ".`� � � N':ti�v .v+�"i \ x i u 1 411: I `r� >a, � ° ,+..,,, -,...w ^�l r tn..':,i*'• w .,*Ytarw.�'.,ty.�.,...'y1.:.,. M •. i :•1 �r.1n 'r rll •Irvin � nil 1 1 _• 1 'J 1 VI it I � The Saratoga Fire District station location, equipment, and personnel serving the project, am, are snm102tized in, Table 3.10 -1: 'file S; ga Fire District is a patty m the Santa Clara. County MIME31 Aid Agreement: The District has m1tomatic aid agreements with all Satnwga's neighboring jurMcdons- Additional fire and emergency medical response services are provided to the Odd Fellows Site on a next available and/or closest proximity basis, thruuRh an aid agreement gin 'ae Il Table 3.10 -2 shows the number and type of Saratoga Fire District calls antibuted to the existing. Odd Fellows site. As seen in Table 3.10 -2, the majority of the service calls (89% of the total for Odd Fellows) were for emergency medical services. According to the Sar moga Fire District, the Saratoga Fire Department responded to 786 calls for service in 1993. Of this number, approximately 4.7% were attributable to the Odd Fellows Home. In contrast, approximately 3% were amributable to the adjacent Fellowship Plaza. MMUC SERVWESS. 111X. S 19660001.3 ND 3-117 A FACn.lTlfs't 02/20/96 11:27 $ ODD FEUOF& MASLER PLAN DRAFT FIR TABLE 3.10-2 SARATOGA FIRE DEPAR7WMNT RESPONSE CALLS. ATTRIBUTABLE IN 1993 TO THE F.713UM ODD FELLOWS HOME 399- 242 _ 122 1 786 31 Z 4 3,. 9% .009% 3% • 4.796 -Solntce: Saratoga Fire District, 1994.. Fire Flow The general required fire flow tor buildings in the City of Saratoga is 4000 Spm for fire flow in non- sprinklered buildings, and 3000 gpm for fire flow in sprinklered buildings. This is.. based on. requirements as found in the 1991/1994 Uniform Fire Code, Appendix M A and also. as per type- based on the Uniform Building Code. The project also requires the implementation of the City of Sam9a's Code 16-60 including sections 14.25.110 and 14- 80.090 (Early Warning Alarm System). A minimal residual water pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (psi) must remain in the water system. The adequacy of the existing water system and fire flow availability for the project area is discussed in Section 3.10.3, Water Service. 3.10.1.2 Environmewd bupacts Fire Pfti!ention With the proposed project, fire prevention services provided by the City of Saratoga Fine Department will be continued in the Odd Fellows Home Muter Plan area. The Saratoga Fire Department will continue to provide necessary fire prevention inspection, fire permit, hazardous materials disclosure, and underground storage tank services, particularly during future development project construction phases- 1%60001.3 PUBLIC SERVICES. tTTILMES 3 -118 AND FACn.rrlFS 10013 /018 A lr a 02/20/96 11:28 $ 014/018 ODD FF3LOWS MASTER PLAN DRAFT EX hspections and plan cdwk services for new construction will increase. Based on an average production time per inspector and historical eitperience, the Saratop Fire Department estimates that an additional 15 hours per momh will be required to provide these services during construction of fithaa developments in the Odd Fellows Master Pin area- No sigmffr4atfmpacrs to fine prewn ion service are anticipated �lPo� '>Rmcs The: existing emergency vehicle response times for the project area are considered acceptable by the Saratoga Fue Department: The proposed project: will result in a marginal increase in trip generation over 7 ist:+entconditions. Described in Section 3.3, Transportation and Circulation, elation, the proposed project wM* have a. minimal impact.on streets within and adjacent to the Odd Fellows Site_ Thus, response grimes are not anticipated to. be impacted by project implementation. No significant impacts would occur as a result of pr ecr dewlopmient- IService Call R The ability of the Saratoga F'ue Depaflment, m adequatP.ly .service the project. area is dependent, in part} on the number of service: calls originating in the project area. Other-factors include the amount of time required to respond to each call, and the type of call generated. As previously discussed,. the City of Saratoga generated 786 ells for service is 1993. Of the 786 service calls, 37 calls were attributed to the. Odd Fellows Home. For the purpose of calculating fire response demands of the proposed project, the following assumption was made. • Based on 1993 responses for the Odd Fellows. Home (37 calls) and the number of units (170 units), a generation tare of 0.2 service calls per unit was calculated for \1 the future dwelling unit uses and associated parking areas. '4 c - • b� 3 `f T rUsing this assumption, by buildout of Phase I, an additional 35 service calls are estimated to be generated. By buildout of Phase II, the total number of animal fire service calls anticipated to be generated in the Odd Fellows Home Master Plan area is 95, which is a net increase of 55 service calls (64 percent) over 1993 levels. Because of the higher degree of risk due ro the age of the residena, rile bnpacr of rile proposed project on fire protection services is considered significmu by the Saratoga Fire Disna. 'Ile District anticipates that additional manpower (paramedical /firefighter) will be needed to respond to medical 1 19660001.3 PUBLIC SERVICES, UT11.I M 3 -119 AND FACtt.r= 02/20/96 11:28 $` ODD FaLOWS MASH PLO DRAFT FIR emergency cans. gena zW by the proposed pmject- The. Fire District has indicated that one fiaaughter /paramedic would need to be- added to serve the proposed project at bnddouL 3:10.1-3 MTTYGA 13ON MEASURES Hm Prevention Mitigation Meamm 3.1 0.11-- Prior to co mmencemat of strucmred framing on each parcel onsite,,, ffm-hydrants- shall be installed and charged by the applicants as requited and approved by-the-Fire c- District 7 i!:-- tieation Mmure 3.10.1 - Prior to approval of the final Grading Plan, the applicant shall submit »ty an emergency fire access plan to the Fire District for review and approval to "ensure that service to the .site is in rdance with Fire District service requirements. Mi!1ig1Ldon MM11Ec 3.a 0.1 -3: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, plans shall indicate -that all buildings, shall have spriniders installed by the applicant in accordance with the Saratoga. Municipal Code- Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection. Wtigption Measure 3- 10.14: Prior to issuance of each building permit; the applicant shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan which shall include detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location, and- any other construction features. Service Cau Response Mitigation Measure 3. 0 1 l Prior to the issuance of building permits for Pbase H, the applicant shall eater into an agreement with the Saratoga Fire District to pay or cause to be paid its fair share of the funding_for_one additional firefighter /paramedic in order to maintain adequate levels of service of on -going fire prevention and emergency medical response service after completion of the project. 3.10.1.4 Significant UnavoWable Adverse Impacts With implementation of the mitigation measures described above, no significant unavoidable adverse impact on fire protection services is anticipated. 19660001.3 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTBJMS 3 -120 AND FACILt'iIES @0015/018 1 1 02/20/96 11:29 $ 10016 /018 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 June 13, 1995 James Walgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruirvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Walgren: After reviewing the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Odd Fellows Master Plan, I would like to suggest the following changes and additions: 1. Public Services, Facilities and Utilities, Section 3.10, Page 1 -25 Significant Impacts Fire Protection: Project implementation will result in the need for one 1500 gpm aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities. This requirement shall be in lieu of providing an additional firefighter /paramedic. In addition, a 24 -hour, on -site emergency medical response team with emergency advanced life support (ALS) capability is required. ene additienfti firefighterIpwmedie - This is considered a significant impact. SFD-1 ,•1 u FIRE PREVENTION Mitigation Measure 3.10.1 -2: Prior to approval of the final Grading Plan, the applicant shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire District for review and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with fire District service requirements. Fire access roads shall be provided for each facility to ensure that firefighting or rescue SFD -2 operations will not be impaired. The access plan shall be based on the requirements of the 1991/1994 Uniform Fire Codes (Division 11, see- 10.201, sec. 10.204) and Part 111, Article 9 of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code_ Mitigation Measure 3.10.1 -3: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, plans shall indicated that all buildings, shall have sprinklers SFD -3 14380 Saratoga Ave. * Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 867 -9001 • Fax (408) 867 -2780 02/20/96 _ 11:29 $ 10017/018 G D�SYICT TOGA F1RR R SAA AN4 T .:.> °p A SERVICE SINCE 1923 Code the Sarwop municipal ed by the applicant in e. s �e Wers shall be Fled pnor to $F p — 3 Mall e d and the Uniform F� Code. (Gpt1t d� each final building and Wning coon. E CALL RESPONSE of building permits foe SE RYIC 5: Prim to the issuance ti anon geasme 3.10.1 - with the Saratoga fire ems * o an afire truck Nii S shall enter int m, aerial furs Phase U, the Wp to be paid for one Uofoad This District to pay es. the upper floors capable of ac steal b lieu of prq) -A g f or an additan r��meut shall be in firefiterlparamedic. .�e� of bang gFD fiTeftWrIr prior to the �'m'° In adddon+ P to provide 24 -houry on- for Phase M the applic"t shall agree permits •�,l service at the Health Care Center. '� medi encY advanced life site emergen�be capable of providing eme� service should residents- The addition of 24-hom ALS won A) to the ouse service after comp support ( adequate em e1�ency medical resp ensue of the project- Page Characteristics Page �'S eut incltuding 2. - _ orted" lives Mvuonmd sect care ConCept caters 10 a" Pp S The The cong�g resident.. toon2l proS�s and s�rices available to each a range of personal dining room, meeting rooms, re includes a common m, and emergency AL,S medical care related facilities with supervision provided by the Odd Fellows. 3. F Vvironmental Conditions, 3.10.1.1, page 3 -116 Fim �ent14L class "A„ engwes will be has indicated that one of the three the district The fire district five three yew• Xdditionally+ staff within replaced within the next two to fi will be added to existing ates that two adds -- firefighters thenext to five yam- the next three Fire Flow, Page 3 -118 s in the 4• dtwo- family dwellin&5 The genes required fire flow for one- and 867 -7 Fax Saratoga, CA 95070 � (408) 867'9001 14380 Saratoga Ave. I I r r ,02/20/96. 11:29 $ SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 City of Saratoga is 1000 to 2000 4969 gpm for fire flow in non-sprinklered buildings, and 1000 to 3500 3899 gpm for fire flow in sprinklered buildings. This is based on requirements as found in the 1991/1994 Uniform Fire Code. Appendix III -A, and Appendix III-B (Hydrant Locations), and also as per type based on the Uniform Building Code. Water transmission lines will be looped to acquire the needed fire flow requirements. Water requirements are also specified in the City of Saratoga's Code 16- 20.080, Section 10301(G). This project also requires.... Service Call Responses, Page 3 -119 Because of the higher degree of risk due to the age of the residents, the impact of the proposed project on fire protection services is considered significant by the Saratoga Fire District. The District anticipates that one 1500 gpin serial fire track capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities will be required. This requirement shall b- in lieu of providing an additional firefighter /paramedic. In addition, a 24 -hour, on- site emergency medical response team with emergency advanced life support (ALS? capability is required. widi4enai manpower (pejamedieab4ixefighter�� be needed to Prejest -$t bead e+ 6. Mitigation Measures, Fire Prevention, Page 3 -120. See above, Page 1 -25. 7. Fire Flow, Page 3 -125. The adequacy of fire flow.—According to the City of Saratoga Fire District 1500 to 3000 4896 gpm is required for fire flow in non- sprinklered buildings. For sprinklered buildings, the requirement is 1000 to 3500 3999 gpm. If you have any questions concerning the items above, please call. Thank you for your assistance. rSincerely, r r 7 SARATOG&EIRE DISTRICT r-'eesoa-. Kraule Fire Chief EOK:tw 10018/018 C SFD -9 SFD -10 1 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 867 -9001 * Fax (408) 867 -2780 02/21/96 16:36 V 0002/003 BERLINER • COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ANDREW A. FABER 9t' ANDREW L FABER ALAN J. t UGHA FRANK R UBHAUS TEN ALIMADEN BOULEVARD JEROLD A. RQiON KELLY A. SUT1Qi1/INp WILIAM A GOINES, ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS LINDA A. CALLON ROBERTA S. HAYASHI ELEVENTS FLOOR ROBERT L CHORTEK JONATHAN D. WOLF TAMARA J. BABEL RALPH J. SWANSON PE.GGY L SPRINGGAY JAMES P. CASHMAN STEVEN J. CASAD SAN JOSE, CALFORMA 95113-2233 KATHLEEN K SPLE THOMAS P. MURPHY USA C. ALVAREZ Q DAVID SPEC JOSEPH E. DWORAK SAMUEL L FARB NANCY J. JOHNSON FACS24ME; (408) 99 &5388 ROSS A. KAY ANDREW K JACOBSON MARK A. ZIEBELL R PRESCO1TJAUNICH TELEPHONE (408) 286-5800 SHARON KIRSCH -A P ON8 0iW Cwpp10110n OF COUNSEL 1 HUGH L RETIRED February 21, 1996 SAMUEL J' CoHEN• Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re. City of Saratoga / Odd Fellows Project; Water Quality Issue Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: 1996. This letter is in response to the letter from Merritt Smith Consulting dated 21 February, The EIR analyzes water quality, drainage and runoff extensively and proposes a number of mitigation measures. No new issues are raised by this letter or by the previous correspondence. It is not reasonable to require that water quality in adjacent creeks be analyzed prior to issuance of entitlements, since that is already regulated through the requirement for a storm water Pollution prevention plan, as well as the City's NPDES permit process. All drainage discharge from the project will be pursuant to authorization from, and subject to regulation by, the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. To the extent water quality analysis will be required to obtain appropriate permits for drainage at the appropriate time, such analysis will be performed. Clearly, such permits will have to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's overall storm water management program and its NPDES permit. el-ml oeeosooI 02/21/96 16:36 '$ IZO03 /003 Hwy Peacock, City Manager February 21, 1996 The California Supreme Court has clearly expressed its disapproval of such last- minute delaying tactics by project opponents: The wisdom of approving this or any other development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing or interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced. Concurrently, we caution that rules regulating the protection of the environment must not be - subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development and advancement, Citizens of Goleta Vallev (1 990). v Board of Supors. 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576 (1 Please distribute this letter to the City Council. Thank you. Very truly yours, BERLAqER COF EN r Kv�� cc: Mike Riback George Means George Ivelich 61.am088MM -2- •A Professional Corporation February 21, 1996 The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor, and Councilmembers City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: City of Saratoga/Odd Fellows Project; Response to Letter from Attorney for the Saratoga Fire District Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: OF COUNSEL HUGH L. ISOLA• RETIRED SAMUEL J.COHEN• This letter is in reference to the proposed condition of approval requiring that the Odd Fellows provide a 1500 gmp aerial fire truck for the Saratoga Fire District. The Odd Fellows oppose this request, since the fire truck is not required in order to provide fire protection services to the site. The analysis in the EIR does not require it, there is no nexus to the project, and other alternative methods exist to insure that the Fire Department can access all floors of the facilities. Enclosed herewith is a letter of today's date from Mr. James McMullen, the ex -Fire Chief of the City of Campbell and the ex -State Fire Marshal, who gives his expert opinion that the fire truck is not needed. 1. The project will not lead to increased fire risk justifying an aerial fire truck. The project itself will not result in an increased fire risk. The new buildings will be fully sprinklered, built pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code in effect at the time of construction, and \ AC1300163.01 61- 022108809001 K BERLINER • COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SANFORD A. BERLINER' ALAN J. PINNER TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD JEROLD A. REITON KELLY A. SUTHERLAND ANDREW L. FABER FRANK R. UBHAUS ROBERT L. CHORTEK TAMARA J. GABEL WILLIAM J. GOINES' LINDA A. CALLON ELEVENTH FLOOR JONATHAN D. WOLF REYNALDO A. DURAN ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS ROBERTA S. HAYASHI KATHLEEN K. SIPLE LISA C. ALVAREZ RALPH J. SWANSON JAMES P. CASHMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233 THOMAS P. MURPHY C. DAVID SPENCE PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY STEVEN J. CASAD ' ROSS A. KAY MARK A. ZIEBELL JOSEPH E. DWORAK NANCY J. JOHNSON FACSRvflLE: (408) 998 -5388 ANDREW K. JACOBSON R. PRESCOTT JAUNICH SAMUEL L.FARB SHARON KIRSCH TELEPHONE: (408) 286 -5800 •A Professional Corporation February 21, 1996 The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor, and Councilmembers City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: City of Saratoga/Odd Fellows Project; Response to Letter from Attorney for the Saratoga Fire District Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: OF COUNSEL HUGH L. ISOLA• RETIRED SAMUEL J.COHEN• This letter is in reference to the proposed condition of approval requiring that the Odd Fellows provide a 1500 gmp aerial fire truck for the Saratoga Fire District. The Odd Fellows oppose this request, since the fire truck is not required in order to provide fire protection services to the site. The analysis in the EIR does not require it, there is no nexus to the project, and other alternative methods exist to insure that the Fire Department can access all floors of the facilities. Enclosed herewith is a letter of today's date from Mr. James McMullen, the ex -Fire Chief of the City of Campbell and the ex -State Fire Marshal, who gives his expert opinion that the fire truck is not needed. 1. The project will not lead to increased fire risk justifying an aerial fire truck. The project itself will not result in an increased fire risk. The new buildings will be fully sprinklered, built pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code in effect at the time of construction, and \ AC1300163.01 61- 022108809001 The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor, and Councilmembers February 21, 1996 provided with all fire safety equipment required by law, and will comply with the 30 -foot height limit in the Saratoga Municipal Code. In Chief McMullen's letter attached hereto, he opines that there is no need for such an aerial fire truck for the Saratoga Fire District. Fire protection services can be handled adequately by using the District's own equipment supplemented, if necessary, by mutual aid and automatic aid agreements (which already exist). In addition, he proposes that the project applicant store on site a locked, 35 -foot fire ladder for the exclusive use of the Saratoga Fire Department, which would enable roof access if necessary. With respect to the automatic and mutual aid districts, the provision of fire services in Saratoga is not limited to resources owned or operated by the Saratoga Fire District. The Santa Clara County Local Fire Service and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan ( "Mutual Aid Plan ") is a planning document that provides for the mobilization of county -wide fire and rescue resources to participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, including Saratoga, precisely because "[n]o community has resources sufficient to cope with any and all emergencies for which potential exists." The Mutual Aid Plan provides for an annually updated fire and rescue inventory of personnel, apparatus and equipment, and promotes training and exercises to best mobilize the necessary resources for extraordinary emergency events. Under the Mutual Aid Plan, 21 engines and 8 trucks are available upon request in any configuration ranging from a single piece of equipment to an entire strike team or task force. The City may also enter into additional inter- agency agreements to better facilitate required fire services. For example, the Saratoga Fire Protection District has a long- standing mutually beneficial automatic aid agreement with the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District. The Central Fire District has a 75' aerial truck stationed on Winchester at Lark, less than 5 miles from the project site. 2. The EIR does not require a fire truck for this project. The Draft EIR concluded that there was "no significant impacts to fire prevention services... ". (DEIR, p.3 -119.) It did conclude that there was a significant impact on paramedic/ emergency call services. The mitigation for that significant effect was to pay its fair share of the funding for one additional fire fighter /paramedic. In addition, the DEIR required several mitigation measures for basic fire safety of the project itself, including full sprinklering of the buildings in accordance with the Saratoga Municipal Code. The Fire District, after circulation of the Draft EIR, stated that the project will result in the need for an aerial fire truck "in lieu of providing an additional fire fighter /paramedic... ". In response, the EIR author added the mitigation to provide the fire truck in lieu of providing a share of an additional fire fighter /paramedic. In addition, a requirement was added for a 24 -hour, on- site emergency medical response team with emergency advanced life support capability. It is clear from the EIR that the District's desire for a fire truck is not in response to any identified environmental impact, since they acknowledge that the same effect would be achieved \LAC1300163.01 -2- 61- 022108809001 . The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor, and Councilmembers February 21, 1996 by the project paying for a share of an additional fire fighter /paramedic. The significant impact identified in the EIR is not on fire protection services, but rather on emergency response calls. In any event, the City Council must apply its independent judgment to the EIR and base its findings on substantial evidence in the record, which includes (but is not limited to) the EIR itself. (CEQA sections 21081.5, 21082. 1.) Thank you for your consideration of this material. Very truly yours, BERLINER COHEN LINDA A. CALLON LAC:ct encs. cc: George Means, President, Odd Fellows George Ivelich, Architect William D. Ross, Esq. \LAC\300163.01 -3 - 61 -022108809001 r FEB 21 '96 03:50PM February 21, 1996 VIA TELECOPER tic HAND- DELIVERED The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 P.2 6� haheao OWsm 425 Sherman Avenue, Suitt 310 Palo Alta California 94301 Tekphonr. (41S) 617-5678 Phesimile: (415) 61745680 File Nix. 228/3 Re: Independent Order of Odd Fellows /GPA -94 -001, UP- 94001, DR -94 -004, Development Agreement/February 21, 1996 City Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council: This office represents the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") in connection with the application of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows ("IOOF" or "Applicant ") for various..City of Saratoga ( "City ") entitlements to use to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing IOOF senior care and living facility (the "Project ") on a 37 -acre parcel located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue within the City. This communication supplements our communication of February 13, 1996 addressed to the Planning Commission ( "Commission ")' which supported a proposed mitigation measure, Condition No. 52, to the proposed Project Resolution of Approval which" would require IOOF.to enter into an agreement with the District to pay or caused to be-paid for one 1500 - gallon per minute ( "GMP'l aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities and to provide 24 -hour onsite advanced life support emergency medical service at the facility.! ' A copy of the February 13, 1996 communication is attached as Exhibit W. 2 The actual tart of Condition No. 52 provides: 52. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Saratoga Fire Protection District to pay or caused to be paid for one 1500 -GPM (continued...) -- Law Offices of William D. Ross William D. Ross Nellie R Anal A Profsuional Corporation Diane C. De Felice 520 South Grand Avenue Suite 300 Carol e. Sherman Los Angeles, California 90071.2610 Of Counsel Telephone: (213) 8x11592 naaimile: (213) 892.1519 February 21, 1996 VIA TELECOPER tic HAND- DELIVERED The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 P.2 6� haheao OWsm 425 Sherman Avenue, Suitt 310 Palo Alta California 94301 Tekphonr. (41S) 617-5678 Phesimile: (415) 61745680 File Nix. 228/3 Re: Independent Order of Odd Fellows /GPA -94 -001, UP- 94001, DR -94 -004, Development Agreement/February 21, 1996 City Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council: This office represents the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") in connection with the application of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows ("IOOF" or "Applicant ") for various..City of Saratoga ( "City ") entitlements to use to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing IOOF senior care and living facility (the "Project ") on a 37 -acre parcel located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue within the City. This communication supplements our communication of February 13, 1996 addressed to the Planning Commission ( "Commission ")' which supported a proposed mitigation measure, Condition No. 52, to the proposed Project Resolution of Approval which" would require IOOF.to enter into an agreement with the District to pay or caused to be-paid for one 1500 - gallon per minute ( "GMP'l aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities and to provide 24 -hour onsite advanced life support emergency medical service at the facility.! ' A copy of the February 13, 1996 communication is attached as Exhibit W. 2 The actual tart of Condition No. 52 provides: 52. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Saratoga Fire Protection District to pay or caused to be paid for one 1500 -GPM (continued...) -- FEB 21 '96 03:51PM The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council February 21, 1996 Page 2 The February 13, 1996 communication to the Commission: P.3 (1) established that the City had the police power to impose Condition No. 52 and that a legally sufficient nexus existed between the Project impacts and Condition No. 52; (2) requested that the City include the aerial apparatus condition as a public benefit to be provided by the Applicant under the Development Agreement (the "Agreement ") which was recently requested by the Applicant for the Project; and, (3) included as an exhibit an analysis of Mr. William F. Maxfield, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District who is presently a consultant providing services in building and site planning and evaluation for fire safety, supporting the imposition of Condition No. 52 requiring the IOOF to enter into an agreement with the District to pay for an aerial apparatus. The issue of the imposition of Condition No. 52 became an issue for the first time after a February 2, 1996 meeting of the IOOF representative and the District Chief when it was indicated by the IOOF that "we are not going to pay for a new District fire engine." On the same date, the IOOF representative directed a communication to City Staff, a copy of which was = given to the District, also contending for the 'first time that Condition No. 52 should not be imposed as there is no evidence to support its imposition. As a result of that communication, the District directed our office to accomplish communications to both the City Commission and your honorable Council in support of the District's position and Condition- No. 52, as well as retaining Mr. Maxfield to supplement the District's analysis on why Condition No. 52 can be validly imposed by your honorable Council. 2( ... continued) aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of the facilities. In addition,.prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 1I, the applicant shall agree to provide 24 -hour on -site emergency medical service at the Health Carc Center. This service should be capable of providing emergency advanced life support (AIS) to the residents. The addition of 24 -hour ALS will ensure adequate emergency medical response service after completion of the project. ' A copy of the February 2, 1996 IOOF communication is attached as Exhibit "B ". Because the Project record discloses that the District position has been known lingg June 13, 1995, the District maintains that the IOOF has waived the right to now raise this issue. Se q, Carm_ e] Valley Fre Protection Dist. v. State of California, 190 CalApp.3d 521, 534 (1987). FEB 21 '96 03:51PM 0.4 The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council February 21, 1996 Page 3 The Commission did not take action with respect to the IOOF request for deletion of Condition No. 52 determining to refer the issue to your honorable Council. The Commission did not address the District's request that the agreement to pay for an aerial apparatus be included as a public benefit to be provided in the proposed Agreement. I. DELETION .OF THE AERIAL APPARATUS CONDITION WILL RESULT IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The requirement that IOOF enter into an agreement with the District to pay for an aerial apparatus results from a mitigation measure contained in the environmental impact report-("EIR") prepared for the Project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code 5 21000 gl seq., "CEQA ") which the Commission has recommended for certification by your honorable Council. The Draft EIR ( "DEIR ") concluded (p. III -119) that the Project would have a significant impact on the physical environment because of the higher degree of risk due to the age of the residents on the ability of the District to adequately protect the Project area. The mitigation proposed in the DEIR was to require funding of an additional firefighter /paramedic position to maintain adequate levels of service. DEIR, p. III -120. As a result of comments provided by the District on the DEIR, the Final EIR ( "FEIR ") concluded that: Project implementation will result in the need for one 1500 - GPM aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities. This requirement shall be in lieu of providing an additional firefighter /paramedic. In addition, the 24 -hour, onsite emergency medical response team with emergency advanced life support (ALS) capability as required. This is considered a significant impact.' (Revision to page 1.25, DEIR) Similarly, the DEIR text was also revised= (pp. III -119 and III -120) to provide as follows: ' At the Commission hearing of February 14, 1996, 100F indicated that it would = contest the ALS onsite emergency medical response team portion of Condition No. 52. ' The revision to the DEIR text was accomplished as a response to the District's public comment letter of June 13, 1995 on the DEIR. FEB 21 '96 03 :.52PM The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council February 21, 1996 Page 4 Because- of the higher degree of risk due to the age of the residents, the impact of the proposed project on fire protection services is considered significant by the Saratoga Fire Protection District. The District anticipates that one 1500 -GPM aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities will be required. This requirement shall be in lieu of providing an additional firefighter /paramedic. In addition, a 24 -hour, onsite emergency medical response team with emergency advanced life support (ALS) capability is required. FOR, P. 111 -6. P.5 Thus, the FEIR recommended for certification by your honorable Council concludes that the Project will result in significant impacts due to the characteristics and composition of the Project population which can be mitigated by the required provision of a 1500 -GPM aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all Project facilities. Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 150916 require the Council, prior to approving the Project, to make findings with respect to eacb identified significant effect, including the impacts identified on the provision of fire services. Specifically, the City is xeguired to make one or more of the following findings with respect to each identified significant effect: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or void the significant effects from the environment. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and has been, or can or should be, adopted by the other agency. The CEQA Guidelines are entitled to great weight in the interpretation or CEQA. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Re¢onts of the University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, fn. 2 (1988). FEB 21 '96 03 :52PM The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council February 21, 1996 Page 5 Specific economic, legal, social,. technological, or other considerations ... make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. SAg, Pub. Resources Code § 21081; CEQA Guidelines S 15091.7 P.6 L These findings, if made, must be supported by substantial evidence in the Project record. CEQA Guidelines s 15091(d). Therefore, if your Council were to approve the IOOF request to delete Condition No. 52 to enter into an agreement with the District to pay for an aerial fire apparatus, it could not make a finding with respect to the significant effect identified in the EIR as an adverse impact on the providing of fire services because no changes would have been required to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Instead, your Council would be required to make a finding that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measure and this finding would need to be supported by substantial evidence in the Project record. The District is unaware of = evidence, much less substantial evidence, in the Project record to support such a condition. "Substantial evidence" is defined by CEQA Guidelines as meaning: Enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made is to be determined by examining the entire Project record. Mere corroborated opinion or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines 5 15384. Here, there is no substantial evidence in the Project record identifying a specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consideration which makes the proposed mitigation measure respecting provision of an aerial fire apparatus, infeasible. Again, should your honorable Council delete Condition No. 52 requiring as mitigation that the IOOF enter into an agreement with the District to pay for an aerial fire apparatus, that Stated differently, if Condition No. 52 mitigation measure is found to be infeasible due to economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, then the City is required to make a finding that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effect on the environment. Pub. Resources Code S 21081; CEQA Guidelines s 15091. FEB 21 '96 03 :52PM The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council February 21, 1996 Page 6 P.7 decision would not presently comply with Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091. The analysis and conclusions of City Staff set forth in the FEIR and the proposed Resolution approving the Project with respect to the requirement for a 1500 -GPM aerial fire apparatus capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities to the District (Condition No. 52) constitutes substantial evidence and is entitled to great weight. Se, Rasmussen v. City Council, 140 Ca1.App.3d 842, 850 (1983). Also, in performing the environmental review of the Project and in assessing the effect of the Project on the District and its service capabilities, it is presumed that ]both the City Staff and the District have performed their governmental duties in assessing the impact and the required mitigation. Evid. Code S 664. The obligation to satisfy the burden of proof for the involved City entitlements is that of the Applicant, not the District. Gong v. City of F sernont, 250 Cal.App.2d 568, 574 (1967). A review of the Project record would indicate that the Applicant has not satisfied this burden even though it continually emphasizes that there are no "facts" to support the imposition of Condition No. 52. In contrast, there is substantial evidence in the Project record to support the continued imposition of the required aerial fire apparatus portion of Condition No. 52. II. AUTOMATIC AND MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MITIGATE PROJECT SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS In the February 2, 1996 IOOF correspondence, it is stated that the District could call fora ladder truck from Los Gatos or Cupertino. It is noted that neither of those cities has its own fire department. Rather, the cities are provided structural fire protection by the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ( "CFPD "), as it is one -half of the City. The CFPD serves the cities of Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, Campbell, Cupertino, Morgan Hill and the six square miles of the City not served by the District, as well as unincorporated areas of the County of Santa Clara ( "County "). The CFPD has two aerial apparatus. One is located in Cupertino and the other is located in Los Gatos. These two aerial apparatus must be available to service all of the above - listed cities and portions of the County. The District does have an Automatic Aid Agreement with the CFPD .8 However, the Automatic Aid Agreement provides that CFPD will be the first responder to only those portions of the District which are located close to station houses operated by CFPD and designated in. the agreement. The IOOF facility is o I in an automatic aid area. 5e, Declaration of Ernest O. Kraule ["Kraule Declaration ( "Kraule Decl. ")], 5 6, which is attached as Exhibit "C ". The 'District also is a participant in the County Local Fire Service and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan (the "Plan "), the Countywide Mutual Aid Agreement. The Plan states that it "presupposes that all s The CFPD /District Automatic Aid Agrcement is attached as Exhibit "3- to the Kraule Dedaration. Yt FEB 21 '96 03 :53PM P.8 The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council February 21, 1996 Page 7 member departments provide the ability to handle normal incidents to their city or district." Under the Plan, mutual aid resources are sent to the requesting agency. However, the Plan also incorporates provisions of the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Aid Mutual Agreement which provides that no party shall be required to deplete its own resources in furnishing mutual aid. Because the CFPD only has two aerial apparatus which must be made available to a significantly large area, it is not clear that upon a mutual aid request by the District for an aerial apparatus, thit CFPD will be able to provide the aerial apparatus under the terms of the Plan, ee Kraule Decl., T 6. Therefore, reliance on the County Plan to provide aerial apparatus in the event of fire at the IOOF facility is not sufficient to mitigate the adverse impacts identified in the FOR, or on a practical basis, to meet the life hazard conditions presented by the IOOF facility. III. THERE IS A SUFFICIENT NEXUS TO SUPPORT THE AERIAL APPARATUS CONDITION The February 2, 1996 IOOF communication suggests that there is no information in the Project record which establishes that the proposed IOOF facility results in the need for an aerial apparatus. As stated in our communication of February 13, 1996 to the Commission, there is no other facility or project within the City that has the same characteristics as the proposed IOOF facility. The Project is unique in terms of scale, concentration of structures and characteristics of the population of the Project. The Kraule Declaration details the need for the aerial apparatus and also details the insufficiencies of the District's current equipment which consists of 24 -foot ground ladders to access the buildings and effect rescues of the occupants due to the unique characteristics of the Project. The aerial apparatus or ladder truck as it is commonly known is necessary to provide access to the roof of the large structures which will be housing a significant number of senior citizens so that firefighting personnel may access the roof and freely move to rescue individuals, to provide footing for which firefighters may direct streams of water and to allow firefighters to ventilate the building so that smoke, heat and gases escape, See, zir -ratus W. Erven (3d ed., 1979, p. 331). Kraule Decl., 15. d P ur Lawrence IV. CONCLUSION The Applicant has not met the burden of proof to sustain its late challenge to the imposition of Condition No. 52, something which has been a portion of the public record of the Project since June 13, 1995. Moreover, substantial evidence exists in the Project record in the form of evidence produced by the District and analysis of that evidence by the City Staff to justify the finding that the condition is necessary as a mitigation measure for an identified significant impact on the environment. FEB 21 '96 03:54PM The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council February 21, 1996 Page 8 P.9 Accordingly, the District respectfully requests that your honorable Council, should it approve the Project, condition that approval by requiring the imposition of Condition No. 52. Thank you for your review and consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, l/,Z" 2> William D. Ross. WDR :NRA:nac Enclosures cc: Mr. Robert Egan, President and Members of the Board of Commissioners Saratoga Fire Protection District Mr. Ernest O. Kraule, Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District Rachel B: Hooper, Esq. Shute, Mihaly & Wienberger Linda A. Callon, Esq. Berliner . Cohen Michael S. Ritback, City Attorney City of Saratoga t FEB 21 '96 03:54PM Exhibit "A' Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C' P.10 INDEX OF EXHIBITS February 13, 1996 District communication to the City Planning Commission February 2, 1996 communication of Linda Callon to Mr. James Walgren, Project Manager Declaration of Ernest O. Kraule Exhibit "1" February 20, 1996 communication from Douglas G. Sporleader, Chief of the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Exhibit "2" California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan Exhibit "3" Agreement Between Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District and the Saratoga Fire Protection District for Automatic Aid FEB 21 '96 03 :54PM R Exhibit A P.11 FEB 21 '96 03:54PM February 13, 1996 VIA TELECOPIE & . ND -D LIVERY The Honorable Henry Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga _ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 _1 P.12rIL.GA a'alo All► Affice 125 Shcrrnan Avenue, Suite 310 Palo Alto, Cdifonnia 94306 Telephone: (415) 617.5676 Faesimile: (415) 617 -56W rile Na 228/3 ,_. Re: Independent Order Of Odd Fellows; GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, DR -94 -004, Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3; o ' sio n Meeting Da te F-el2mary 14,1996 Dear Chairman Murakami & Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") in connection with the application of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows ( "IOOF ") to allow expansion of their senior care and living facility on a 37 -acre parcel located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue within the City of Saratoga ( "City "). This communication comments on' the the ability of the District to provide fire and with principles of applicable law. effect of the application for expansion on life safety services to the facility consistent . The District supports the position advanced in this communication on an evidentiary basis with the analysis of Mr. William F. Maxfield, the former Chief, Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District which is attached as Exhibit "A'. •v Law offices of William D. Ross William D. Roes Ncllie R. Ancel A 11rofest1011al corporation Diane C- De Felice 520 South Grand Avenue Suite 300 Los Angeles. California 90071 -2010 Carol D. sherman Telephone: (213) 692 -1592 Of Counsel Facsimile: (213) 692.1519 February 13, 1996 VIA TELECOPIE & . ND -D LIVERY The Honorable Henry Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga _ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 _1 P.12rIL.GA a'alo All► Affice 125 Shcrrnan Avenue, Suite 310 Palo Alto, Cdifonnia 94306 Telephone: (415) 617.5676 Faesimile: (415) 617 -56W rile Na 228/3 ,_. Re: Independent Order Of Odd Fellows; GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, DR -94 -004, Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3; o ' sio n Meeting Da te F-el2mary 14,1996 Dear Chairman Murakami & Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") in connection with the application of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows ( "IOOF ") to allow expansion of their senior care and living facility on a 37 -acre parcel located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue within the City of Saratoga ( "City "). This communication comments on' the the ability of the District to provide fire and with principles of applicable law. effect of the application for expansion on life safety services to the facility consistent . The District supports the position advanced in this communication on an evidentiary basis with the analysis of Mr. William F. Maxfield, the former Chief, Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District which is attached as Exhibit "A'. •v FEB 21 '96 03:55PM P.13 The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 2 . I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The IOOF has applied for (1) Amendment to the City General Plan; (2) Use Permit; (3) Design Review, and, (4) Development Agreement (collectively, the "Project "). The Project would increase the number of residential units for seniors from 170 units to 307 units and the total number of nursing beds from 68 beds to 99 beds. The Project would result in increases in the senior population on the Project site from 238 individuals to 453 individuals. The total square footage in building area would increase from 146,537 square feet to 380,270 square feet, plus an additional 29,460 square feet of underground garage area. At final build -out the Project will include 143 living units in a building known as the Villas, two apartment buildings of 46 units and 52 units respectively, 19 duplex cottages, 30 units in a building known as the Home building znd a 99 -bed care facility. Many of these units will include cooking facilities. The Villas, apartment buildings and Home building are all two -story structures. The environmental impact report ( "EIR ") prepared for the Project, among other things, proposed as mitigation that the Project be conditioned by requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement with the District to pay for or. cause to be paid for, one 1,500 gallon per minute aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all the Project facilities. EIR, Section 3.2.2.; Responses SFD -1, SFD -4; and, SFD -8. This requirement was in lieu of providing for an additional District fire fighter /paramedic position as proposed in the Project draft EIR. As additicMal mitigation, the EIR concluded that the applicant should agree to provide 24- hour, on -site advanced life support emergency medical service at the health care center which is part of the Project. The District has been advised that the applicant is challenging the condition which requires it' to enter into an agreement to pay for, or cause to be paid for, one 1,500 gallon per minute aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of all facilities.- This communication demonstrates that the conditions proposed for imposition by the City on Project approval on behalf of the District are legally sufficient. FEB 21 '96 03 :55PM P.14 The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 3 II. THE CITY HAS THE POLICE PO'V1'ER TO IMPOSE THE CONDITION A. Aoolicable__Uww. The District is organized and governed by the Fire Protection`Distrid Law of 1987 (Health & Saf. Code, S 13800 it mg.) (the "Act "). The Act does not permit the District to charge a fee on new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or the acquisition of equipment. Health & Safety Code, section 13916(x). However, the City of Saratoga does have the power to impose the condition. The land use and planning powers that the City exercises through its General Plan and zoning laws derive from its police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare and its residents. California Constitution, Article 11, Section 7; ee, Berman v, Par cr, -348 U.S. 26, 32 -33 (1954). The City General Plan is the "constitution" for development and is "atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." Neighborhood Action Groun v County of Calavares, 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183 (1984). The General plan may, therefore, be a source of exaction and dedication requirements. Since all land use approvals must be consistent with the General Plan, conditions can be imposed to achieve these goals. See, T W . nv v. itv of an Die -- 157 Cal..App.3d 745, 758 (1984) Further, the power to impose such conditions need not be exercised by the specific enactment of a City ordinance or regulation. S-oderling v. City of Santa n , 142 Cal.App.3d 501, 506 (1983) ( "&Arn ng "). In Soderli the City of Santa Monica required installation of smoke detectors and other improvements prior to a condominium conversion and based these requirements on broad language in its General Plan calling for the City to "promote safe housing for all" and "to protect the health and safety of the residents:' In performing the environmental review of the Project and in assessing the effect of the Project on the District and its service capabilities, it is presumed that both the City and the District have performed their governmental duty in assessing the impact 1 Health & Safety Code section 13916(x) has no effect on the validity of the proposed condition because, although the condition benefits the District, the legislative body that is imposing the condition is the City. Health & Safety Code section 13916 by its plain meaning is applicable to actions of a board of directors of a rue protection district, not to actions of any other local government legislative body. Where the language of a statute is free from ambiguity, it must be given its plain meaning. Qastangda v. Holcomb. 114 Cal.App.3d 939, 942 (1981). Therefore, the prohibitions contained in Health & Safety Code section 13916(a) do not apply to invalidate the condition imposed by the City requiring the applicant to provide the aerial fire apparatus to the District. FEB 21 '96 03:56PM The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 4 P.15 and the required mitigation. Evidence Code section 664. The obligation to satisfy the burden of proof for the involved City permits and entitlements is that of the applicant. QQng v -City of Fremont, 250 Cal.App.2d 565, 574 (1967). B. A1212lic—ahle-0ty Deydol2mcut PolicbU Similar to the factual situation in Sode din , here, the aerial truck condition proposed by the City for District benefit implements the City General Plan goal of reducing the danger of property damage and loss of life due to fire in both urban and rural areas of the City. (General Plan Safety Element Goal 4.0, p. 47). In addition, the condition implements the general purpose and goal of the General Plan Safety Element "to protect the community from any unreasonable risks associated with fire ..." General Plan Safety Element, p. 1. The condition requiring the aerial apparatus is also consistent with the recognition in the General Plan that: "access is a key component of fire hazard prevention, since fire fighting equipment must be able to reach the fire and people living in or visiting the area subject to the hazard must be able to escape in the event of a fire." General Plan Safety Element, p. 26. This condition also furthers the discussion in the General Plan noting that "development in areas of fire hazard should be guided by prevention requirements such as ... quality of year round fire fighting service, available` evacuation routes, access routes level enough for fire equipment use ...:' General Plan Safety Element, p. 26. Thus, the General Plan supports the proposed condition of development approval requiring that an aerial apparatus be furnished to the District. III. A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT NEXUS EXISTS BETWEEN THE PROJECT IMPACTS AND THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS It is well established that there must be a sufficient neays between the project impacts and the conditions imposed to mitigate those impacts. Generally, a condition 'on a project is valid if the following criteria are satisfied: A legitimate governmental interest is advanced for the regulation or exaction; 'rte FEB 21 196 03 :56PM P..16 The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 5 The condition imposed substantially furthers that governmental interest; and, The condition does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the project; or deprive the owner of economically viable use of the property. Sge, ® ins v City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980); No 1 n v. camrnia -Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).' IV. THE ALS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES REQUIREMENT The Advanced Life Support ( "ALS ") medical services 'requirement satisfies the nexus requirement. The bealth and safety of both the residents of the facility and the residents of the City would be advanced by having the ALS support available at the facility. The record demonstrates that in 1993, 89b of the calls for medical serve to the District were from the IOOF site. Seg, Project EIR, p. 3 -118. District records reveal that in 1995 approximately 10% of the medical calls to the District were from the Odd Fellows site (37 of 387 total calls). As the project will result in an increase of over 90% in senior population, it is expected that the incidence of medical service calls would increase. The condition requiring ALS services availability on the site furthers the interest of the City in providing for the health and safety of its residents and that of the proposed project. The condition does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the project. The District does not provide ambulance service and responds to medical service calls with an engine and each engine crew consists of three individuals. As noted, the IOOF Home already constitutes a significant proportion of the District z It is not settled that the 'rough proportionality" standard established in lbe-polan v. City of Tigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994) (" tan') applies where the government is making a quasi- legislative decision as opposed to a quasi-judicial decision and where there is no dedication of real property requirement. See, Dolan Y. City of Tina , 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2320 n. 8; Parking Association v City of Atlanta, 264 Ga. 764 (1994), ccrt. Ag2jIgd, 115 S.Ct. 2268 (1995), rehea[ine deni 116 S.Ct. 18 (1995); Ehr i v i fiver 1S CalApp.4th, 1737 (1993) vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Delan, California Supreme Court review granted, March 16, 1995, California Supreme Court Case No. S033642. Here, quasi - legislative decisions are involved respectively for the General Plan amendment and the Development Agreement and no dedication of real property is sought. The provisions of Government Code section 66000 et Eu. do not apply, as the City has not cxacted a "fee" Rather, the City is requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement with the District, FEB 21 '96 03 :57PM 1 The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 6 P.17 medical calls. , By requiring the IOOF Home to provide ALS service on site, the District's apparatus and personnel will be available to respond to other emergencies within the City. The burden of this condition is not unreasonably excessive in that the applicant already intends to provide health care services on site and will in fact have a 99 person health care facility on site. ,- V. THE AERIAL APPARATUS CONDITION SATISFIES THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT The aerial apparatus condition also satisfies the criteria that the condition promote a legitimate governmental interest and that the condition further that interest. The City has a governmental interest in providing for the public health and safety through provision of a fire apparatus which can be utilized to save both life and property and this condition-ftirthers that interest. Both because of the physical nature of the grounds on which the Project will be located and the characteristics of the population of the Project, the condition requiring provision of an aerial apparatus does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the Project. Although the Project EIR indicates that the structures will not be constructed to exceed 30 -feet above grade, it is not always the case that the District apparatus will be able to be located at grade level due to the circulation plan for the project. In addition, described in lay terms, several of the structures will be quite large and will be housing large numbers of elderly people. Many of the apartments will be furnished with cooking facilities, a known significant cause of fires. An aerial or ladder truck is necessary to provide access to the roof so that fire fighting personnel may access the roof and freely move to rescue individuals, to provide a footing from which fire fighters may direct streams of water and to allow fire fighters to ventilate the building so that smoke, heat and gases escape! The District's current equipment consists of 24 -foot ground ladders. These are not sufficient both based on the scale of the buildings and the large number of occupants who may not be able to assist themselves as a firefighter is generally restricted to operating from the ladder. Further, the confiouration:of the Project design may restrict the use of ground ladders because the ladders need to be placed at a 45 degree angle to the building. The life hazards attributable to this type of project require 3 Sew, generally, Exhibit W communication from Mr. Maxfield; and, Fire F htinr Annara us and ProceduLes (Third Edition, pp. 331). FEB 21 '96 03 s 57PM 1 � The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 7 P.18 provision of a ladder truck so that the roof of the buildings can be quickly accessed and rescue operations undertaken There is no other facility, campus or project within the City with the same characteristics as the proposed project, to terms of scale, concentration of structures and the characteristics of the population of the project. In short, the aer al ladder is required to ensure that the District will be able to rescue trapped occupants, allow access for ventilating heat and smoke from the structure and to allow firefighters a direct route for extending hose lines. This condition does not unreasonably exceed the burden created by the project because it is the only project of this type within the City. If this proposal bad not come forward, the District would not have a need for this type of apparatus. In other words, this is not an apparatus that would primarily benefit existing residents and businesses within the City. Rather, this apparatus is necessitated by the nature of the project being proposed. Although the residents and businesses of the City may indirectly benefit, this does not invalidate the condition. Cee,, Jones. Ste, 157 Cal.App.3d at 757. ' VI. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Even if it was established that the condition requiring an aerial apparatus was excessive, this is an item which could be included as consideration to support the Development Agreement currently before the Planning Commission. The public amenities and benefits achieved through a development agreement are not subject to the limitations of the nexus requirement because the agreement is a voluntary contractual agreement. The Development Agreement will insulate the Project from, any changes in land use policies and regulations governing the site and in effect confers a vested right upon the applicant to construct the Project as approved. This is a significant benefit to the applicant. In exchange, the City may request as consideration that the Project applicant provide certain public amenities and benefits. Based on the foregoing analysis, the District respectfully requests that the City use its best efforts to negotiate to include the aerial apparatus as public benefit to be provided by the applicant under the Development Agreement. VII. CONCLUSION Based on the application of current law to the Project, identified impacts to the District exist because of the Project's unique characteristics in both planned r, c. FEB 21 '96 03 :57PM P.19 The Honorable Murakami, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 8 improvements and the composition of the resident population as a senior care facility so as to justify the proposed condition of mitigation contained in the Project FOR Your review and confirmation of the mitigation condition currently proposed is respectfully requested. ,N Very truly yours, William D. Ross WDR:NRA:dIh Enclosure cc: Bob Egan, President and Members-of *the Board of Commissioners Saratoga Fire Protection District Ernie Kraule, Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District Rachel B. Hooper, Esq. Shute, Mihaly & Wienberger Linda A. Feinberg Callon Berliner Cohen & Biagini C �r i {• FEB 21 '96 03 :58PM P.20 MA.XFIELD & ASSOCIATES 2121 11oover Court, Pleamant Hill, CA 94523-4648 February 13, 1996 Ernest Kraule. Fire Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (510) 93.9-347.1 FAA (51 U) y.3.; -FIRE RE: Odd Fellows Home Renovation; impact on Saratoga Fire Protection District. Dear Chief Kraule: Based on the request of the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District'), we have reviewed the proposed development of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (the "Project") to renovate the existing facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue within the City of Saratoga ( "City) for its impact on District ability to provide fine and life safety services. our analysis is based on the experience of our Chief Consultant, which is detailed in the attached Curriculum Vitae specificany exu=sive involvement in the analysis of development for its impact and resulting mitigation on the providing of fire services while, among other things, serving as Chief Executive Officer for the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire nisttict and our review of City and Project documents as described. Specifically. we have reviewed the Project Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR'l, as well as conducted a field inspection of the subject facility and the current development within District boundaries, We have also reviewed relevant portions of the City General Plan including those portions of the General Plan Safety Elemeat which relate to conditions under which development may be approved with respect to fire suppression, prevention and emergency medical issues. We have also reviewed the current District staffing levels. equipment and emergency response procedures including the response history of the District to emergency medical situations including verification through District records of representations made in the Project EIR that in 1993 8% of the calls for medical service were from the Project site and that is 1995 approximately 10 %, or 37 out of 387 total calls to the District for assistance were from the Project site. Further, based on the Project description. which will increase by over 90% the "senior" population of the Project site. it is anticipated that there will be an increase in demand for District medical services. CUUF:.I': JNvY1TiCA,noNS: fire /Ar.%nNFxPI4*iun • l.ili :ir!n SuppP�r: /f:xiKrl w��nr!• LI F. ���r�tn•: !�i <k Mali <I.+ /YlanninK l4 b�ntua��nN�llt>, I.EG1SLiT10 \: lkvelt�v:ntnl Arta >'r�a & Re��tvr FEB 21 '96 03:58PM P.21 1 l Based on the foregoing review of applicable documentary material and existing conditions of development we are of the following opinion with respect to the proposed Project's effect on the District and the related need for mitigation of the development. 1. The proposed Project will have a significant impact on the fire fighting capabilities of the District. 2. The size of the proposed Project including its density, height of improvements. limited or restricted access, exposure to adjacent buildings as well as the age and ambulatory status and restrictions of the prospective residents requires the need for emergency response capabilities of an elevated platform by the District. , Specifically, in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed Project on fire protection services, the Disaict should acquire a 1500 -GPM elevated Platform (aerial, snorkel, tele- squirt) with the ability to access the upper floors of all facilities for emergency ingress and egress as well as to provide elevated streams of fire suppressant. ?be recommended mitigation measure is a more detailed description of that setup in the Project E1R. Project Elm Section 3.2.2., Responses SFD -1; SFD-4; SFD-S; June 13, 1995 District communication to the City. Should you have questions concerning this matter, please contact our office. Sincerely, William F. Maxfield Chie: Consultant WFM/bl Enc. 1 An dev ^ed,a.dana ;r an &cr;a orlhddw auek fiv ABouws epp—va. 91o6.n %UiP=ot b rwnd& ..ate ID 0e loaf e,ruegl.0 r Ibat 6r%6&bmtg yaw d may somm e=uab be roof and &wdy mow to now* "v;duals or peopeny and b pwv;de • :vble he.t !t nea whiek fireS�ess oa.r dhces atttame of %v &W or Gew fire Aq?P sA&= am a ®&Rs tioo sad to 40- tuefiz mR to vwndlme ibe (pvotvad -mueaue for din eeape of awoke, beat sad sqy Dame zma*eed r� 2 FEB 21 '96 03 :59PM NLAX r -IELD & ASSOCIATES 2121 Mover Court, Pleasant Hill, CA 944-73 -4648 P.22 (51 v) W s•34;3 FAX (SJ U) 935 -FIRE CURRICULUM VITAE WILLL4M F. KkXTIELD CHIEF CONSULTANT EDUCATION: B.A. Public Administration. St. Mary's College. Monger, CA A.A. Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, CA SPECIAL TRAINING / EDUCAT -0-E: Building Construction for Fire Protection, Plan Check & Review, Code Enforcement, Fire Sprinkler Systems, Occupancy Hazard Id— rAcation for Public Assembly, Commercial, lndnstr4 Residential. P.C. 832 Peace Officer training (laws of crest, Search & seizure). Fire and Arson, luftsdgatiosr, Fire Cause and Origin, Fite Scene and Incident Racamstructioa. Califoraia Fire Service Staff and Command School, Fire Service JAMCIOr. Chief Cottsliltaat - MAXi'lEi� �A,�•t��TE'S Maa7icld & Associates was established in 1993 following a successful and ttw"lrding cateer as the chief execv:ive officer of the Cont m Costa County Fire Disaia. (S30 Million budget, 298 full time employees, 85 part-time employees.) As Fire Chief I& Maxfaeld was responsible for rive overall Fite Protection, System ofthe.Di>ttria indudingpmen6m and suppression of fires, rescue, c=9encYmedial care, hautdotu materials incidents, and enforcement of state and local statutes and ordinances. M&A specializes in - fire protcc icW life ufbty inspections, fie investigadoas, labor relations, compensation and benefits surveys, clusifcation studies, rue service reorgsniration and consolidation studies. r4-k FIELD & ASSOCIATES PROVIDES CONSULnNG SERDE S IN: CODE /,LIFE SAFETY- FORENSIC /IAIWYTGA7TONS LANO1t RELAITONS - FIRE SERKCE CONSOL ATION CODEI LIFE SAFETY- Fire/ Building / Ele=ical / Mechanical codes and ordinances, Standards, Policies and Procedures, Plan Checking Plan Check & Review for Code Compliance for New Construction and Remodel. Building & Site Planning and Evaluaion for Fire Satbty. Mau Review for Coo Containment & Code 'Trade-Offs". Fnviranmental impsrs Rtpoti (E.I.R.) review and evaluation. Vjalxer preparedness analysis and development of emergency tespo w pleas FORF-ti'SIC /J,ViiF.S77GA?TONS- Fire / Arson / Explosion - Lirfgatiom Support / Expert Witness, Technical consntltaoan, forensic investigation reports / services for attomeys and insurance claim ad u menc professionals. Provide litigation support, testiij► as an expert witness, and provide depositions . regarding: hre cattw and origin, cxplomons, huardous materials, Fire and Building Code violadons. LA50R =A770NS - Depaz=cnW Orgpai QZIIUWT Sva2ualiotr and ?-=Pniz -%don- Caatract Nceotiatitm% (M.O.U.) - Mediatiort - Personnel Management Regulations - Testing & Meu-ura:ntmts - Asst:ssncat Labs - Fromotioaal Exams - Oral Boards FIRE SE)(WCE C0n0ZrDt7I0N- A systematic approach to Political Consolidation. Panctivnal Consolidation - Mergers - Joint Powers Agmsnents - Regional Consolidation r CODES: iNrSTIGATIO S: rs*✓Annn /Expinsinn - Lhiuwn iupppnnIFAnerI Witneaw I-IF9 SAW: Kirk .4nalysisiPlanning LEGISLATION: betvi„pment Analyse & evlew FEB 21 196 03 :59PM P.23 07Y�R AC77V1T1ES: Past Chairman, Cv% -Cmofs Office of Emergency Services Fire $ Rescue Ad%isory Past Member Board of Directors, Fire District Assoristiam of Caltfosais Committee/FIRESCOPE Board ofDirrrcors (Incident Command Systaat) M =then, After Action Review Commicbc - Oaldmd hills Fire - O:t. 1991 M=bet, After Action.Revicw Commimee - Los Angeles Civil Riots - hUy 1992 Arbitrator. Contra Cosu County Labor Relatioas Adjusam ®t Hoard Planaimg Cosomissioner. 1975 -1980 PRO ES51ONAL SOCDUM and ACTIVIfJ.1uS: Iatcmational Association of Firc Chiefs California Fire Chiefs Associa ion National Fire Protection Assoriatim - Fire SeMee Seecion - Charier Mmaber Nloacrn California Fire Prevention Officers Association Bay Ama Fin Pmtcction Forum Northam California Training Officers Associatiotl Fire District Association of California - Past Director National Association of Fire Investigators California Conference of Arson Investigators California Fire Chiefs Assodadan Legislative Committee - Pant Member MMUCAnONS: California Fire Journal: 'Consolidation of Fire Servi=" - EmerScucyModical Priority, Dispatr -hiag- Fire Command- " Hazardous Matcraals Think Safety With Every &+lath Yon Talc" "Some Days Being Fire Chief Are More Rewarding Them Others" FEB 21 '96 93:59PM P•24 1 Exhibit B FEB 21 '96 03 :59PM P.25 . BERLINER COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTWEP9NIP INCLUDING P9gF!L18AI0NAL COAPOAATION9 SAMPOM A. SWILNNEW ALAN i PINNFA TEN ALjAADEri BOULEVARD is= L NaO1T9C MLY A 1 948 MAIL ANpew L FAOM WNUMM caNOr F91ANNt A 1 OK" uNDA A. FRA ELEVENTH FLOOR .IDMTK#jl a WOLF FEYMALM A. DUPAi .L MMWW MUMPMFOS AAiPM 1 SWANIMIN ANWrA IL NAYMW AAM® A CAH"" SAN JOSE, CALSOR1M 9n 3-= FATNLM IL SPLE T110" P. Ii0>PW LIM C ALIAAFIC C. owe 9�L F�QY L SIORFABOAT J06lM C Dwow 87@VM J. CACAO NANCY J. 101MNmQ1 FACSMULM (408) 998 98 AO® A, ON ANDREW L 4000090II Mum R iL 0. MOW" A&UPC I 9AMLIEt L FAAB YELF.PHON6 (� 286SB00 eN •A RMwrUM %POra� OF CMPGM HIM L dMO : Februaly 2, 1996 Si.a J. VIA FACSIMILE MD UNITED STATF_L, &IL Mr_ James Walgren, Project Manager Con unity Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, .CA 95070 Re: Odd Fellows Home of California /Master Plan Project- condition 52 re Requirement of Purchase of Firm Truck fbr saratoga Fire District Dear Tames: We have reviewed all the, information available on the potential impact of the Master Plan Project on provision of fire services, and believe that there 'is no evidence to support imposition of Condition 52 as it relates to purchase of a fire truck on this Project. We therefore request deletion of that portion of the condition. The draft EIR analyzed provision of fire services to the project site, and concluded that as existing, the odd Fellows site had annual total calls of 37 out of 786 city -wide. Of those, only 4 calls were fire related - others were service or medical. In fact, the draft EIR did not mention adding a fire truck at all! That makes sense, since the District is requiring all buildings of the Project to have sprinklers. Instead, the District noted that most calls were medical, and wanted help in providing that response. Then apparently the Fire District changed its mind_ In a letter on the EIR, the District said to drop the requirement for help in providing medical response and required that the Odd Fellows provide it on site themselves. That makes sense since the Project includes a skilled nursing facility. But then the District simply states that it needs a fire truck capable of accessing all \077\211019.2 oL 6Z- o20208809001 r. i FEB 21 '96 04 :00PM February 2. ► 1996 P. 26 floors of the facility. That is extremely costly,. perhaps $300,000, and is not required by the facts of the project. Thus, for example, no new building is greater in height than the existing buildings. If the Saratoga Fire District needs a ladder trucX now to reach to the top of the building, it would call for one. from Los Gatos or Cupertino. And there is no general requirement that a fire department must have a ladder truck that can reach to the top floor of all buildings (particularly where they are sprinklered)'. This is surely not true in Sari Jose or Saa Francisco. 5 Finally, the analysis provided in the EIR as to increased calls for service i-n general does not support this request_ Assuming all the current: annual total of 37 calls were to the Home's existing 170 units (excluding the existing skilled nursing. facility), the EIR calculates a generation rate of 0.2 calls per unit. (That rate included all types of calls, not just fire.) ' From that number, the EIR assumed an additional '35 calls would be generated after km ldout of Phase I.. However, in fact Phase 1 adds only 3 units; thus, it generates only an additional 0.6 calls (say, one call) . Phase 2 adds 134 units, which would potentially generate 27 more calls, for a total of 28 not 55 as- stated in the EIR. In any case, none of this information establishes a need for- a new fire, truck. Thank you. for your help in this matter. r Sincerely, r LINDA A . CALLON LAC:pb cc Michael Ri_back Paul Curtis George Means George Ivelich �07T211019.2 - r 62.020208809001 -2- r . • r a FEB 21 '96 04:00PM I Exhibit C P.27 FEB 21 196 04:00PM DECLARATION OF ERNEST O. KRAME I Ernest 0. Kraule say and declare: P.28 1. That I currently am, and have been employed since 1973 as the Fire Chief for the Saratoga Fire District ( "District "). I have been employed in the fire service since 1957. I offer this declaration in support of proposed Condition No. 52 to the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Applications sought by the International Organization of Odd Fellows ( "IOOF') in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement for the renovation, redevelopment and expansion of the existing IOOF senior care facility at 14500 Fruitvale (the "Project ") within the City of Saratoga ( "City "). 2. Condition No. 52 provides as follows: 52. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Saratoga Fire Protection District to pay or caused to be paid for one 1500 -GPM aerial fire truck capable of accessing the upper floors of the facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase II, the applicant shall agree to provide 24 -hour on -site emergency medical service at the Health Care Center. This service should be capable of providing emergency advanced life support (ALS) to the residents. The addition of 24 -hour ALS will ensure adequate emergency medical response service after completion of the project. 3. At the February 14, 1996 City Planning Commission ( "Commission ") meeting concerning the Project, representations were made by the IOOF attorney which are inaccurate and which are corrected in this declaration. 4. The IOOF representative indicated that only recently had it learned of the requirement for the aerial ladder truck as the mitigation significant impact on the environment identified by the Project Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR "). The issue of the aerial fire truck serving as mitigation was first raised in a District June 13, 1995 communication to the City commenting on the Project Draft Environmental Impact Report FEB 21 '96 04 :01PM P.29 ( "DEIR "). The condition was formalized as a mitigation measure in the FEIR which has been available for public review since late September 1995 in the text of mitigation measures contained in the FOR responses designated as "SFD -1. SFD-4 and SFD -8 ". 5. The IOOF representative further maintained that there was no "factual evidence," or "facts" supporting the imposition of the mitigation condition. This representation is contrary to the Project record as the analysis performed by myself for the District factored in established standards for mitigation of the, demands of a senior care facility on the fire and life - saving capabilities of any fire agency. Included within those standards are those set forth in a publication entitled Fire Fighting Apparatus and Procedures, Lawrence W. Erven (3d ed., 1979, p. 331), an accepted manual utilized by the fire service to formulate fire and life- saving conditions for new development. Additionally, the decision was based upon the fact that that portion of the City which the District services (approximately 6 square miles), which is entirely built out, does not currently place any demand for an aerial fire truck on the District to effect the saving of lives and property. During the Commission hearing it was contended that there presently exists a three- story structure within the City which, because it is supposedly adequately serviced now, supports the contention that there is no need for the aerial fire truck in association with Project approval. This statement is inaccurate as the three -story facility referenced [located at 14345 Saratoga Avenue (the "Saratogan ", built in 1959)], a residential condominium not exclusively utilized by a senior population as a Senior Care Facility, is located on a level grade and its third floor could be accessed by the side ladder capabilities of anyone of the District's current four 1500 -GPM fire apparatus. In contrast, the proposed IOOF facility has extreme grade differentials and landscaping, including heritage oaks, which must be protected under City regulations, precluding access to the roof of the facility, except by an -2- FEB 21 '96 04:01PM go aerial ladder apparatus, an accepted means of rescue with respect to a Senior Care Facility. This is reflected in the most recent site plan provided of the Applicant and is evident from any visual inspection of the property. Further, the configuration of the building footprint in the "Villas" portion of the Project effectively limits access to approximately 10,264 square feet of the expansion because of its "starburst" effect surrounding existing facilities. 6. The IOOF also represented that the demand for an aerial apparatus could be met by the aerial ladder apparatus of the Los Gatos and Cupertino Fire Departments. This statement evidences a misunderstanding of not only the capability of fire agencies in Santa Clara County ( "County ") as there is no city fire department in Los Gatos, and Cupertino but also the actual provisions of mutual aid and automatic aid agreements between the District and the Central Fire Protection District ( "CFPD "), the fire agency which provides fire service to the incorporated areas of Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, Campbell, Cupertino, Morgan Hill and the unincorporated areas of the County. Mr. Douglas G. Sporleder, CFPD Chief, was contacted by the undersigned who indicated that a review with CFPD personnel on this issue indicated that none of them had been contacted and that further the aerial ladder at the station located at: (1) Winchester Station, 14850 South Winchester Boulevard, Los Gatos, California; and, (2) Cupertino Station, 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California could not service the Project facility under either the CFPD /District automatic aid agreement or the County -wide Mutual Aid Agreement which the District and CFPD are parties to for several reasons. Chief Sporleder formalized his observations on the Project and the condition issue in a February 20, 1996 letter which is attached as Exhibit "1 ". Among those reasons were: (1) that the automatic aid agreement did not cover the geographic area where the proposed IOOF expansion would take place; (2) that a mutual aid agreement would only make the CFPD apparatus available when it was not needed within the CFPD and after the District -3- Y FEB 21 196 04:02PM P. 31 had depleted its own resources; and, (3) that each institution has to be responsible to its own citizens first. Copies of the current County -wide Mutual Aid Agreement and the CFPD /District Automatic Aid Agreement are attached as Exhibits "2" and "3" to this declaration. 7. In conclusion, it would be my professional opinion based on 39 years of experience of formulating conditions for new development in the fire service continual training and instruction on this issue accomplished, among other things, that given the fact that there are no Senior Care Facilities presently in the City which place the need for an aerial ladder fire apparatus on the District because of their unique characteristics of the involved Senior Care Facility that it must be maintained as a condition of Project approval. 8. After being informed for the first time in a February 2, 1996 meeting with the IOOF representatives that "we're not going to buy you a new fire truck," I secured on behalf of the District the services of William F. Maxfield, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District to review the mitigation requirements for the Project. A copy of his conclusion and analysis is attached in the District's Tebruary 14, 1996 communication to the Commission. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is correct. Executed this 21st day of February 1996 at Saratoga, California. /s/ Ernest O. Kraule -4- FEB 21 '96 04:02PM .t It j Exhibit 1 P.32 821pEB121 C' 96 =- 64' 02PA 88672789 SPRATOGA FIRE P, 331E 82 SERVb SANTA CLAM COUNTY CENTRAL. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14700 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD LOS GATOS, CA 95030.1818 (408) 3784010 SINC'81947. FAX (408) 37 8-9342 20 February 1996 Ernest O. Kraule, Fire Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Ladder Truck Service /Automatic Aid Dear Chief Kraule: I' am pleased to respond to your inquiry concerning the availability of ladder truck service to the Saratoga Fire Protection District, and specifically to the Odd Fellows Home project which is currently in the planning stage. As you know the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District has two ladder trucks in service and two ladder trucks and one telesquirt in reserve. The in- service, staffed units are located at our Winchester Station in the Town of Los Gatos (Truck 5) and at our Cupertino Station (Truck 1) in the City of Cupertino. The reserve trucks are housed at El Toro Station in the City of Morgan Hill, Seven Springs Station in Cupertino, and our Campbell Station on Union Avenue in the City of Campbell. Both of our staffed ladder units are available to the Saratoga Fire Protection District on a mutual aid basis as part of the county -wide mutual aid plan. You will recall that when we developed the county plan, it was the intent to provide firefighters and equipment to any fire agency needing assistance after they have exhausted their own resources. All fire agencies entered the agreement with the understanding that each jurisdiction would provide adequate staffing and equipment to handle their day -to -day needs, and that mutual aid would be used for extraordinary events. Proudly Serving Santa Clara county and the Ciliec of: Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Morgan Mll, Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos 02J FEB� 21� ' 96^ o4 :03Ph1088672780 SEiRATOGA FIRE P. 34E 83 20 February 1996 Page 2 In addition, many fire agencies have automatic aid agreements which provide that citizens will get fire services from the closest fire station in order to avoid service delivery gaps. The Saratoga Fire District and the Central Fire District have such an agreement in many areas of the City of Saratoga. As we know, there are built -in delays in automatic aid response due to call handling by geparate dispatch centers. The Odd Fellows property, however, is not in an automatic aid zone because of its distance from Central Fire District stations. It should be noted that the ability of automatic aid equipment to respond is also dependent on its availabilxty. Each jurisdiction has to be responsible to its own citizens first — after all, they are paying the bills. As to the availability of Trucks 1 and 5, it should be noted that they are in two of the busiest fire stations in the Central Fire District, and have huge response areas of their own. Their availability to respond into your District on a regular first alarm basis could be delayed. In closing I would like to assure you that Central Fire District will assist in any way we can to help you meet the needs of your citizens. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Si cerely, G Dougi G. Sporlede Fire C f DGS:jmt c: File 5ARATOCA /AUTO A(0 FWI996,FIn1Jmt1%0= FEB 21 196 04:03PM I Exhibit 2 P. 35 fi�l f EB 21r '96r" 64: 03p*88672 (,:bu ' r P. 36! Revisca 09/1ta State of California ,. OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ' CALIFORNIA FIRE SERVICE AND RESCUE EMERGENCY MUTUAL AID PLAN ' 1AILK QE CQ?12:Kh1hi PART I;iS2.. MLA PACE • I. INTRODUCTION -I-- �- II. AUTHORITIES 3 II, REFERENCES 3 IV. DEFINITIONS 3 V. WJTUAL AID REGIONS 7 vi. POLICIES 8 VII. ASSUMPTIONS 9 VIII. ORGANIZATION 10 IX. RESPONSIBILI'T'IES 15 X. PROCEDURES • MUTUAL AID 28 XI. EXECUTIVE ORDER 29 XII. MASTER MUTUAL AID 31 AGREEMENT Revisca 09/1ta 02/1^ c L- u, "w ui bb /d�bYJ = w�r,1.104" .r Lmr- 'F1E�B 21 ' 96 04:03P CALIFORNIA FIRE SERVICE AND RESCUE EMERGENCY MUTUAL AID PLAN I. INTRODUCTION P. 37 The California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan is an extension of, and supportive document to, the California Emergency Plan, The California Emergency Plan is published In four parts as follows: Part One: BASIC EMERGENCY PLAN Part Two: PEACETIME EMERGENCY PLAN Part Three: COMPENDIUM OF LEGISLATION AND REFERENCES Part Four: WAR EMERGENCY PLAN Parts One, Two and Four provide the planning basis and concepts for the development of the Calllcrnia Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan, This ,Plan supports the concepts of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Integrated Emergency Management System (]EMS), and multi - hazard response planning. It is intended that more detailed operational plans will supplement this document at the local, area, and regional levels. California fire and rescue service conducts emergency operations planning at four levels: Local, Operational Area, Regional, and State. To effectively implement the plans formu• lated ttt the various levels, all plans should be developed within the framework of the Cali %ornia Fire Service and Rescus Emergency Afutual Aid P14n. The California, Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Martial Aid Plan as we know it today, was first prepared and adopted in 1930 as Annex 3 -C of the California State Civil De. Tense and Disaster Relief Plan. This plan has bees reviewed, revised, approved, and adopted after cateful Consideration by the OES Fire and Rescue Service Advisory Corn - mittee /Flit ESCOPE Board of D,itectors. A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN: 1. To provide for systematic mobilization, organization and operation . of necessary fire and rescue resources of the state and its political subdivisions in mitigating the effects of disasterl, whether natural or man - caused. 2. To provide comprehensive and compatible plans-for the expedient mobilization and response of'avallable flre and rescue resources oa a local, area, regional and statewide bads. 3. To establish guidelines for recruiting and training .auxiliary person- nel to augment regularly organised fire and rescue personnel during disaster operations. 4. - To provide in annually updated fire and rescue inventory of all personnel, apparatus and equipment in California. Revised 09/88 Page t O:fl wK wuaoo1x1a;W FEB 21 '�6� 04 :04PM P. se S, To provide a plan and communication facilities for the interchange and dissemination of fire and rescue. related data, directives, and information between fire and rescue officials of local, state, and federzl age: cica. 6. To promote annual training and /or exerciacs between plan partici- pants. B. PLANNING BASIS: 1. No community has resources sufficient to cope with any and all emergencies for which potential exists. 2. Fire and rescue officials must preplan emergency operations to ensure efficient utilization of available resources. 3. Basic to California's emergency planning is a statewide system of mutual aid is which each jurisdiction relies first upon its own re- sources. 4. The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement between the state of California, each of its counties, and t2iose incorporated cities and fire protection districts signatory there- to: a. Creates formal structure for provision of mutual aid; b. Provides that no party shall be required to unreasonably deplete its own resources in furnishing mutual aid; C. Provides that the responsible local official is whose jurisdic- tion an incident requiring mutual aid has occurred shall retrain in charge at such incident, iocluding the direction of such personnel and equipment provided through mutual aid plans pursuant to the agreement; d. Provides the intro- and inter -area and intea- regional mutual aid operational plans shall be developed by the parties thereof aid are operative as between the parties thereof in accordance with the provisions of such operational plans; e. Provides that reimbursement for mutual aid extended under this agreement and the operational plans adopted pursuant thereto, shall only be pursuant to• the state law and policies, and in accordance with Office of Emergency Ser'viees policies and procedures. S. The state is divided Into six mutual aid regions to facilitate the coordination of mutual aid. Through this system the Governor's Office is informed of conditions in each aeographle and organiza- tional area of the state. and the OCCUrrenCC or Imminent threat of disaster. Revised 09/98 Page 2 82; 1 fqE 21 196 04 :04PIJa67 :78b ZOW"p.IW%,A- - - P. 39 6. In addition to fire and rescue' resources, emergency operations plans should include both public and private agencies with support capabil- ity and /or emergency opotation responsibilities. 7. Emergency operatioas plans should be distributed to, and discussed with, ananagcment, command, operational and support level personnel within each planning jurisdiction. S. Emergency operations plans must be eontinuocsly reviewed, revised, and tested to encompass change and refinement consistent with experience gained through disaster operations and training, and changes in resource availability. 9. Emergency operations pleas are to be reviewed, revised Itand updated every five years. This California Fire Sdrrfee and Rescue Emergency 11lutual Aid Plan super- sedes the Fire and Rescue Emergency Plan. revised June 1978. II. AUTHORITIES A. California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code) 1970 Statutes. B. California Master Mutual Aid Agreement. C. Labor Code, State of California (Section 3211.92, Disaster Service Worker). I). Goverament Code, State of California (Section 8690.6). 111. REFERENCES A. Federal Civil Defense Guide (Part E, Chapter 10, with Appendixes 1 and 2, Fire Prevention and Control during Civil Defense )Emergencies). B. Governor's Executive Order No. D -25. C. Governor's Administrative Orders for State Agencies. D. Public Resources Code. IL Office of Emergency Services, Multiha2ard Functional Planning Guidance. F. Nationa! IAterzzency Incident (Management System. G. Incident Command System. H. Multi - agency Coordination System. IV, DEFINITIONS A. Fire and Itescus Resources: California fire and rescue resources shall include, but not be limited to, the Revised 09/88 Page 3 FEB 21 '96 04:05FZb8667'_780 WATOGA FIRE P.'40 021015/199b 14 :V0 necessary personnel, apparatus and equipment under the direct control of the fire and rescue service needed to provide mutual aid assistance for all emergencies; i.e., fire engines, ladder trucks. emergency medical service units, hazardous rrateria!s units, search %Ad rescue, crash fire rescue. bull- dozers, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, hand crews, fire boats. communica- tions equipment, etc. H. Local Emergeacy: Shall mean the existence of conditions within the territorial limits of a local agency. in the absence of a duly proclaimed state of emergency, which conditions ate a result of an emergency created by great public calamity such as air pollution, extraordinary fire, flood, storm, earthquake. civil disturbances or other disaster which is or is likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment sad facilities of—that agency and require the combined forces of other local agencies to combat. (Californis Emergency Services Act, Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Govern- ment Code - 1970 Statutes.) C. State of ]Emergency*. Means the duty proclaimed existence of conditions of extreme peril, to the safety or persons and property within the state caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, civil disturbanc:s or earthquake, or other conditions, except as 6 result of war- caused emergencies, which conditions by reason of their magnitude. arc or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single cavnty, city and county, or city, and would require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat'. "state of Etnergsney" does not include, nor does any provision of this plan apply to any condition resulting from a labor controversy. (California Emergency Services Act, Chapter 7 of Divi- sion 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code - 1970 Statutes.) D. State of War Emergency: Means the conditions which exists immediately, with or without a proclama- tion thereof by the Governor, whenever this state or nation. is attached by an enemy or upon receipt by the state of a warning from the federal gov- ernment indicating that such attack is probable or imminent, (California Emergency Services Act, Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code - 1970 Statutes.) & Disaster Service worker. Means any person Who is registered with a disaster council for the purpose of engaging in disaster service Pursuant to the "California Emergency Serv- ices Act" without pay or other consideration. "Disaster Service Worker" includes volunteer civil defense workers and public employees and also includes any unregistered person irnpressed into service during a State of Emergency by a persotl having authority to command the aid of citizens in the execution or that person's duties, "Disaster Service Worker" does not include any person registered as an active fire and rescue service member of any regularly- otganized volunteer fire department, having offi i cial' recogni- tion and full or partial support of the county. Revised 09/83 Page 4 1.FEB�21 196 _04:05PM88672780 gaRATMA FIRE 41E 07 Pursuant to the CaliforWa Fire Service and Rescue Emerrency Mutual Aid Plan, `Disaster.Service Workers" shall be recruited and trained to augment the regular fire and rescue forces. They will assist in fighting fires and /or rescuing persons, and save property and perform other duties as required. Training necessary to engage in such activities is defined as authorized and supervised training carried on lit such it manner and by a qualified person as the local disaster council shall prescribe. (Section 3211.92. California Labor Code.) F. Mutual Aid: An agreement in which two or more ,parties agree to furnish resources and facilities and to reader services to each and every other -party of the agree- ment to prevent and Combat any type of disaster or emergency. Local needs not mat by the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan should be resolved through development of local'autoniat►c, or naurual aid agreements. 1. Volun a v Mutual &jd Mutual aid is voluntary whea an agreement is initiated either verbal. ly or in writing. When in- writing, which ij preferable, conditions may be enumerated as to what 'and how much of a department's resources may be committed. •. Ki Mutual aid under a 'State of War Emergency" shall be deemed obliga- tory. Mutual aid under a 'State of EmergeAcy' ma, be obligatory, (Emergency Services Act, 1970.) 3. h t_et_Mutuaj Aid Agreee ent An agreement .made and entered into by and between the State of California, its various departments and agencies, and the various political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and other public agencies of the State of California to facilitate implementation of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code entitled " California Emergency Services Act.' G. Mutual Aid Region: A subdivision of the state's fire and rescue organization, established to 2,. facilitate the coordination of Mutual aid and other emergency operations within a gco8raphical area of the state, consisting of two or more county operational areas. H. Operatloaal Area: An intermediate 1eval of the state fire and rescue organization, normally consisting of a county and all fire and rescue organizations within the county. Revised 09/83 Page 5 EB 21 '96 P4: o6PM96 72780 SSARA l U�aW r 1K� P.42 02/15/ 5F a »� �, pssfeeapee by Hlre: j Assistance by hire resources are those elam4fits of personnel and equipment which are provided by cooperating ageaeies through specific arrangements not 3350Ci3ted with this p18a. Where sUCh arrangements exist, parties should bt v i w' -a ----are 2r. *+rovisiam at tide of recgueItt r .^ Revised 09/88 Page 6 ,^Ii- 0:11EB 21 '96- 04:061�f'h�3E7278k1 tKNIuuN r1RC P.43 • SANTA CLARA COUNTY LOCAL FIRE SERVICE AND RESCUE MUTUAL AID PL&N November 1995 The Santa Clara County Local Fire Service and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan is an extension or', and supportive document to, the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. This Plan supports the concepts of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS), and multi- hazard response planning. The Santa Clara County Local Fire Service and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan is published as follows: SANTA CLARA COUNTY LOCAL VIRE SERVICE AN'D RESCUE MUTUAL AID PLAN— A. Purpose of Plan ... ............................... ...........................Page 1 B. Planning Basis .... ............................... ..........................Pages 1 -2 C. Policies ................... ............................... ..........................Pages 2-3 D. Authorities ......... ............................... ...........................Page 4 S. Participating Agencies ...................... ...........................Page 5 ,APPENDIX 1 —RADIO COMMUNICATIONS FLA�'L .... .......1 ....................... (October 1995) APPENDIX 2 — LOCAL GOVERNM`=NT STRIKE 'I'FANZ ..............•........... (October 1995) APPENDIX 3 —FIRE DISPATCH ASSIGNMENTS ......... ............................... January 19%) APPENDIX 4 — RESOURCE DESIGNATION SYSTEM .............................. (November 19%) APPF -NDL`( 5 — HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TEAM RESPONSE ................ (March 1991) APPENDIX 6 -- SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE STATION LOCATIONS .... (Oct 1995) APPENDIX 7 — FIRE INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE .. ............................... Uanuary 1993) APPENDIX B MULTIPLE CASUALTY INCIDENT PLAN ................... (FebrUry 1995) APPENDIX 9 -- RESOURCE COMMITMENT ................ ...•.•....................••••• (November 1995) APPENDIX 14 — TRAINING AGREEMENT ....................... .................6............. Uax►uary 1993) APPENDIX 11 — INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM (BASIC PLAN) ••••.....• (September 1994) APPENDIX 12 — HIGH -RISE INCIDENT PLAN .. APPENDIX 13 — PROTECTIVE ACTION OPTIONS ............. . .......... ............... (September 1999) rev. 11/95 FFEB 21 '96 e4'06pns67 =780 SA,FAT0i4 I' 17<t SANTA CLARA COUN'T'Y - . LOCAL FIRE SERVICE AND FESCUE MU MA.L AID PLAN January 1993 (Re-wised pate — November 1994) 1. To provide for rapid systematic mobilization, orguli2ation, and operation of necessary fire and rescue resources in mitigating the effects of extraordinary events. Local officials will maintain fire and rescue resources consistent with anticipated reeds. 2. To provide an annually- updated fire and rescue inventory Qf all personnel, apparatus, and equipment. 3. To promote arutual training arnd!or exercises between plan participants. B. m2ning—Balk 1. No community has resources sufficient to cope with any and all emergencies for which potential exists. 2. Fire and rescue officials must pre -plan emergency operations to ensure efficient utilization of available resources. 3. Basic to California's emergency planning is a statewide system of mutual aid in which each jurisdiction relies first upon its own resources. 4. The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement between the State of California, each of its counties, and those incorporated cities and fire protection districts signatory thereto: a. Creates formal structure for provision of mutual aid; b. , Provides that no party shall be required to unreasonably deplete its own resources in furnishing mutual aid; c. Provides that the responsible local official in whose jurisdiction an incident requiring mutual aid has occurred shall rexnain in charge at such incident, including the direction of such personnel and equipment provided through mutual aid plans pursuant to the agreement; d. Provides the infra and interarea and intraregioral mutual sic: operational plans shall-be developed by the parties thereof and are operative as between the parties thereof in accordance with the provisions of such operational plane; 1 ` FEB 321 '96. a04:07PM.e672700 SARATOGA FIRE P.457- 11 y SANTA CLARA COUNTY Revised Date: November 1994 LOCAL FIRE SERVICE AND RESCUE MUTUAL AID PLAN e. Provides that reiniburse=,ent for mutual aid may be provided pursuant to a governor's disaster proclamation or, when. conditions Warrant; invoking the USES /CDF/OES Cooperative Agreement. Be= �4 �+� thNsr oils inQ Provision far mutual did r imhurs ment. 5. In addition to •fife and rescue resources, emergency operations plans should include both public and private agencies with support capability and /or Emergency operation responsibilities, 6. Emergency operations plans should be distributed to, and discussed with, management, command, operational, and support level personnel within each planning jurisdiction. 7. Emergency operations plans are to be reviewed, revised, and updated every five years or as. dictated to encompass changes gained through disaster operations and training, and changes in resource availability. 8. The fire chiefs of the parties to this plan shall have the authority to amend appendices and execute any documents required to implement such amendments, - C. Pol The following policies form the basis of the Santa Clara County Local Mutual Aid Plan. This Plan presupposes that all member departments provide the ability to handle normal incidents for their city or district. Each jurisdiction shall make a major commitment of its own resources before calling mutual aid. 1. Resources respond to the jurisdiction requiring mutual aid as requested in one or more of the following resource configurations: a. Single 'Resource - Any siu1gle fire suppression, resource. b. Alarm Assignment - Two (2) engines, one (1) truck, one (1) chief officer. c. Strike Team - Five (5) engines, one (1) chief officer, d. Task Force - Any group of resources temporarily assembled for a specific mission as specified by the requesting agency. One (1) chief officer. FEB 21 '96 04 :07Phb667_786 SRK7Cu�; FIrF P.46 a. `,/15/1596 i�:r�o y�� SANTA CLARA COUNTY Revised Date: November 1994 L0G4L FIRE SERVICE .A-ND pESCIIE MUTUAL AID PLAN 2. This plan is not to deplete any department o' a ? ^rarat''s b °yond that to which P artier that are already provided to the it has agreed and _c,zrm.tted. Cor.�,p requesting agency by auto -aid or tmo' nt un3esuhis plang�eenter,ts are considered part of the maximum Local resources available are listed in Appendix 9. 'Pre- designated strike teams are available for response t NWNT S'iRUG TEAMS) r major incidents (See Appendix 2: LOCAL Each jurisdiction shell be responsible to call back off -duty per.�9nne1 and staff y reserve apparatus as soon as possible for any incident involving mutual aid. FP 4. Mutual aid companies may be utilized by the rem eeSe g l esodreeonear the scene to cot►trol tad be reused one mop -up operations begin. incident, but Shou with S. Mutual aid resouzces are sent directly to within Santa Clara County C delay. Immediate need requests require Code 3 response. popular Street Atlas is the official 6. The Thomas Map /Santa Clara. County p reference map book for mutual aid plans and their operation. 7. Apparatus responding under this p ;an ,shall come under the authority and direction of the Incident Commander of the jurisdiction, receiving the aid. 8. The incident Command System small be utilized for command and control of emergency incidents. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the jurisdiction receiving mutual aid to provide food, fuel, and oil when necessary. 10. Each responding jurisdiction shall bear its own costs of operations, Worker's Compensation, and insurance on its personnel and equipment. 11. The Santa Clara Count; Fire Coordinator responsible Mfr implementation and of the Local Mutual Aid Plan and overall State OES Mutual Aid. All mutual aid to or : from outside the County is directed through County Commilnications to the County Fire Coordinator. 12. The County Fire Coordinator a elected o the Santa Board Clara of Supervisors. ChThe and appointed by the Santa Clara County Coordinator is responsible for overall l aid and maintenance of the and all intercounty and State OES rr►ut a M FEB 21 '96 e4 :08M88672780 Sf;Rf:l lJCia r I= P.47 - 02i1 �� SalvTA [I.ARA COUNTY Revised Date. November 1994 LOCAL FIDE SERVICE AND RESCUE NfUTl11iL MD PLAN and 13. The training of regular emergency perBanriel in nd and sere ce is to techniques is essential if each Level of the fvc e successfully discharge assigned emergency should identify key pe onnellwith ernergencies. Fire and :esdc�nsUrfecthe adequacy of their training, emergency assign eats an D. u o t' e X• California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 of Division X of Title 2 of t�•P Government Code) 1970 Statutes 2, California Master Mutual Aid Agreement 3. Labor Code, State of California (Section 3211.92, Disaster Service Worker), 4. Government Code, State of California (Section 8690.60) 4 b.i »o +c.uo vJ7vo( -I �h!.AiUUA h1Kt P.4$z� 14 DEB 21 '96 04 :08PM , SANTA CLARA COUNTY LOCAL f!RE SERVICE AND P.ESCUE MLtri,tAL AID PLAN Revised Date: January 1993 R IN WITNESS WHEREOF this agreement has been executed and approved and is effective and operative as to each of the parties as herein provided. Californi partrnent of Forestry Department Gilroy Fire Department Los altos Fire Milpitas Fire Department &*4 San ose Fire Department Santa Clara Fire Department Saratoga Fire Protection District ` i Moffett Fir Department South Sant ara County CFD Morgan Hill Fire Department I tLj — Sunnyvale DPS FD _ �1 a �. /• i �-{ . l � � � Date 5 62/FEB 2i '96 04 :08PI`4868E727Sn SNP.HTOGA FiPE - ' SANTA CLARA COUNTY LOCAL MUTUAL AID PLAN FIRE DISPATCH ASSIGNMENTS "I 2-*E 15 JURISOlCTION: ISAW00A FIRl; DiSTRICi ZONE: NIA _ _�- DATE: r11j9S DISPATCH: I ALTERNATE: (COUNTY CHIEF OFFICER: —` CNT, JOE, 5140, SNY. LOS, MTV, MOF, PAF, MLP,SCC, OIL ENGINE: CNT, CNT, CNT, JOE, JOE, SNC, SNC, SNY, SNY, LOS, MTV, MTV, MOP, PAF, PAF, MLP, MLP,SCC, GIL TRUCK: - CNT, JOE, SNC, SNY, MTV, PAF, MLP, GIL , OFF ROAD: CNT, JOE, JOE, PAF, PAF161L HAZMAT: CNT, SNC, SNY, JOE, MTV, PAF ALARM ASSIGNMENT; Two (2) englnos, One (1) truck, One (1) chief oftor STRIKE TEAM: Five (S) oronea One (1) crdaf officer TASK FORCE: Any 9oup of reeour as tan wmrUy awomblea for a speoiflt mission AS specified by the f0amodnp agwZy. One (1) eNef after CENTRAL - CNT GILROY - ML LOS ALTOS - LOS MILPITAS - MLP MOFFETT FIELD • MOF MOUNTAIN V)F-W - MTV PALO ALTO PAR SANJOSE JOE SANTA CLAAA - SNC 3ARATO0A SAR 30. SANTA CLAAA CO, SCC SUNNYVALS - SNY REQUEST SMALL, INCLUDEt a. REQUESTING JURISDICTION: b. REPORTING LOCATION: ' d. RESOURCES REQUESTED: a. PROBABLE ASSIGNMENT- 0. THOMAS BROS. MAP EOOK: PAGE: GRID. I. TRAVEL. FRQQVENCY: - Nobly A updato the arsa Ore coo(onator 3rrouph Cowry Commw;caAw,s when flue (S) o►11atA m"I'm Rill rwe 'f. — .n.. —.rA to isw C u r FEBy 21y' % 04' 09PM "oo r i r uu 5�1Rr;%�]GH FIFE P. 50G`E 16 , SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 1996 TO: CHIEF KR RULE FROM: CAPTAIN MORRISON RE: DEPARTMENTAL, OPERATIONS I. DELIVERY OF SERVICE , A. MUNICIPAL FIRE ADMNISTRATION AND I.S.O. RECOMMEND: I. POPULATION OF 10,000 OR MORE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE 2 ENGINES AND A LADDER COMPANY QUOTE BY M.F.A.: BY THE TIME THE COMMUNITY IS ABLE TO PROVIDE 3 COMPANIES (2 PUMPERS PLUS A 3RD COMPANY TO GIVE TRUCK OR LADDER COMPANY SERVICE), IT HAS A FORCE CAPABLE OF CONTROLLING FIRES IN A �. DISTRICT OF UNCONCESTED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES OR SMALL BUILDINGS OF LIKE SIZE. SUCH A FORCE CAN MAKE A STRONG, TWO POSITION ATTACK ON A FIRE. QUOTE FROM A.I.A.: IN MUNICIPALITIES OF 20,000 POPULATION OR LESS AND HAVING AT LEAST 5 BUILDINGS OF A HEIGHT CORRESPONDING TO 3 OR MORE STORIES, PAGE 344 MFA, THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE LADDER COMPANY. IN A DISTRICT HAVING AT LEAST S BUILDINGS OF 4 OR MORE STORIES, AN AERIAL LADDER SHALL BE PROVIDED AND ALL TRUCKS PREFERABLE SHOULD BE AERIAL. LADDER COMPANY: THE COMPANY OPERATES A LARGE VEHICLE CARRYING LONG LADDERS USUALLY INCLUDING HYDRAULICALLY OPERATED AERIAL LADDER OF 65' TO 100' IN LENGTH AND HAVE A LARGE ASSORTMENT OF SPECIAL TOOLS AND APPLIANCES USUALLY ''W- INCLUDING} SALVAGE EQUIPMENT, aid B d2 % ' 961 `a" 09PM "r.aao r r ou wHn►, i u ir+ r .rc P. Sf `rl a r QUOTE FROM MFA: I" d A COMMUNITY WITH ONI-Y A FEW BUILDINGS TALLER THAN 2 STORIES, PUMPERS CARRY SUFFICIENT LADDERS WHERE NO BUILDINGS EXCEED -2 STORIES, A 35' EXTENSION L,4,IPDER, A ROOF IArM AND ONE OR TWO SHORT LADDERS ' MAY BE SATISFACTORY. THE GRADING SCHEDULE REQUIRES A LADDER COMPANY WITH A WELL EQUIPPED TRUCK IN ANY COMMUNITY WITH 5 BUILDINGS OF 3 STORIES OR 2. TRAINING FACILITY MF A QUOTE; ANY FIRE DEPARTMENT' IS SEITRELX HANDICAPPED B INADEQUATE TRAINING FACILITIES. 3. STAFFING A. N.F.P.A. RECOMMENDS A NIINIMUM OF 3 PERSONNEL PER RESPONDING PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. 8. DURING A STRUCTURE FIRE, THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 4 FIRfiFIGHTERS ON SCENE PRIOR TO FIGHTING THE FIRE, C. PRESENT DAY STAFFING: 1. 5 ON DUTY AND 1 DISPATCHER (9 TO 5, M -F). a. E -31- 3 PERSONNEL E -32 - 2 PERSONNEL 2. 5 ON DUTY AND NO DISPATCHER a. E -31 - 2 PERSONNEL E -32 - 2 PERSONNEL b. ENGINEER BECOMES DISPATCHER 3. 4 ON DUTY AND I DISPATCHER (9 TO 5, M -F) a. E -31 • 2 PERSONNEL E -32 - 2 PERSONNEL' 4. 4 ON DUTY AND NO DISPATCHER a. E -31 - 2 PERSONNEL E -32 - 1 PERSON D. RECOMMENDED STAFFING}: a. E -31 - 3 PERSONNEL E -32 - 3 PERSONNEL T -31 - 3 -4 PERSONNEL b. 1 24 HOUR DISPATCHER L'FEB 217'96 6 04 10PM 4. MANAGEMENT SApA ; of :A FIRE P.52 ^� lE . A. WHO -SHOULD CREATE A DEPARTMENTAL MISSION STATEMENT (EMPLOYEES OR MANAGEMENT)? B. THE DELIVERY OF SERVICE SHOULD BE PREDICATED ON THE DEPARTMENTAL MISSION STATEMENT. C. A LIST OF DAILY. FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATION -S, LISTED BELOW, SHOULD PRESENTED TO THE MANAGEMENT AND HAVE THEM CHOOSE WHICH OF THESE ITEMS THEY WOULD LIKE US TO PERFORM. EMERGENCY RESPONSES DAILY TRAINING EXERCISES PUBLIC ASSIST RESPONSES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSES PREVENT FIRES IN PUBLIC PLACES EDUCATE TIDE PUBLIC WITH CPR AND 1ST AID MAINTAIN EMT AND EMTD STATUS �. DISPATCH MAINTAIN STATION AND EQUIPMENT MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT FURTHER OUR OWN EDUCATION EWAS ACTIVITY (PLANS TO FINAL) CHECK HYDRANTS CHECK HOSES PERFORM BRUSH CLEARANCE PROGRAM DISTRICT FAMILIARIZATION HYDRANT LOCATION FAMI1.iARIZATION D. WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH I3Y OTHER RECOGNIZED AGENCIES. (IF NOT THESE GUIDELINES WHICH ONES)? FEB 21 '96 04:10PM P.53 -- .11- Exhibit 3 " &I FEB AU 21'2 096LQ:Irt0PM4bddb/2780 SARATOGQ FIRE P-5 11. AGREBMEN`r BE'T'WEEN SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL A,L FIRE FROTECi ION DISTRICT AND TM SARATOGA FME PROTECTION DISTRICT TI-M AGJMNCENT, made and entered this 21st day of J=Ma 1993 by and between the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as- "Central "), and the Saratoga Fire Protection District (hereinafter referred to as "Saratoga"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties hereto are contiguous; and _ �,% WHEREAS, is to the parties' mutual benefit that each render reciprocal supplemental assistance in the event of an emergency or other local fire department related emergencies of a type common to both parties not covered by or within the scope of the California Office of Emergency Services and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, but constituting 'so- called "day.to -day" "automatic aid" arising out of convenience rather than out of extraordinary necessity; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: L AUTOMAnC AID RESPONSE A. ARE Pursuant to the "Guidelines Governing Response to an Emergency," set forth herein at Section Q each jurisdiction will provide automatic aid, as follows: 1. Central shall respond into those areas delineated and enclosed by a solid line on those maps identified as Areas A and B and incorporated by reference herein. 2. Saratoga shall respond into those areas delineated and enclosed by a solid line on that map identified as Areas C and D and incorporated by reference herein. is *#• • • 1. Central automatic aid response shall consist of one (1) engine company as a first responding unit into those areas delineated and enclosed by a solid line on that map identified as Area A for all emergencies or one (1) engine company as a second responding unit into those areas J , W &, C.Ci. + +W W. 1C woaoo J;e ttib FEB 21 '96 04:11PM 9ARATOGA FIRE P. SSA 12 ' Agreement Page 2 delineated and enclosed by a solid line on that map identified as Area B • for all emergency calls when the first responding engine company is unavailable for response. 2. Saratoga automatic aid response shall consist of one (1) er►gime company as a first responding unit into those areas delineated and enclosed by a solid line on that map identified as Area C for all emergencies or one (1) engine company as a second responding unit into those areas delineated and enclosed by a solid line ojn that map identified as Area D for all emergency calls when the first responding engine company is unavailable for response. ZIWMIN=O G-UJFQNSE AN EMERGENCY G 1. Code 3 emergencies, which require the use of red lights and sirens by responding fire vehicles, shall be a part of the Agreement. Alarms for public service, post fire investigation, and responses which do not require the use of red lights and sirens by the responding fire vehicles, shall not be a part of this Agreement. These alarms shall be handled by the responsible jurisdiction. 2. When responding to any emerge apparatus will normally be staffed as follows: Central; three (3) personnel, and Saratoga; three (3) personnel. Apparatus will not be considered as available with a staffing of less than two (2) personneL Paid /Call or Volunteers will not respond to adjoining auto -aid area in personal vehicles. 3. When both jurisdictions are responding to an emergency along a common border, the jurisdiction providing aid, in accordance with this agreement, shall work tinder the direction of the responsible jurisdiction. The jurisdiction providing aid shall remain on the scene of the emergency until released by the senior fire officer of the responsible jurisdiction. 4. It shall be the responsibility of the senior fire officer from the responsible jurisdiction to summon additional personnel and equipment, if needed, to handle the emergency. 5. The first career fire officer on scene will determine the need for continued response by other dispatched units. Vi/ &V/ iJJV 4V• L0 HV�QO �L V .-. - �•.•rJ•�OGA FIRE P'.s%( 1 t. FEB 21 '96 e4:11PM • - r Agreement. Page 3 6. If an engine company designed to respond as an automatic -aid unit, pursuant to this agreement, is either not available or out of position, the automatic -aid department shall be "relieved from its responsibility to respond to the specific emergency. D. =O T0W- _MsTMrr bG Both parties to this Agreement shall schedule and participate in joint training exercises at mutually agreed upon times and locations ,in order to ensure that optimum performance levels are maintained. M COMMAND AUTHORITY 1 7 When either Central or Saratoga responds into the neighboring jurisdiction under this Agreement, the senior fire officer of the responsible jurisdiction shall be in command of AU staffing and equipment responding to the emergency. The responsible jurisdiction shall exercise said command through the senior fire officer of the jurisdiction providing aid. The Incident Command System shall be the command system used at multiple agency responses. The equipment at the emergency scene will ordinarily be operated by the personnel of the jurisdiction which furnished the equipment It shall be the responsibility of the senior fire officer of the responsible jurisdiction to utilize the staffing and equipment from the jurisdiction providing aid only to the extent that is required to bring the emergency under control. The jurisdiction providing aid shall not be required to provide assistance for overhaul and clean -up operations after the fire. Lai •, . ; The staff and equipment from the jurisdiction providing aid shall be the first released from the scene of an emergency. IIi OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Each jurisdiction will provide automatic aid' according to the operational procedures set forth in Attachment I. - ••,�•,", r �� � FEB 21 196 04v12PM SARATOGA FIRE P.S?AGE 14 . , Agreement Page 4 The responsible jurisdiction, when on the scene, will be responsible for completing all reports, including, but not lia1ited to, reports mandated by, local and state government agencies. The jurisdiction providing aid, upon request, this Agreement shall be required to provide the responsible jurisdiction, upon request, with a report of the services provided by that jurisdiction. Said report shall describe the details of the emergency. The responsible jurisdiction, when on the scene, shall be responsible for filing, recording and storing all required reports. If the responsible jurisdiction is not on the scene, the jurisdiction providing aid shall be responsible for filing, recording, and storing of all required reports according to its standard procedure. V- COMPENSATION All services provided by either Saratoga or Central; under this Agreement, shall be performed without monetary compensation. The mutual advantages, protections, and services afforded by this Agreement are mutually agreed to be adequate compensation to both jurisdictiox, VI. LIABILITY/HOLD HARMLESS Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to affect the legal liability of either party to the contract by imposing any standard of care different from the standard of care imposed by law. Each party shall beat its own exposure for Workers' • Compensation on its own Personnel while furnished to the other party or otherwise. ••�• i � • " """' [ c") WATOGA FIRE FEEB 21 ' 96 " 04 4� 12PM F • 5W.,E 15; , Agreement % Page 5 It is understood and agreed that neither Central, nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible for any damage or liability incurred by reason of any act or omission by Saratoga, its officers, or employees under or in connection with any work, authority of jurisdiction delegated to Saratoga udder this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, Saratoga shall fully indemnify and hold harmless Central from any damage or liability incurred by reason of any act or omission by Saratoga, its officers or employees, under or in connection with any work, authority of jurisdiction delegated to Saratoga under this A&reement. It is understood and agreed that neither Saratoga, nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible for any damage or liability incurred by reason of any act or omission by Central, its officers; or employees under or in connection with any work, authority of jurisdiction delegated to Central under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, Central shall fully indemnify and hold harmless Saratoga from any damage or liability incurred ty ' by reason of any act or omission by Central, its officers or employees, under or in connection with any work, authority of jurisdiction delegated to Central under this Agreement VII. AGREEMENT NOT FOR BIIVEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES This Agreement shall not be construed as, or deemed to be, an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties; and no third party or parties shall have any right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. Any services performed or expenditures made in connection with this Agreement by either party hereto shall be deemed conclusively to be for the direct protection and benefit of the inhabitants and property of the jurisdictions which are situated within the respective jurisdictions defined herein. n C �� , This Agreement shall con=ence upon execution of this Agreement by both Parties, and shall continue in full force and effect unless terminated as provided herein. This Agreement may be terminated ' without cause by either Saratoga or Central upon written notice of termination given to the other party at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of termination. Notice of termination shall be personally served or mailed; postage prepaid to the address designated beneath the signature of the parties hereto; or to such other address as may be designated by written notice. -- <<o� SHKAIOGA FIRE FEB 21 '96 04�13PM P.59*E 16 . Agreement Page 6 IX AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACT A. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties. Except as otherwise specified, the Agreement shall not be amended or altered without the written consent of the parties. B. The fire chiefs of the parties to this Agreement sham have the authority to ainend areas. A, B, C, and D "boundaries" and /or Attachment 1 "Operational Procedures" and execute any documents required to, implement such amendments. X. EXCLUSIONS Any requests for aid not covered in this Auto Aid Agreement shall be handled under the day - today Mutual Aid Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first hereinabove written. By:. (Addy iss) (Approved . (Address) (Approved Rev Date. ol/93 ACREEMEM {fl'D /SFM -- -W-QQ f C 100 FEB 21 196 04:13PM SARAMSA FIRE A?TAC N ENT 1 OFERATIONAL PROCEDURES C•IZ111110 P.60AGE 17, Santa Clara County Communications answers and dispatches alarms for emergency assistance for Central. Saratoga dispatches alarms for emergency assistance within the Saratoga Fire District's jurisdiction. When an alarm is received by the responsible agency regarding the area covered by this Agreement, the dispatch for the responsible agency shall dispatch the designated unit required by this Agreement. The operational philosophy is that the first-due engine shall be first dispatched. In the event the automatic aid unit of either party is not available or out of position to handle said emergency, pursuant to this Agreement, the dispatcher for the agency providing aid shall immediately notify the responsible jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction's dispatcher is to advise their respective Battalion Chief when automatic aid is being provided. When Saratoga requests an engine from Central, Saratoga will use the "ringdown" line, which is linked directly to the Santa Clara County Communications Fire Dispatch Board. When Central requests an engine from Saratoga, Santa Clara County Communications will use the "ringdown" line. Radio coordination of responding units, during a joint response, shall be handled by the dispatch center of the jurisdiction having authority. Fire apparatus from both Central and Saratoga responding to the sarne alarm shall work on a common radio frequency. Emergency dispatches in Central will be coordinated through "Control 2" (154250) [1622]. Emergency dispatches in Saratoga will be coordinated through "Saratoga" (154-400)[179.9]. Rev Date: ows - ACREEMENT- CFPD /SFPD �,.. "W00014100 SARATOGA FIRE FEB 21'96 04:13PM P.61 18 CENTRAL /SARATOGA AUTO AiD AREA "A" (One Central Engine MW Response Into Saratoga) vet.) P 035 fl 0-t)p BURNETT DR CI-HQUITA CT COMER DR - 21000 thru 21803 CONT24ENTAL QR DIAMOND OAKS CT PARR RANCH CT FARR -RANCH RD PARKER RANCH CT PARKER RD PROSPECT RD SARATOGA GOLF dr COUNTRY CLUB STAR RIDGE CT VISTA ARROYO CT WARDELL RD - Z1085 thru 21680 ARGONAUT DR BLAUER,DR CHATEAU DR COX AVE CRAIGEN CIR GLEN ARBOR CT IDLEWOOD IN IO.NE CT Rev Date; 01/93 ACR9EMMM- CFPD /SFPD A,2 (conf d) LIKA CT PIERCE CT PIERCE RD - 20083 thru 20397 REAGAN LN -12750 thru 13065 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE 12840 thru 13030 (eastside) WINTER LN - 20061 tt= 20116 WOLCOT WY WOODMOUNT DR A� SCOTLAND DR —19471 thru 19521 TWEED CT VIA ARRIBA CT VIA ARRMA DR VIA CRESENTE Cr VIA MONTE DR -19451 d= 19524 VIA RANCHERO CT VIA RANCHERO DR VIA REAL DR - 19331 thru .19379 A_4 CHESTER AVE -14211 4=14506 SHORTHILL CT S �� VIA TESORO CT `�'�'A'rcD N LELAND CIR Ua+ ac,. &_O .w --FEB 21_.'95 ""' Jo 04: 13P yuaablxfdd �ATOGA FIRE P. a T j o ewe" ., _SCE . elm ti Mies AaCt w • 07F f ' t Na ,ar ` &Nf a ir 1! a'' 8 \1 B, oip A._ p LlsI m 3 r •�, r } , 1 ti. t"7 m7C"o I / In --Z 0 �' o e +'0Z sr : ; a T j o ewe" 3 r •�, r } , 1 ti. t"7 m7C"o I / In --Z 0 �' o e +'0Z sr : E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. MARK 1. WEINBERGER MARC B. MIHALY, P. C. FRAN M. LAYTON RACHEL B. HOOPER ELLEN J. GARBER CHRISTY H. TAYLOR TAMARA S. GALANTER ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR REED W. SUPER JOSEPH E. JARAMILLO WILLIAM J. WHITE Via Facsimile SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERCER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -7272 TELECOPIER: (415) 552-5816 February 21, 1996 Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 FEB 2 2 1996 LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP URBAN PLANNER ELIZABETH M. DODD OF COUNSEL Re: Independent Order of Odd Fellows Project Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council: We submit this letter on behalf of Saratoga Area G Plus Homeowners Association (11SAGHAII) for consideration by the Saratoga City Council at its February 21, 1996 hearing on the Odd Fellows project. The purpose of this letter i-s to inform the City that the environmental impact report (11EIR11) is inadequate to approve the general plan amendment, the conditional use permit and design review, and the development agreement for the Odd Fellows project. We therefore request that the City delay further action on the project until such time as a legally adequate EIR is prepared which fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (110EQA11), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. The final. EIR like the draft EIR for the proposed project is wholly inadequate. As a result, decision - makers and the public are deprived of information they require in order to assess the project fairly. Specifically, the final EIR fails to adequately respond to the numerous comments raised in our June 15, 1995 letter on the draft EIR. Nor does the final EIR adequately address the numerous letters and oral testimony presented by individual members of SAGHA. Taken together the draft and final EIR (hereinafter 11EIR11) fail to disclose the environmental impacts associated with the project including particularly the traffic, hydrological, and geological impacts associated with the project, and the plant and animal resources and cultural resources found on the Odd Fellows' site. 4 Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council February 21, 1996 Page 2 The EIR also fails to formulate measures that will mitigate the many significant impacts created by the development of this intensive use in a quiet semi -rural neighborhood. This project also violates long standing general plan policies intended to prevent this type of urban encroachment into a very low density single family neighborhood. A few of the EIR's deficiencies are discussed below. In addition, an analysis of the impacts relating to storm water runoff from the Odd Fellows' property undertaken by David Smith, Ph.D. (Merritt Smith Consulting) will be submitted under separate cover. The EIR fails to adequately identify and analyze the environmental impacts from the proposed project. For example, despite SAGHA's repeated requests for a full analysis of the potential drainage impacts likely to result from the development of the Odd'Fellows project, the City has failed to provide the necessary analysis. Residents have long been concerned that storm runoff from the Odd Fellows' property could contain biological contaminants capable of harming downstream property owners. As a result of the City's failure to conduct the appropriate investigation, the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks commissioned an investigation of storm water runoff and found alarmingly high levels of biological contamination. See letter to the City of Saratoga dated February 5, 1996 from Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks. Specifically, water samples collected at three Odd Fellows' outfall locations resulted in E. Coli and Total Coliform counts far in excess of the water contact recreational criteria set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Id. Despite the submission of this analysis to the, City, the City still refuses to conduct a separate and independent investigation claiming that CEQA only requires a project applicant to address impacts caused by the "future implementation of the proposed project." See letter from the City of Saratoga to Don Whetstone, President of the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks dated February 9, 1996. This approach to environmental review is unacceptable. CEQA requires that a DEIR "must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and a regional perspective." CEQA Guidelines § 15125; see also Environmental Planning and Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council February 21, 1996 Page 3 Info. Council v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354 (1982). Absent an adequate representation of the site constraints associated with the existing operation of the Odd Fellows facility, it is not possible to determine the extent of impacts resulting from the facility's expanded operations. Clearly, the expansion of the Odd Fellows facility could result in even higher levels of water contamination. Yet the EIR has failed to adequately analyze either the current water quality conditions or the water quality impacts associated with "future implementation of the proposed project." The final EIR like the draft EIR continues to rely on future studies to mitigate the project's many significant impacts. Again, taking hydrology and water quality as an example, the City continues to assert that the project applicant will submit drainage plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. See City of Saratoga letter dated February 9, 1996. As discussed above, the City has failed to even identify the project's hydrological impacts. Until an adequate analysis is undertaken, the City cannot begin to propose mitigation measures capable of minimizing or eliminating those impacts. In addition to the flaws in the EIR's analysis of impacts and mitigation measures, the EIR also fails to reflect numerous project changes. As a result, the EIR does not analyze the environmental impacts of the project the Council intends to approve. Specifically, it appears that the City now intends to merge the two driveways (Odd Fellows Drive and San Marcos Drive) into a single shared road dir..ectly adjacent to Frui-tv.ale Avenue. See February 14, 1996 Memorandum to the Planning Commission at 2. Despite this change in the proposed traffic circulation for the project, the EIR has not been amended to reflect this change. Furthermore, the City now proposes encroachment into the riparian habitat area (See Resolution No..UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004, Condition of Approval number 44), despite the fact that the EIR identified a 100 foot "buffer" zone from the outer edge of the riparian habitat as a mitigation measure. DEIR at 3 -113. In fact, the EIR relies on this mitigation measure to mitigate the project's significant impacts to riparian woodlands. EIR at 3 -112. The project now clearly results in a level of encroachment beyond that which was contemplated in the EIR. J Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council February 21, 1996 Page 4 For the reasons set forth in this letter and in the previous letters and testimony presented on behalf of and by the members of the Saratoga Area G Plus Homeowners Association, we urge the City not to consider further the Odd Fellows project until the City prepares an EIR that complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Very truly yours, S{HUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER RACHEL B .� HOOPER LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP Urban Planner cc: Saratoga Area G Plus Homeowners Association LI:jt BERLINER • COHEN (f) ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SANFORD A. BERLINER* ALAN J. PINNER TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD JEROLD A. RETTON KELLY A. SUTHERLAND ANDREW L FABER FRANK R. UBHAUS ROBERT L CHORTEK TAMARA J. GABEL WILLIAM J. GOINES- LINDA A. GALLON ELEVENTH FLOOR JONATHAN D. WOLF REYNALDO A. DURAN ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS ROBERTA S. HAYASHI KATHLEEN K SIPLE USA C. ALVAREZ RALPH J. SWANSON JAMES P. CASHMAN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233 THOMAS P. MURPHY C. DAVID SPENCE PEGGY L SPRINGGAY STEVEN J. CASAD ROSS A. KAY MARK A. LEBELL JOSEPH E. DWORAK NANCY J. JOHNSON FACSRv11L.E: (408) 998 -5388 ANDREW K JAC XISON R. PRESCOTT JAUNICH SAMUEL L FARB SHARON KIRSCH TELEPHONE: (408) 286 -5800 -A PnNeaalonal Corporation OF COUNSEL HUGH L ISOLA- RETIRED SAMUEL J. COHEN' March 1, 1996 Honorable Paul Jacobs and City Councilmembers 0 City of Saratoga R E C F -1\1 E 13093 Pierce Road 4 ,199 Saratoga, CA 95070 �AR Re: Odd Fellows Master Plan pNING ��j' Your agenda of March 6, 1996 Dear Mayor Jacobs: Thank you very much for your actions taken toward approval of the senior housing project proposed by the Odd Fellows. Your consideration is greatly appreciated, and we respectfully request final approvals at your meeting of March 6. On behalf of the Odd Fellows, I ask for one further clarification, that minor transfers of one type of approved senior living unit to another be allowed within the approved buildings and specifically that the square footage of office space designated in the existing Home be allowed to be converted to senior living units if it turns out that the Odd Fellows doesn't need so much office space. As discussed before, the Master Plan is a development of senior housing that has taken a full 2 years of City review and a full year of planning prior to application for approvals. It will take yet more time to receive other agency approvals, and in the meantime, it is possible that the best configuration of assisted and congregate care units for these facilities may slightly differ based on the needs of Saratoga seniors. Therefore, could you please add a second sentence to Section 2 at the end of the Resolution approving the conditional use permit and design review as follows: \ AC13G1110.01 61-030108809001 Honorable Paul Jacobs and City Councilmembers March 1, 1996 "Transfers of one type of approved senior living unit to another type of approved senior living unit within the approved buildings, and conversion of office space in the existing Home to not more than ten senior living units are allowed within this approval." Again, thank you very much for all your help in this matter. We all look forward to new senior housing in Saratoga! Very truly yours, BERLINER COHEN LINDA A. CALLON LAC:ct cc: Michael Riback, City Attorney Paul Curtis, Community Development Director George Means, President, Odd Fellows 1LAVX1110.01 61-0301U38 M1 -2- 03/06/96 16:58 $ 0002/003 BERLINER • COHEN MAC 6 1996 D (11-y y (1 SARATOGA ATTORNEYS AT LAW (,,I•I,y MANAGF;K'8 (,)VF ICE A PARTNERSHIP INGLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MLYA.VirrIEd.MD ``.,�� JEROLD A. RETTON TµARA J. OABEL Ai�l�l� DEN Bp =vARD ROBERT L CHORTEK REyNALDO k DURAN SANFORD A. BERLINER' FRANK UBHAUS JONATHAN ID`. WOLF LISA C. ALVAREZ ANDREW L FABER LINDA A. GALLON ELE � FLOOR 1TO OMAS P. MURPHY MMARRK A BELL A 0owm g ROBERTA S. HAYASHI 95113 -2233 Ross A. KAY PRESCOTT ROBERT W. RALPH J. SWANSON JAMES P. CASHMAN SAN JOSE, CAIMORNIA ANDREW K. JACOBSON KIR JAIx•G� SHARON PEGGY L, spRINOOAY ST � I FACSIlvID -E: (4o8) 998 -5388 JOSEPH E DwORAK 28!>~5800 SAMUEL L FARB TELEPHONE: ( 408 ) —r oFCOUNSEL . F(UWN L Isal► •A ProT1 Corpor °n SAMUEL J. COHEW March 6, 1996 ,VIA FACSIMILE Paul Jacobs, Mayor, and City Councilmembers City of Saratoga 13777 Fraitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 1u: Odd Fellows Master lan Project; Agenda Item No. 6.B. City Council Meeting March 6, 1996, Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: On behalf of the Odd Fellows, we are responding to the last- minute letters submitted to O new information offered by the Fire the Council by the Saratoga Fire District. We do not see any submit that the issue has been District in support of its request for an aerial truck, and respectfully rnony in the record. As to thoroughly heard by the City Council and resolved based in the purchase of a fire trick, the issue is not how to pro ana the � record comments about finarac• g pro project requires the purchase of an aerial fire track, the issue is whether in fact this P 1 . before the City Council does not support such a requirement to one issue raised by the Fire Chief in his letter when We do want to respond, however, l with the Uniform Fire ortrayed on the site plan does not co he states that the access plan as p mp y C" . He concludes that an additional condition should boadded ihe Resolution grand g Code ("UF ) a art of insures compliance with the UFC — that condition is already p went Agreement- PleaSe note review approval and in the Develop the use permit and design condition 49 at page 12 of the Resolution, which reads as follows: The applicant shall submit an emergency fire access Plan to the Fire District for review and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire District service requirements. Fire access roads shall be provided for each facility to ensure that fire fighting u O301583.0i 61 -0306088=1 03/06/96 16:59 $ 0003/003 Paul Jacobs, Mayor, and City Councilmembers March 6, 1996 or rescue operations will not be impaired- The access plan shall be based on the requirements of the 1991/1994 4l icle 9 of the Fire codes (Division B, Sec- 10.201, Sec. 10.204) u 1994 Uniform Fire Code. 6.2 of the Development agreement entitled Moreover, please note that paragraph shall be constructed in accordance "Uniform Codes Applicable' states therein that "the inleffect at the time of approval of the with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code • ermits for the Project; provided that, appropriate building, grading, or other construction p PP effective date of this Agreement, any changes to the Uniform Fire Code .. •shall following the a the foregoing, this Sermon 6.2 shall not apply to the extent apply to the project. No�thstandrng the Project that California state fire and building codes and construction standards are imposed on by the State of California." So, as you can see, the Project will be required to comply with the Uniform Fire Code and amendments that are in effect at the time of applications for co h edition edition of its amendm Project would be Uniform Fire Code that would apply to the j Saratoga has adopted to apply throughout the City. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. sincerely, BERJJ &R COHEN LINDA A. CALLON LAC:ct cc: Harry Peacock, City Manager Michael Riback, City Attorney James WalgTen, Project Planner Ernest 0. Kraule, Fire Chief W,C0i593,01 2 s,T Mr. Herbert Brandt RUNWED 18561 McFarland Avenue MAR 5 1996 Saratoga, California 95070 , CITY ur SAKATOGA (408) 867 -1281 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE March 4, 1996 The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Odd Fellows Expansion Project; March 6, 1996: City Council Meeting Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and taxpayer of the City of Saratoga as well as being employed as a firefighter /paramedic for the City of Palo Alto. I have been a firefighter paramedic for six years and a firefighter for over ten years. I watched the City Council proceedings of February 21, 1996 on the cable station and after representations were made about both the need for an aerial fire apparatus for the Odd Fellows Expansion Project and the capability of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department, I decided that I wanted to testify in the matter and therefore proceeded to City Hall to do so. By the time that I arrived the hearing had been closed, but I believe that both the need for the aerial fire apparatus by the Saratoga Fire Protection District and the assumptions concerning the capability of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department merit that I submit this communication for your review. First, Senior Care facilities as that proposed by the Odd Fellows are one of the most difficult structures and uses of property to defend and protect by any fire department. This is because of the inability of senior citizens to react to a fire hazardous situation is acknowledged to be much less than that of the normal population protected whether it is residential or associated with various commercial and industrial uses. So, the primary danger to a senior population is that of severe injury or death because of suffocation because of the containment of either a hazardous substance or smoke from a fire that cannot be vented from the roof of the involved residential or institutional structure. Roof access is most traditionally accomplished by the use of an aerial fire apparatus. The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council March 4, 1996 Page .1 Given the extent in terms of square footage and building footprint which was portrayed in the Odd Fellows Expansion Project, there can be no question from the fire service prospective that an aerial fire apparatus should be required. I agree with the statements made by Fire District Chief Kraule that access and configuration of the Project structures as well as landscaping and elevations severely limit, if not preclude, the ability for roof to effect the type of life- saving operations which are described. The last minute deletion of this condition by the environmental consultant of the City seems to be without any justification. It also appears to afford some type of special treatment to the Odd Fellows as any other development within the City would have to bear their fair share of conditions associated with demands placed on the fire protection district. As a City of Palo Alto firefighter I can represent without qualification that all structures within the City are adequately protected, specifically, those on University Avenue, which were accurately described by the Fire Protection District counsel. Specifically, there is one 18 -story structure which does have the capability for roof access and rescue because of a helicopter pad. Otherwise, building rescues are capable of being effected with existing aerial fire apparatus of the City of Palo Alto up to eight floors. Also, the same considerations for Senior Care facilities in the City of Palo Alto which I have described earlier generally are present. That is, fire apparatus are needed and have been used for roof access to Senior Care facilities when calls for assistance have been made. In summary, on this critical issue of fire and life- safety, your Honorable Council should consider re- establishing the condition of the aerial fire apparatus. I certainly have an interest in seeing that new development that goes into the City shoulders its fair share of protection demands placed on the fire protection district which is supported separately from the City with my property taxes. Very trul - yours, Mr. Herbert Brandt HB: cc: Ernest O. Kraule, Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District March 6, 1996 VIA TELECOPER & U.S. MAIL The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Palo Alto Office: 425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 310 Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (415) 617 -5678 Facsimile: (415) 617 -5680 File No: 228/3 Re:- Independent Order of Odd Fellows /GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, DR -94 -004, Development Agreement /March 6, 1996 City Council. Meeting; Agenda Item No. 5.A. Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council: This communication supplements our prior communication of February 21, 1996 on behalf of the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") to the City Council on the Independent Order of Odd Fellows ( "Odd Fellows ") expansion project located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue. If it continues to be the position of the City of Saratoga ( "City ") that the previously recommended environmental mitigation measure and former condition of approval requiring an aerial fire apparatus should not be imposed on the project approval, then the District submits that there is no substantial evidence in the record to make the necessary general welfare finding for the involved requested conditional use permit, as well as no substantial evidence in the record to Support a finding that the conditional use permit is consistent with the City General Plan, specifically those provisions of the General Plan dealing with fire safety. Law Offices of William D. Ross William D. Ross Nellie 11. Aned - A Professional Corporation Diane C. Dc Felice 520 South Grand Avenue .. Suite 300 Carol B. Sherman Los Angeles, California 90071-2610 Of Counsel "telephone: (213) 892 -1592 Facsimile: (213) 892 -1519 March 6, 1996 VIA TELECOPER & U.S. MAIL The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Palo Alto Office: 425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 310 Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (415) 617 -5678 Facsimile: (415) 617 -5680 File No: 228/3 Re:- Independent Order of Odd Fellows /GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, DR -94 -004, Development Agreement /March 6, 1996 City Council. Meeting; Agenda Item No. 5.A. Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council: This communication supplements our prior communication of February 21, 1996 on behalf of the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") to the City Council on the Independent Order of Odd Fellows ( "Odd Fellows ") expansion project located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue. If it continues to be the position of the City of Saratoga ( "City ") that the previously recommended environmental mitigation measure and former condition of approval requiring an aerial fire apparatus should not be imposed on the project approval, then the District submits that there is no substantial evidence in the record to make the necessary general welfare finding for the involved requested conditional use permit, as well as no substantial evidence in the record to Support a finding that the conditional use permit is consistent with the City General Plan, specifically those provisions of the General Plan dealing with fire safety. rJ The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council March 6, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your continued review and consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, William -u: Ross WDR:mgl cc: Mr. Robert Egan, President and Members of the Board of Commissioners Saratoga Fire Protection District Mr. Ernest O. Kraule, Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District Rachel B. Hooper, Esq. Shute, Mihaly & Wienberger Linda A. Callon, Esq. Berliner • Cohen Michael S. Ritback, City Attorney City of Saratoga S J�j- SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 March 5, 1996 MAR U K 6 1996 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Independent Order of Odd Fellows /GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, DR -94 -004, Development Agreement/March 6, 1996, City Council Meeting Date, March 6. 1996, Agenda Item No. 6B Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council Members: At your hearing of February 21, 1996, I indicated that the Access Plan as portrayed on the Site Plan (the "Plan ") for the Project was very poor and did not comply with the Uniform Fire Code ( "UFC "). This communication confirms that representation by indicating that the Plan does not meet the provisions of the UFC dealing respectively with; width of access, failure to provide for engine turnaround, length, slope of access, and relationship of access location to proposed and existing structures. As currently proposed, the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") cannot approve the Plan for the Project. We have conferred with State Fire Marshal representatives within the Office of Statewide Health and Planning ( "OSHP ")' who also have indicated that they could riot approve the Plan for the Project. In view of the District's long- stated need for an aerial fire apparatus to access Project existing and proposed structures, which has been deleted based on the representation of the Environmental Consultant, the District reiterates its concern of the proposed Project and its effect on human health; that is, the ability to effect fire and life safety rescues on a senior Project population, whose physical health and decreased ambulatory ability create unique fire service demands on the District. i The OSI I has jurisdiction bylaw over certain aspects of the proposed Project's operation and occupancy, specifically, the Health Care Facility. OSIIP had indicated that is was not consulted concerning any of the fire and life- safety issues associated with the Project. 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 867 -9001 • Fax (408) 867 -2780 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 Page 2 In addition, the representation was made at the City Council hearing that the District has, and will receive, approximately 14% of the property taxes generated from the Project site, and therefore, the District was more than financially able to afford the aerial fire apparatus. For the Project site there are three Assessor's parcels which are designated as follows with the listed owner and leading the referenced amount of property tax for the 1995 -96 fiscal tax year: Assessors Parcel No. Owner 1995 -96 Property Tax 397 -12 -012 Grand Lodge of Odd Fellows $ 2,708.96 397 -12 -016 CA Odd Fellows Foundation $ 25,133.06 397 -12 -019 Odd Fellows Home of CA $ 3,542.36 Based on information obtained from the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office, of the $31,3 84.3 8 total property taxes, approximately eleven percent (11 %) of that amount or $3,452.28 annually is allocated to the District. Accordingly, the representation of the Project Applicant that fourteen percent (14 %) of the Project Site tax revenue is the District's is a misrepresentation. Likewise, the inference that because of such a generous allocation the District is more than capable of funding the acquisition of an aerial fire apparatus and to impose that requirement on the Applicant would be unfair is a misrepresentation. Those three thousand fire hundred and forty -three dollars cannot effect such a transaction and the District does not have alternative revenue sources as does the City to accomplish that financing. Finally, it is recommended that an additional condition for approval of the adjudicatory permits of the Project be included. The additional condition will ensure compliance with all UFC standards which are applicable to the Project. The same condition was requested for inclusion at the Planning Commission hearing by the District. The additional condition would read as follows: Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, the Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Fire Code, 1994 Edition, most of which are now incorporated into the State Building Standards under the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 18938 (b). 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 867 -9001 • Fax (408) 867 -2780 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 Based on all the information previously submitted by the District and the fact that the OSHP who has jurisdiction over the operation of the expanded Project Health Care Facility was not consulted, your review of this matter, the reconsideration of certification of the Project Final Environmental Impact Report, and the reinstatement of the aerial fire mitigation measure and Condition No. 52 is requested. Sincerely, Ernest O. Kraule Fire Chief cc: Mr. Robert Egan, Chairman and Members of the Board of Commissioners Saratoga Fire Protection District Linda A. Callon, Esq. Berline * Cohen Michael S. Riback, City Attorney City of Saratoga James Walgren, Project Planner City of Saratoga 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 867 -9001 • Fax (408) 867 -2780 AN SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 March 5, 1996 The Honorable Paul Jacobs, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 t RF gn E � �Iy E Mae 61996 CITY Or SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Re: Independent Order of Odd Fellows /GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, DR -94 -004, Development Agreement /March 6, 1996, City Council Meeting Date, March 6, 1996: Agenda Item No. 6B Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council Members: This communication is being written on behalf of the Saratoga Fire Protection District ( "District ") Board of Commissioners with respect to the tentative and final action of you, the Council, on the Odd Fellows expansion project at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (the "Project "). First, the District Board of Commissioners believes that the District has consistently made the case for the imposition of an aerial fire apparatus as a condition of Project approval. Because of the elevation difference, the landscaping that exists around both existing and proposed structures, and the height of the structures involved, as well as the age of the Project users, it is necessary that an aerial fire apparatus be available to effect rescues and property- saving actions for the facility. From a layman's perspective, it is hard to understand how the City's environmental consultant can suddenly change its position on this issue when there has been no inquiry to the District Staff or the District Board of Commissioners on this matter and no apparent inquiry with any other individuals having expertise and governmental responsibility to exercise that expertise on this issue. Second, the concept that the District can finance the acquisition of aerial fire apparatus from its revenue is simply not true. The District, unlike the City has very little ability to increase revenue. In fact, its revenue is confined principally to its share of the property tax, which is not that portrayed by the Odd Fellows representative of 14% of the property taxes levied. The actual sources of revenue, which include reimbursement from the State of California, have decreased since 1992 when, for example, reimbursement for the cost of acquiring fire clothing and equipment was eliminated by a statement budget provision. 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 867 -9001 • Fax (408) 867 -2780 a SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 March 5, 1996 Page 2 Thirdly, as elected officials, it is our responsibility to be financially prudent for the residents in our district. Trying to place the financial burden of an aerial fire apparatus on everyone in the District would not be reasonable. Hopefully, the limited revenue capabilities of the District, its on -going commitment to adequately protect the lives and property of residents and owners of real property within the District, and its need to accomplish major capital projects in the future -- the renovation and seismic retrofitting of the District station -- can be the subject of a joint meeting to facilitate a greater understanding of the District's situation. In the interim, the District Board of Commissioners would respectfully request your review of the Odd Fellows project with the reimposition of the aerial fire apparatus condition of development approval. We look forward to meeting with the Council and discussing these matters of mutual concern. Very truly yours, Robert Egan, Chairman 1 Board of Commissioners cc: Ernest O. Kraule, Chief Saratoga F:re Protection. D;-,tr.;--t 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 867 -9001 • Fax (408) 867 -2780 0 MEMORANDUM TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA Date : February 7, 1996 From: Preston H. Wisner Ph.D., CEO Our Lady of Fatima Villa 6LAJ Subject: Need for Senior Housing in Saratoga This memorandum is being written to provide you with some information which will help in planning decisions which are now before the council or which may come before the council in the future. Presently we are seeing an outmigration of seniors from Saratoga and Los Gatos in a search for retirement housing. I work with two or three people each month in searching for suitable housing and I have to refer them our of the community. The following table reflects what is happening to our elderly population over the next fifty five years; Source: U.S. CMUA Bureau Br SINt B<—' for 1.Vlll dy News 5—e As you can see from the figure our over 65 population will increase almost 20 million by 2020.and will more than double by 2050. In the next figure #2, you can see that the age cohort groups are also growing larger with the age 75- 84 group and the 85 and over group growing at the largest percentages. 120 100 80 Millions 60 40 20 0 1900 '10 '20 '30 '40 '50 '60 '70 '80 '90 2000'10 '20 '30 '40 A. Actual and Projected Population 55 Years and Older By Age, 1900 -2040 ® Age 55 -64 0 Age 65 -74 ❑ Age 75 -84 ❑ Age 85 and older Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Censuses of Population, 1900 -1980, and Projections or the Population orthe United States: 1982-2050 (Advanced Report). Current Population Reports, Series P-52. No. 922, Oct. 1982. Proiections are middle series. The above mentioned data are also consistent with our local research. Looking at our own market areas we see that the demand will increase. Saratoga's market areas are shown in figure 3. Note that our primary market areas are defined in the light areas while the secondary market areas are shown in this figure by the gray shaded area: i► N O.PRLMARY ARFA: Sunn}vale 94086, 94087 Campbell 95008 Cupertino 95014 Los Gatos 95030, 95032 Santa Clara 95050, 95051 Saratoga 95070 San Jose 95112, 95120, 95124, 95125, 95129 e SECONDARY AREA: Los Altos 94022, 94024 Menlo Park 94025, 94027, 94028 Redwood City 94061, 94062 Palo Alto 94301, 94304, 94305, 94306 San Jose 95136 MILES 9 In the next exhibits you can see that there is an unmet need in the market area for an additional 635 units in 1994 and this unmet need will grow to 717 units by l999. Figure #4. 1` DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR ASSISTED LIVING BASED ON: THE PRIMARY MARKET AREA, AND THE o^nxroo^/msoAToo AREA ONLY u� �. SARATOGA/LOS GATOS population 1994 1999 - Estim. occupied SNF beds (624 at 90% -462 1132 7S-84 85+ PMA POPULATION 16,670 5.621 18,748 7,064 Estim. occupied SNF beds (2,332 in 1994, -1.726 -256 -95 2,669 total operating beds used for 1999) Estim. occupied RCFE beds (estim- -916 -322 -994 -367 operating capacity is 1,361, 91% occupied)* F Available/non-institutiallaii7ed market pool 14,028 4,893 15,076 Estimated Need Age 80+: 124 155 Total need 505 382 543 445 Estimated Need Age 80+: 635 717 Saratoga/Los Gatos I ____j Probable PMA private pay need 229 272 u� �. SARATOGA/LOS GATOS population --�042 71,2C"' 3.042 3,525 1.622 2] - Estim. occupied SNF beds (624 at 90% -462 1132 -507 -187 1994, 694 at 100% in 1999) - Estim. occupied RCFE beds (319 at 91% in -236 P-3 -256 -95 1994, 350 at 100% in 1999)' Available/non-instftutionalized market pool 2.344 1,G49 2,762 1,340 Total need 84 62 99 105 Estimated Need Age 80+: 124 155 = Probable private pay need in 62 71 Saratoga/Los Gatos I ____j * Estimated operating capacity for assisted living. Does not include independent units mCCRCs which are licensed as RGFE. nor double occupancy licensed beds in facilities which operate private In Figure #5 you can see that on unmet Ed Of 124 Units existed in 1994 and this unmet need will grow to 155 units by 1999. These needs are for both Skilled Nursing Beds /SNF\ and Residential Care for the Elderly units (RCFE). 4 From the foregoing we can see that the needs of the seniors in our area will continue to grow. The primary market area (PMA) encompasses roughly a 10 mile area. Within this area the population age 75+ is expected to increase 14.8 % between 1994 and 1999, to reach 57,916. In contrast the population age 65 -74 is expected to decline -2.5% for a total of 32,104 by 1999. The oldest segment (age 85 +) will increase the most rapidly (21.4 %)growth 1994 -1999. Average home values in the Saratoga/ Los Gatos area are $530,000. Many of the seniors in question have large equities in their homes and would like to sell them but stay in communities where their ties and roots are. Unfortunately we have to refer them out of the area to suitable retirement housing. Perhaps the efforts of our community should be changed to how can we meet this constituencies needs and keep them here, rather than erection barriers to senior housing. THE END 5 • 0 ortart vhen fighting a F s also important when building a k. At Central States Fire Apparatus, eamed with R -K Manufacturing to one of the most reliable aerial ladder in the industry. antral States and R -K Manufacturing der reaches of 60', 75' and 109' ulI compliance with NFPA 1904 standards ,( 00 GPM flow single pre - piped waterways u1 lb. tip load capacities "tractable waterways for rescue operations • i 1�,, trohydraulic control system • 1 -f" type outrigger jack system im&- Compare qua=iy Compare pric Compare Central States to other manufacturers. You'll find that Ceri allows you to reach new heights in o the best value. For more information and a dealer near you, call (605) 543 -5591. P.O. Box 57 . 100 Third St. • Lyons, 613 F/ /t - -i1{L s A W .-. Kj Vo Nil - It I , 44 or jk T'q -ago"- 0 1* 1 . a lk F I of ohm ° 13777 ],'IiC11TVA1,E AVI:NU1,; • SAVXR)GA, CA1,1VOKNIA 950 7 0 • I,IO 8G7- 3 -1: >3 To: Persons interested in Odd Fellow Home Issues From: Deputy City Clerk Subject: Meeting February 21, 1996 COUNC11, A11,111VIBE tS: The Saratoga City Council would like to inform you that they will hold a public hearing on the Odd Fellows Home project, as shown below: GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004 (APN 397 -12 -012 & 019 & 397 -40 -006) Independent Order of Odd Fellows; 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application requests include General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review approval. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and recommended for certification by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Odd Fellows' representatives are also requesting that the City of Saratoga enter into a Development Agreement with Odd Fellows to assure that upon approval of the project they may proceed with the project in accordance with existing rules and regulations. Notice of intention to consider adoption of the development agreement is hereby given pursuant to sections 65080 and 65091 of the Government Code. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearing(s) is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk and is open to public inspection at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. Questions about the meeting at 867 -3438. Grace E. Cory may be directed to the Deputy City Clerk ODD FELLOWS MAILING LIST Morris Jones Rosemary Chastain 19472 Riesling Ct. 14484 Chester Ave. ' Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Raymond E. Epes 19205 Crisp Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Beverly Gustafson 14867 Granite Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Sheila Swanson 19105 Crisp Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Fred Kinder 14437 Leland Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 James Jameson 19224 San Marcos Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Susan & Bob Finocchio 19160 Crisp Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Marguerite Fischer Victor Monia 14520 Fruitvale Ave. #B -11 14665 Granite Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dominick Richiuso 19303 Chablis Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Jeffrey Schwartz 192.81 San Marcos Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ralph Borelli 19301 Pinnacle Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ed Karcher 14622 Granite Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Sara Stephensen League of Women Voters 12491 Jolene Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ricardo Urrutia 14577 Via de Marcos Saratoga, CA 95070 Kelly Duggan 14437 Leland Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 Fred & Joanne Petersen 19401 Crisp Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Nancy & W. M. Scott 14507 Chester Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 State of Cali.fdlrrnia Office of.Ping. & Research 1400 TQ, h St. Sacrarhento, CA 95814 Clyde Vaughn Odd Fellow Home 14500 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Elizabeth Laing 14385 Chester Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Jerwin Wu 14451 Emerald Hill Saratoga, CA 95070 George Ivelich Hardison Komatsu Ivelich Tucker 400 Second St, Ste. 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 Linda A. Callon Berliner -Cohen Ten Almaden Blvd., 11th Fl San Jose, CA 95113 -2233 Mr. & Mrs. John Archdearen 19628 Kenosha Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 _ 15, 1 2', 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 111101 11 12 13 14 MICHAEL S. RIBACK SBN: 51404 City Attorney STEVEN R. MEYERS SBN: 57800 RICK W. JARVIS SBN: 154479 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON Gateway Plaza 777 Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, California 94577 (510) 351 -4300 Attorneys for Defendant City of Saratoga IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a nonprofit organization; and FRIENDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY CREEKS, an unincorporated association, 15 11 Plaintiffs, 16 V. 17 CITY OF SARATOGA, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4.10 26 27 28 Defendant. I, Rhea L. Williamson, declare as follows: CIV. NO. C 95 02393 SBA DECLARATION OF RHEA L. WILLIAMSON, Ph.D., IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: March 19, 1996 Time: 10:00 a.m Courtroom: 3 1. 1 am an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering for San Jose State University. In December, 1987, 1 received my Ph.D. from the Department of Civil Engineering with an emphasis in Environmental Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. I teach both undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental engineering including water and wastewater treatment, water chemistry, hazardous waste treatment, applied limnology, and laboratory methods. My research DECLARATION OF RHEA L. WILLIAMSON, Ph.D., IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO 1 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIV NO. C 95 02393 SBA) 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 interests have focused on the chemical and biological impacts of wastes on receiving water quality and on biota. I have published numerous articles and reports in this field,, including some dealing with the impacts of wastewater and other pollutants on water quality. I also frequently serve as an environmental consultant in this area. A true, correct, and accurate copy of my resume and related experience is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. In January, 1996, 1 was retained by the City of Saratoga to investigate the potential sources of coliform in Saratoga Creek. A true and correct copy of the scope of services for this work is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3. 1 have reviewed the results of numerous tests of Saratoga Creek and of the discharge from the outfall into Saratoga Creek underneath the Highway 85 (Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road) bridge. I am aware that these test results often show levels of total coliform and fecal coliform of 1,600 or greater MPN /100 ml, occasionally show levels of total coliform and fecal coliform in the tens of thousands (MPN /100 ml), and, in a couple instances, for the outfall, in the hundreds of thousands. 4. My work for the City of Saratoga is still in progress, and I have not yet reached a conclusion about the sources of fecal coliform in Saratoga Creek. However, can testify that it is normal for urban creeks to show levels of coliform and fecal coliform comparable to (and even greater than) those reported for Saratoga Creek. Such levels are normal both during the wet and the dry season. It is likewise normal for storm drain lines to have extremely high levels of fecal coliform, even in the hundreds of thousands (MPN /100 ml) range. I have researched the reported levels of coliform and fecal coliform for other creeks and storm drain systems in the Bay Area and have compiled the results of my research into the table which is attached hereto as Exhibit C (which is still in draft DECLARATION OF RHEA L. WILLIAMSON, Ph.D., IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIV NO. C 95 02393 SBA) 2 ow 21 3I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 form). The table identifies each water channel for which I have information, the. date of the test, the weather (dry or wet), the levels of total and fecal coliform, and the source of my information. As can be seen, urban creeks and storm drains usually have levels of total and fecal coliform of 1,600 MPN /100 ml or greater, often have levels in the 16,000 MPN /100 ml range, and sometimes in excess of 100,000 MPN 1100 mi. Such test results have been reported both during wet weather (when the quality of creeks is most likely influenced by stormwater run -off) and in dry weather (when there is no stormwater run- off). More extreme examples include Coyote Creek (with a total coliform count of 900,000 MPN /100 ml and a fecal coliform count of 4,000 MPN /100ml during dry weather on May 11, 1988, as well as total and fecal coliform counts in the hundreds of thousands (MPN /100 ml) during wet weather on November 23, 1988 and January 23, 1989. 5. Recent reports by the EPA indicate that the EPA finds that the use of fecal coliform levels is not a reliable indicator of wastewater contamination. For example, attached hereto as Exhibit D is an excerpt from a January 1993 publication by the EPA entitled "Investigation of Inappropriate Pollutant Entries into Storm Drainage Systems," in which it is stated that "[ f]ecal coliform bacteria measurements would not help much because they originate from many possible sources." Likewise, attached hereto as Exhibit E is an excerpt from another recent EPA publication entitled "Environmental Impacts of Stormwater Discharges," it which it describes how coliform levels can vary greatly based on the difference in weather ('Because bacteria multiply faster during warm weather, it is not uncommon to find a twenty -fold difference in bacterial levels between summer and winter"), and in which it states that "[t]he current literature suggests that fecal coliform may not be consistently reliable in identifying human health risks from urban runoff pollution." DECLARATION OF RHEA L. WILLIAMSON, Ph.D., IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO 3 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIV NO. C 95 02393 SBA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 499 24 25 26 27 28 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this a ( day of February, 1996. RHEA L. WILLIAMSON J.% WPOWNRSM73PLEAD%37%SUMT-WLM.SON DECLARATION OF RHEA L. WILLIAMSON, Ph.D., IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO 4 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIV NO. C 95 02393 SBA) EXHIBIT A Rhea L. Williamson, Ph.D. SJS I USTA(VI ERSff`( Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics San Jose State University One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192 -0083 RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Office: 408- 924 -3849 Fax: 408 - 924 -4004 E -mail: rwilliam @isc.sjsu.edu CURRENT POSITION: Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics at San Jose State University, San Jose, California. August, 1992 to Present. EDUCATION: University of California at Berkeley. Department of Civil Engineering. Ph.D. in Environmental Science. December, 1987. San Jose State University, San Jose, California. Department of Biological Science. B.A. in Marine Biology. 1980. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Environmental Consultant: Confidential Client Responsible.for establishing the Quality Assurance /Quality Control program for limnological monitoring at a Federal Superfund site located in Montana. Environmental Consultant: CH2M -Hill D W Smith Consultie Responsible for the management of Kelly Farm Demonstration Wetland located in Santa Rosa, California. Management responsibilities include oversight of monitoring of metals, water chemistry, wildlife, and hydrology. Preparation of bi- annual reports and public participation tours are an integral part of the task. Preliminary design of 100 acres of wetland, including surveying, estimates of cut and fill, conceptual layout. Calculations of un- ionized ammonia concentrations in wastewater as affected by pH and loading. Responsible for the site assessment, completion of the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment for the Department of Health Services, and the feasibility study for treatment of soil contaminated by hydrocarbons. Procurement of all appropriate regulatory permits was an integral part of this project. Environmental Consultant: Willis Construction Company Responsible for the site assessment, feasibility study for treatment of a hazardous liquid associated with the production of concrete prefabricated structures, and soil contaminated by hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Procurement of all appropriate regulatory permits was an integral part of this project. RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Page 2 Environmental Consultant: Kerfoot and Associates Creation of a database on soil gases associated with explosive conditions with specific reference to desert conditions. Environmental Consultant: A J Horne Associates Determined shoreline development values and derived a hypsographic curve for Lake Perris in Southern California. Prepared the graphs and figures from supplied data. 1984. Calculated the metal ion speciation for zinc, lead, copper, and cadmium based on pC -pH relations. 1985. Conducted a toxicity bioassay in the effluent ponds of the Richmond Stauffer Chemical Company with sunfish. The bioassay included the measurement of pertinant water quality parameters and the preparation of a final report. 1986. Collected and processed for analysis samples of the biota and of the water and sediments from the Kesterson Marsh during a synoptic monitoring study. 1986. Processed mussels for changes in growth during the monitoring of the Martinez Stauffer Chemical Company effluent. 1986. Research Associate: University of California, Berkeley. Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Health Research Laboratory. 1983 -87. Collected data for the analysis of the bioaccumulation of selenium within the food chain of the Kesterson Marsh and the determination of the efficiency of the wet -flex method of treatment on the concentration of selenium in the biota and sediments. Determined the degree of interference of arsenic with the measurement of ortho - phosphate in Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Estimated the effects of chlorination on the growth of bivalves in the San Francisco Bay. Examined phytoplankton, zooplankton, and primary production in San Francisco Bay during a synoptic study. Analyzed the use of caged bivalves as a means of studying toxicity while monitoring wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay. Analyzed the nutritional status of striped bass larvae in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Larvae were analyzed using a suite of biochemical techniques including RNA, DNA, and protein determinations. Determined the chlorophyll and nutrient (phosphate, ammonia, nitrate) concentrations in Pyramid Lake, Nevada, Mill Creek, Ca., and in the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge, Ca. Conducted a copper toxicity bioassay using algae from Shinn Pit in Alameda County, Ca. The assay included the identification of algal species over the course of the treatment. RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Page 3 Prepared a technical discussion on the environmental and public health problems associated with acid mine drainage in California for the State Water Quality Control Board. The report examines factors affecting the toxicity of several heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc. Asbestos and cyanide were also examined with respect to toxicity. Tables containing LC50 values for aquatic biota in the presence of 10 different metals were compiled from published data. Post- Doctoral Assistant: University of California at Berkeley. Department of Zoology, 12/87 -8/88 Trained work study students in the chemical analysis of nutrients in water, chlorophyll measurements, nitrogen fixation analysis, and field measurements of numerous physical and chemical parameters. Designed and conducted several field and laboratory experiments related to the importance of nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria in the nitrogen dynamics of the South Fork of the Eel River in Northern California. an Jose State University: Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanic South Fork Merced River: Wawona, Yosemite Sanitary Survey. 1995- Present. Water quality samples are being collected and analyzed from all surface water sources used for drinking water and from several lakes and tributaries to the South Fork Merced River. Data are being analyzed for potential contamination resulting from natural and human activity related sources (e.g., backpackers, pack animals, High Sierra Camps). Identification of current practices and of best management practices (BMP's) to reduce impacts are being identified. Upper Merced River, Yosemite Sanitary Survey. 1994 - Present. Water quality samples were collected and analyzed from all surface water sources used for drinking water in the Upper Merced River Watershed. Data were analyzed for potential contamination resulting from natural and human activity relates sources (e.g., backpackers, pack animals, High Sierra Camps). Identification of current practices and of best management practices (BMP's) to reduce impacts were made. Soil Gas Sampling Data Analysis. 1994 - Present. Workshops for regulators on soil gas data collection, analysis and interpretation were held in California at three locations. In addition, a data analysis protocol for use by regulators in the analysis of soil gas data is being prepared, in collaboration with Kerfoot and Associates, for the California State Water Resources Control Board. Slurry Phase Bioreactor Studies. 1994- Present. The feasibility of the use of slurry phase bioreactors in treating diesel fuel contaminated soils is currently under investigation in collaboration with the Department of Chemical Engineering. A comparison of methods for measuring the biological degradation rate of diesel fuel contaminated soils and the effects of pH, oxygen concentration, and surfactant use on degradation are being investigated. Cement Industry Waste Study. 1994. In collaboration with Drs. Dwyer (UCB -Boalt School of Law), Doyle (UCB- School of Mining), and Pease (UCB- School of Public Health), a survey of all cement industries in California was completed that included estimation of the quantities of hazardous wastes generated, identification of waste sources, descriptions of current practices, and identification of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for reducing the wastes generated and/or that are a threat to the environment or to human health. The final report is being used by regulators in California in their assessment of how to classify cementitious wastes (i.e., as hazardous or not). RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Page 4 CERCLA Superfund Mining Waste Study: Warm Springs Ponds, Anaconda, Montana. 1993 -1994. Geochemical processes and the effects of limnological parameters on lime slurry treated water in the Warm Springs Ponds were assessed. Extensive chemical and biological data were collected and analyzed, including complexation potential and sequential extraction of a suite of metals, algae and zooplankton population estimates and their impacts on water quality at the discharge point and spatial and temporal variations in chemical, physical, and biological parameters. Pajaro River Nutrient Assessment. 1992 -1994. This project covered a 13 month sampling schedule, and included 7 sample locations, each of which was monitored for a suite of parameters affecting algae growth. An extensive historical data review and QA/QC plan were prepared. The Final Report identified appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) that could reduce nutrient loading and recommended a nutrient objective for inclusion in the Basin Plan for the watershed. San Lorenzo River Nitrate Biostimulation Assessment. This project included the design of a sampling protocol for data collection that would enable objectives for nitrate- nitrogen in the San Lorenzo River to be set. The report includes a historical data review, QA/QC plan, data summary and analysis, and discussion of the results with recommendations. DISSERTATION TOPIC: An examination of the regulation of the rate of nitrogen fixation by the cyanobacteria Nostoc over a diel cycle in Mill Creek, California was undertaken. Morphological aspects of Nostoc as related to changes in nitrogen fixation with respect to colony size, carotenoid content, and weight were investigated. Parameters analyzed include nutrients (nitrate, ammonia, phosphate), light, the partial pressure of carbon dioxide and oxygen, stream flow, pH, alkalinity, temperature, and algal morphology. The effects of these parameters on biochemical processes occuring within the alga were postulated. Manipulations of the gas partial pressures and of light conditions further elucidated parameter effects. The contribution of nitrogen fixation to the nutrient budget of a system, and it's effect on water quality were discussed. OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Operations Manager: West Coast Magnetics: Responsible for all phases of operation of on electronics production plant including prototype production, routing, cost estimates, employee relations, production, and quality assurance. The firm empolyed approximately 60 people and maintained offices in Sunnyvale and Oakdale, California. PUBLICATIONS: Williamson, R.L. and R.D. Allen. In Progress. The Development of Water Quality Objectives for the Pajaro River Subbasin. Williamson, R.L., and A.J. Horne. In Progress: Diel Rates of Nitrogen Fixation by Nostoc muscorum to be submitted for publication in the Journal of Limnology and Oceanography. RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Page 5 Kerfoot, H. B., C.L. Mayer, and R.L. Williamson. 1995. Methodology for Use of Soil -Gas Data in Evaluation of the Threat of Unsaturated Zone Contamination to Groundwater. Draft Report. Prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Coast Region. Williamson, R.L., R. Simonsen, D. Spoto, T. Taylor, and Olson, G. 1995. Yosemite National Park: Upper Merced River Watershed Sanitary Survey. Final Report. Prepared for Yosemite National Park. Williamson, R.L., and A. Evans, Jr. The Effects of Limnological Parameters on Lime Slurry Treated Water in Large Detention Ponds. 1994. Proceedings of the Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste held in Fort Collins, Colorado between January 19 -21, 1994. Evans, Jr, A. and R. L. Williamson. 1994. Geochemical Processes within the Warm Springs Ponds, Anaconda, Montana. Proceedings of the Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste held in Fort Collins, Colorado between January 19 -21, 1994. Munson, -M., G. Belhumeur, and R.L. Williamson. 1994. An Innovative Approach to Maintenance Management and Main Replacement Planning. Proceeding of the Computers in the Water Industry Specialty Conference and Exhibition held in Los Angeles between April 10 -13, 1994. California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region. 1994. The Establishment of Nutrient Objectives, Sources, Impacts, and Best Management Practices for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek: Final Report. Prepared by San Jose State University and Merritt Smith Consulting. Doyle, F.M., J.P. Dwyer, W.S. Pease, and R.L. Williamson. 1994. AB 3789 Study of Cementitious Wastes at California Cement Plants. Final Report. Prepared for the California Environmental Protection Agency. Williamson, R. L. and R. D. Allen. 1993. Literature Review for Nutrient Water Quality Objectives and Best Management Practices for Pajaro River and Llagas Creek. Prepared for California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region. Erdie, J. and R.L. Williamson. 1993. IBM, Inc. San Jose Industrial Waste Water Treatment Plant Sludge Minimization Project, Final Report. 17 pages. Cacciatore, D.A., M.A. McNeil, and R.L. Williamson. 1992. Comparison of Methods for Measuring the Biological Degradation Rate of Diesel Fuel Contaminated Soil in Slurry-Phase Reactors. presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Miami, Fla. November 1 -6, 1992. Cacciatore, D.A., M.A. McNeil, and R.L. Williamson. 1992. Comparison of the Effect of Selected System Parameters on the Biological Degradation Rate of Diesel Fuel Contaminated Soil in Slurry-Phase Reactors. presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Miami, Fla. November 1 -6, 1992. Ritts, D. H., R. L. Williamson. 1992. The Atmospheric Deposition of PCB's into San Francisco Bay. Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association. Kansas, Missouri, June 1992. 16 pages. RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Page 6 Coate, A. and R.L. Williamson. 1991. Hayward Marsh Nitrification Evaluation. Submitted to East Bay Dischargers Authority. Smith, D., R.L. Williamson, and M. Noesen. 1991. Hayward Marsh Nitrification Alternatives. Technical Memorandum to Union Sanitary District. 23 pages. Williamson, R.L. and D.W. Smith. 1991. Hayward Marsh Habitat Value Analysis. Technical . Memorandum submitted to Union Sanitary District. September, 1991. 9 pages. Williamson, Rhea L. 1991. San Lorenzo River Nitrate Biostimulation Assessment. Final Report. SJSU Department of Civil Engineering. 119 pages. Horne, A.J., J.C. Roth, and Rhea L. Williamson. 1987. The Use of Biochemical Analysis to Determine the Nutritional Status of Young Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) in the San Francisco Bay Delta in 1985. University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Health Research Laboratory. UCB - SEEHRL Report 87 -6. Williamson, R.L. 1987. The Public Health and Environmental Impacts of Mining Wastes. Mining Waste Study: Final Report to the California State Legislature. University of California at Berkeley. 416 pp. Roth, J.C., A.J. Home, R.L. Williamson, M.L. Commins, and T. Granata. 1986. Effects of High and Low Levels of Chlorination (Followed by Dechlorination) on Bivalve Growth in a Dilution Gradient in the Outfall Plume of a Domestic - Industrial Sewage Treatment Plant Discharging into San Francisco Bay. University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Health Research Laboratory. UCB - SEEHRL Report 86 -12. Williamson, R.L. and A.J. Horne. 1986. The Effect of Arsenic on the Determination of Phosphate by the Molybdate Method- Pyramid Lake, Nevada. University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Health Research Laboratory. UCB - SEEHRL Report 86 -2. Roth, J.C., A.J. Horne, R.L. Williamson, M.L. Commins, and T. Granata. 1985. Biomonitoring of Effects of High and Low Levels of Chlorination on Bivalves in a Dilution Gradient in the Outfall Plume. University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Health Research Laboratory. UCB - SEEHRL Report 85 -4. Roth, J.C., R.L. Williamson, A.J. Home, D.W. Smith, and M.L. Commins. 1984. Dilution -Field Bioassays for Local Effects Monitoring of Wastewater Discharges into San Francisco Bay. II. A Demonstration Study of Toxicity Based on the Growth and Condition of Caged Mussels (Mytilus edulis). University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Health Research Laboratory. UCB - SEEHRL Report 84 -1. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES: American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Limnology and Oceanography American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation American Water Works Association Association for Women in Science and Engineering RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Page 7 California Lake Management Society- Vice - President - 1989 -1990 Society of Women Engineers SEMINARS /CONFERENCES: Williamson, R.L. 1994. Upper Merced River Sanitary Survey. Presented at the Backcountry Human Waste Management: A Composting Application Workshop held in Yosemite National Park. September 12 -16, 1994. Munson, M., G. Belhumeur, and R.L. Williamson. 1994. An Innovative Approach to Maintenance Management and Main Replacement Planning. Presented at the Computers in the Water Industry Specialty Conference and Exhibition held in Los Angeles between April 10 -13, 1994. Williamson, R.L., and A. Evans, Jr. The Effects of Limnological Parameters on Lime Slurry Treated Water in Large Detention Ponds. Presented at the Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste in Fort Collins, Colorado between January 19 -21, 1994. Evans, Jr, A. and R. L. Williamson. Geochemical Processes within the Warm Springs Ponds, Anaconda, Montana. Presented at the Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste in Fort Collins, Colorado between January 19 -21, 1994. Williamson, R.L. and R.D. Allen. 1993. The Development of Water Quality Objectives for the Pajaro River Subbasin. Presented at the 1 st International IAWQ Conference on Diffuse Pollution. Chicago, Il. September 20 -24, 199' ). Williamson, R.L., D. Helms, and B. Peters. 1993. Parameters Affecting Water Quality in the Pajaro River Subbasin in California. 29th Annual Conference and Symposium on Effluent Use Management. Tucson, Arizona, August 29- September 2, 1993. Williamson, R. L. 1993. Educational Opportunites in the Hazardous Waste/Environmental Field. Presented at the California Society of Professional Engineers Hazardous Waste Seminar. San Jose, CA., June 25, 1993. NSF Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Program on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. 1993. Faculty Workshop held in Fort Collins, Colorado between July 20 -27, 1993. NSF Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Program on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. 1992. Faculty Workshop held in Fort Collins, Colorado between July 20 -31, 1992. University of California at Berkeley, Environmental Engineering Group Seminar. 1992. Water Quality Monitoring in a Constructed Wetland in Santa Rosa that Receives Secondarily Treated Wastewater. San Jose State University Fourth Annual Faculty Review. 1992. The Development of Water Quality Objectives for the Pajaro River Subbasin. San Jose State University Biology Department Seminar. 1992. Metal Toxicity in a Constructed Wetland in California. San Jose State University Second Annual Faculty Review, October, 1990. The Use of Artifical Wetlands in Treating Municipal Wastewater. RHEA L. WILLIAMSON Page 8 San Jose State University First Annual Faculty Review, October, 1989. The Fate of Heavy Metals in South San Francisco Bay. Stanford University Water Resources Seminar, November, 1988. Decline of the Striped Bass in San Francisco Bay. California Riparian Systems Conference, 1988. Dark Nitrogen Fixation and the Nutrient Budget in a California Stream Ecosystem. Ecological Society of America, 1988. The Response of Nitrogen Fixation to Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations: Mensurative and Manipulative Results. AGU /ASLO- December, 1988. The Regulation of Nitrogen Fixation by the Cyanobacterium Nostoc muscorum in a California Stream. AGU /ASLO- December, 1987. The Effect of Arsenic on the Determination of Phosphate in Pyramid Lake, Nevada. WORKSHOPS American Water Works Association Research Foundation Workshop: Balancing Algae Control with other Treatment Objectives. Held in Boulder, Colorado July 5 -7, 1995. Active participant in all aspects of the workshop. National Park Service Backcountry Human Waste Management: A Composting Application Workshop. This workshop was held in Yosemite National Park between September 12 -16, 1994. Active participant in all aspects of the workshop. Presented on the requirements, sanitary survey design and preliminary results of the Upper Merced River Sanitary Survey. NSF Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Program on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Faculty Workshop held in Fort Collins, Colorado between July 20 -31, 1992 and between July 20 -27, 1993. Active participant in all aspects of the workshop. Completed as part of a project team an evaluation of an existing pond and wetland system. ADVISORY PANELS American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Lead Corrosion -NOM Project PAC ABAG Erosion Control Review Committee, 1993- 1995. Member, Hayward Marsh Technical Advisory Committee, 1992 -1994. Member, Crandall Creek Technical Advisory Committee, 1992 -1993. Member, DUST Marsh Technical Advisory Committee, 1992 -1993. REFERENCES AVAILABLE ON REQUEST Dr. Rhea L. Williamson Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, San Jose State University B.A. (197 8) San Jose State University in Biological Sciences, Minor in Chemistry Ph.D. (1987) University of California at Berkeley in Civil Engineering, Minor in Chemistry Dr. Williamson teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental engineering including water and wastewater treatment, hazardous waste treatment, water chemistry, pond design for wastewater treatment, applied limnology, and laboratory methods. Dr. Williamson's research interests have focused on the chemical and biological impacts of wastes on receiving water quality and on biota. Recent and current projects include the following: • Wawona Watershed, South Fork Merced River, Yosemite Sanitary Survey. 1995- Present. Water quality samples are being collected and analyzed from all surface water sources used for drinking water in the South Fork Merced River Watershed. Data are being analyzed for potential contamination resulting from natural and human activity relates sources (e.g., backpackers, pack animals, High Sierra Camps). Current practices and . best management practices (BMP's) to reduce impacts are being identified. • Upper Merced River, Yosemite Sanitary Survey. 1994- Present. Water quality samples were collected and analyzed from all surface water sources used for drinking water in the Upper Merced River Watershed. Data were analyzed for potential contamination resulting from natural and human activity relates sources (e.g., backpackers, pack animals, High Sierra Camps). Identification of current practices and of best management practices (BMP's) to reduce impacts were made. • Soil Gas Sampling Data Analysis. 1994- Present. Workshops for regulators on soil gas data collection, analysis and interpretation were held in California at three locations. In addition, a data analysis protocol for use by regulators in the analysis of soil gas data is being prepared, in collaboration with Kerfoot and Associates, for the California State Water Resources Control Board. • Cement Industry Waste Study. 1994. In collaboration with Drs. Dwyer (UCB -Boalt School of Law), Doyle (UCB- School of Mining), and Pease (UCB- School of Public Health), a survey of all cement industries in California was completed that included estimation of the quantities of hazardous wastes generated, identification of waste sources, descriptions of current practices, and identification of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for reducing the wastes generated and/or that are a threat to the environment or to human health. The final report is being used by regulators in California in their assessment of how to classify cementitious wastes (i.e., as hazardous or not). CERCLA Superfund Mining Waste Study: Warm Springs Ponds, Anaconda, Montana. 1993 -1994. Geochemical processes and the effects of limnological parameters on lime slurry treated water in the Warm Springs Ponds were assessed. Extensive chemical and biological data were collected and analyzed, including complexation potential and sequential extraction of a suite of metals, algae and zooplankton population estimates and their impacts on water quality at the discharge point and spatial and temporal variations in chemical, physical, and biological parameters. Pajaro River Nutrient Assessment. 1992 -1994. This project covered a 13 month sampling schedule, and included 7 sample locations, each of which was monitored for a suite of parameters affecting algae growth. An extensive historical data review and QA/QC plan were prepared. The Final Report identified appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) that could reduce nutrient loading and recommended a nutrient objective for inclusion in the Basin Plan for the watershed. San Lorenzo River Nutrient Assessment. 1990 -1992. This project included 14 sample locations, each of which was monitored for a suite of parameters affecting water quality and algae growth. An extensive historical data review and QA/QC plan were prepared. Monitoring for nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity and other water quality parameters was performed. EXHIBIT B City of Saratoga Saratoga Creek Coliform Proposal 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga is investigating coliform levels in Saratoga Creek to assess whether those levels are unusual for an urban creek and to identify the potential sources of the coliforms. The City has investigated coliform levels in several different ways e.g., by collecting additional water quality data, tracking the,potential city owned sources to the storm drain, investigating potential infiltration from the sewage collection system, and running smoke tests. Despite these efforts, additional information is needed. This proposal outlines steps that the City can take to further its objectives. The proposal is based on information provided via telephone conversations with Mr. John Cherbone (City of Saratoga; December 4, 1995 and December 11, 1995), and with Mr. Larry Perlin (City of Saratoga; December 12, 1995), and at an informal meeting held on December 19, 1995 at the city offices of Saratoga. In addition to myself, those present at the meeting included Mr. Larry Perlin and Mr. Rick Jarvis, Attorney at Law, from the Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson law firm. This proposal outlines the tasks required to address the occurrence of elevated coliform levels in Saratoga Creek, and provides a tentative schedule and budget to complete the investigation. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES: Saratoga Creek Coliform Investigation A description of the tasks identified at the December 19, 1995 meeting is provided in this section. The objective of the investigation is to assist the City of Saratoga in its efforts to assess whether coliform levels in Saratoga Creek are unusually elevated and to identify potential sources of coliforms. 2.1 Task 1 - Review Existing Data In this task, a review of all pertinent historical information and data will be collected. Information and data will be accessed through STORET if available; and collected from documents on file with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose Water Company, the Department of Health Services (DoHS), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), available consultants reports, the City of Saratoga, and other sources as identified during the review process. The data will be evaluated and summarized in a report. 2.2 Task 2 - Identify Potential Contaminants and Sources Saratoga Creek Proposal Page 1 This task will involve the identification of the potential sources of coliforms to Saratoga Creek. Sources will be identified by two mean s: (1) completing a site reconnaissance of Saratoga Creek and' (2) by using available data pertaining to water sources (including storm water and other flows from storm drains within the City), land use, recreational activities, septic tank management, wildlife, horse and pet populations, -and multiple use activities within the watershed. 2.3 Task 3 - Analysis of the Impact of Dry Weather Storm Drain Flows This task will involve an investigation of the sources and/or causes of total coliforms and fecal coliforms in dry weather flows in storm drain lines within the Saratoga Creek Watershed, particularly from the outfall at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. In addition, a determination of why algae may be in increased concentration down stream of the storm drain discharge will be investigated. 2.4 Task 4 - Review of Coliform Levels in Other Water Bodies A literature review will be completed that focuses on coliform levels in other bodies of water. Particular emphasis Will be placed on urban creeks, especially those in the San Francisco Bay area. An assessment of typical levels of coliforms, sources, and trends (increased levels down gradient of urban areas) will be made. 2.5 Task 5 - Review of Health Based Coliform Levels A review will be completed that focuses on health based coliform levels as related to the beneficial uses of the water. The use of coliform data as an indicator of other pathogens will be summarized. This summary will include the comparison of total, fecal, and streptococci coliforms. 2.6 Task 6 - Provide Assistance on an "As Needed Basis" Dr. Williamson will be available on an "as needed basis" to provide assistance in areas of her expertise. 2.7 Task 7 - Prepare Report The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of Tasks 2.1 through 2.5 will be summarized in a final report. Saratoga Creek Proposal Page 2 ESTIMATED BUDGET: SARATOGA CREEK COLIFORM INVESTIGATION The following budget is for estimating purposes only. It is expected that reimbursement for all time and expenses incurred for completion of tasks requested by the City of Saratoga will be paid in full by the City of Saratoga. Monthly invoices will be sent that will indicate the percent expended for each task. Progress reports will be provided as appropriate. The salary schedule, as discussed at the December 12, 1995 meeting is as follows: Salary: Dr. Rhea L. Williamson: $90/hour Diane Spoto: $20/hour Jeff O'Keefe: $20/hour 2.1 Task 1 - Review Existing Data Williamson 20 hours $1800 Spoto 23 hours $ 460 O'Keefe 20 hours $ 400 2.2 Task 2 - Identify Potential Contaminants and Sources Williamson 15 hours $ 1350 Spoto 20 hours $ 400 O'Keefe 10 hours $ 200 2.3 Task 3 - Analysis of the Impact of Dry Weather Storm Drain Flows Williamson 12 hours $ 1080 Spoto 10 hours $ 200 2.4 Task 4 - Review of Coliform Levels in Other Water Bodies Williamson 8 hours $ 720 Spoto 15 hours $ 300 O'Keefe 10 hours $ 200 2.5 Task 5 - Review of Health Based Coliform Levels Williamson 10 hours $ 900 Spoto 20 hours $ 400 2.6 Task 6 - Provide Assistance on an "As Needed Basis" Williamson TBD hours OPEN 2.7 Task 7 - Prepare Report Williamson 10 hours $ 900 Spoto 20 hours $ 400 Total Labor Costs: $9710 Saratoga Creek Proposal Page 3 ESTIMATED BUDGET:SARATOGA CREEK COLIFORM INVESTIGATION Additional costs anticipated are as follows: Travel: Mileage: 0.27 /mile 800 miles $ 216 Computer and Equipment Use: Computer Use $ 400 FAX/Phone $ 100 Miscellaneous: Telephone $ 250 Film/Developing $ 50 Other $ 100 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET: (not including Task 6) $10,826 Saratoga Creek Proposal Page 4 EXHIBIT C CEvffs Ito np� ,WD 5tOeW D P-A-fn-) S TFecal Location Cordornices Creek Cordorniccs Crock Cordoiees Creek Cordomices Creek Cordornices Creek Cordornices Creek Cordornices Crock, Co ices Creek Cordornices Crock Cordomis Creek Cordornioeas Creek San Lorenzo Crook Date 12/(16/89 04/02/90 06120/90 08/23/90 01102/91 02122/91 04/04191 01/02191 02/02/91 02127191 03/02/91 12/06/89 Weather Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Wct Wet Wet Dry 1,600 1,600 1,600 300 500 1,600 1,600 >1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,6(10 Coliforms (MPN /1110m1) Fecal Str ip FC/FS Ratio Source 1,600 900 1,600 50 140 50 _ 1,600 >1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 - --- - - _ - -- - --- -- - -- ._. - ... -- - -- - -- -- - - - -- -- -- Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Creek an Lorenzo Crock San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Cnxk 02/03/90 04/02/40 0620/90 08/23190 01/02/91 02/22191 04/04/91 1126/89 01/14/90 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet 1,600 1,600 900 1,600 > 1,600 1,600 1,6001 1,600 16,000 __220 170 900 900 900 500 1,600 900 1,600 16,000 - -- - _._ - -• -- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - -- Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works San Lorenzo Creek San Lofnzo Cruel an Lorenzo Creek Castro Valley Creek 02/17/90 01/02/91 02102/91 12/06/89 Wa Wet Wet Dry 16,000 >1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 _ 900 1.600 3,000 >1,600 >1,600 900 1,600 1,600 - - -- - - - -- -- - -- Alameda County Public. Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works A amata County Public Works - -- - -- - _ - -- -- Castro Valley Creek _ Castro Valley Creek Castro Valley Creek Castro Valley Creek 02103190 04 /02/90 Dry Dry Dry Dry 0620/90 08/23/90 240 110 - - -- - -- - - _ Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Castro Valley Creek Castro Valley Creek 01/02/91 0222/91 Dry Dry D 0' >1,600 1,600 900 1,600 - -- - -- - Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Castro Valley Creek _ 04/04/91 ],6(10 1,6U(t Castro Valley Creek Castro Valley Creek Castro Valley Creek ! 126/89 Wet 1,600 1,600 - -- Alameda County Public Works 01 /14/90 02117/90 12106189 Wet Wet _ Dry 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 300 -- -- - - -- Alarnada County Public Works Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel - -- -- Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works M Tfi&� I. CO of , �P Total Fecal I.oeatio■ Date Weather Coliferms (MPN/100ml) Coliforms (11t1PN /100ml) Fecal Stre FC/FS Ratio Source Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Contra] Channel ' Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel Cabot Blvd Flood Control Channel 02103190 04!02!90 0620/90 0883/90 01102/91 0222/9! 04/04/91 01114/90 02/!7/90 01/02/91 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet 1,600 I,6W 1,600 1,600 > 1,600 1,600 1,600 16,000 16,000 >1,600 1,600 80 1,600 4 70 110 500 2,400 5,000 >1,600 - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - _ - - -.- - - Alameda County Public V1'orks Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda Crock Alameda Creek ' Alameda Creek Alameda Crock Alameda Creek Alameda Creek Alameda Crack Alameda Creek 12/06/89 02/03/90 04/02/90 06/20/90 08/23/90 01/02/91 0222/91 04/04/91 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 1,600 1,600 1,600 500 900 130 220 1,600 50 30 280 _80--___ 0 13 _ 240 90 23 - - -- - - - - - -•- - --- -- - - - -- Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alamcda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda Creek Alameda Creel AlamodaCreek Alameda Creek BaJentine Dr. Flood Control Channel Balentinc Dr. Flood Control Channel Balenline Dr. Flood Control Channel Balentinc Dr. Flood Control Channel Balentine Dr. Flood Control Channel Balcntine Dr. Flood Control Channel Badcmine Dr. Flood Control Channel Salentine Dr- Flood Contra) Channel - -- 1186/89 01/14/90 01 /02/91 02/02/91 12106/89 02/03/90 04/02/90 0620/90 08/23/90 01/02/91 0222/91 _ 04/04/91 Wet Wet Wet Wet . Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry D rY Dry- 1,600 16,000 300 1,600 16,000 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 >1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 9,000 50 900 16,000 30 240 1,600 240 300 311(1 - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - -- -- Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works A- lameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works - -- - Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alamcda County Public Works County Public Works - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- -- - -- -- 13(1 16,000 >1,600 --- - Balentine Dr. Flood Control Channel Balentinc Dr. Flood Control Channel 01!14/90 01/02/91 Wct Wet _ 16,000 >1,600 - Balentim Dr. Flood Control Channel - Strawberry Crack Strawberry Creek 02/07/91 01/14190 01/02/91 Wet Wet Wet 1,600 16,000 240 >1,600 - 5,000 240 -•- - - - - -- - -- Strawberry Crick __ 02/02/91 Wct 1,600 300 -- JAlamcda - ' Aluncda County Public Works ,lI M� ff &E_ 1 coo 101 total Fecal Location Strawberry Creek Strawberry Creek Strawberry Creek Strawberry Crock Effie Street Pump Station Ettie Street Pump Station Effie Street Pump - Station Ettie Street Pump Station Ettic Street Pump Station Ettie Street Pump Station Ettie Street Pump Station Ettie Stnoct Pump Station Effie Street Pump Station Effie Street Pump Station 24th/Wood Street Storm Drain 24th/Wood Street Storm Drain 24th/Wood Street Stone Drain 24th/Wood Stroll Storm Drain 24th/Wood Street Siorm Drain 24th/Wood Street Storm Drain 241h/Wood Street Storm Drain 4th/Alice Street Storm Drain 4th/Alice Street Storm Drain rE Street Storm Drain ! Creek Creek icks Street Flood Control Chrumcl - icks Street Flood Control Channel Date 02/27/91 03/02/91 03/17 /91 03RD /91 02/22/91 04/04/91 01/14/90 02/17/90 01/07/91 02/02191 02/27 /91 03/02/91 03/17/91 03/20 /91 02/17/90 O1 /02191 02/02/91 02/27/91 03/02/91 03/17 /9I 03/20/91 01102191 02/02/91 02127 /91 Weather Wet -w- et Wet Wct Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wu Wet Wet Wel Wet Wet Wet Wet Coliforms (MPN/100mi) 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,60(! 1,600 1,600 16,000 16,000 >1,600 1,600 1,600 1,60(1 1,600 1,600 16,000 > 1,600 9w 1,600 1,600 1,600 -1,6001- ,600 >1,601) 1,600 1,600 Coliforms (HPN/100m1) Fecal Strep FC/FS Ratio Source 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 16,000 3,000 >1,600 1,600 1,600 1,60(1 1,600 1,600 16,0(10 500 240 500 1,600 240 1,66 >1,600 1,600 500 2,400 >1,600 3,500 B00 -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - -• - -- - - -- - -- - -- - --- - -- -- Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - _ -- -- - - -- -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works 02/17/90 01/02/91 UI /14/90 02117/90 Wet Wet Wet Wet 16,000 11,600 _ 16,000 i6,lxM1 - - - - -- - -- - -- -- Alameda County Public Works AlamedaCiunly Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Merced/Wicks Street Flood Control Channel Merctod/Wicks Street Flood Control Channel Merced/Wicks Street Flood Control Channel 01102191 62/02/91 02/27/91 Wee Wet Wet > 1,600 -' 1,6()0 1,600 300 500 900 - -- - Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works - -- Alameda County Public Works Mcrccd/Wicks Sure( Flood Control Channel COttef Way Storm Drain Cotta Way Storm Drain Cotter Way torm Drain y Cotter Wa Storm Drain _ Y _ 03/02/91 01/14/90 02/17/90 03/02/91 03/17/91 Wet Wet Wet Wet we 1,600 16,000 9,000 1,600 1,600 1,600 9,000 3,000 1,600 - - 1,600 - -- - -- _ - -- - -- -- - -- - -- Alameda County Public Works - - Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works - -- jAlarneda County Public Works WO c� 0 EM 0-6 It- I - .(aNrIp 4 Total Fecal Location Dry Creek Dry Creek Dry Creel Dry Crock Pacific Street Storm Drain Pacific Street Storm Drain Pacific Strect Storm Drain Pacific Strict Storm Drain Pacific Stroct Storm Drain Pacific Street Storm Drain 37th Str. /8th Ave. Stone Drain 371h Str. /8th Ave. Storm Drain 37th Str. /8th Ave_ Storm Drain 37th SWIM Ave. Storm Drain 37th Str. /8th Ave. Stone Drain 37th Str. /8th Ave. Storm Drain San Lorenzo River at Waterman Gap San Lorenzo River at Boulder Creek San Lorenzo River at Brookdafe San Lorenzo River at Ben Lomond San Lorenzo River at Felton San Lorenzo River at Sycamore Grove San Lorenzo River at Rivermouth Intel Creek Woodrow Crook Laurel Creek Noble Gulch Junction Avenue Storm Drain )unction Avenue Storm Drain Date Weather Coliforms (MPNI100m1) Coliforms (MPN /100m1) Fecal Strep FC1FS Ratio Source 02127/9! 03/02/41 03/17/91 03120!91 0114/90 01102/91 02102191 02/27/91 03/02/91 03/17/91 01/02/91 02102/9[ 02/27/91 03!02/91 03/17/91 0320/91 1987 -1988 1987 -1988 1987 -1988 1987 -1988 1987 -1988 1987 -1988 1987 -1988 l 986 1984 1986 -1989 1986 -1989 1986 -I 989 04 /20 /88 11123/88 02!09/89 Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet - -- - -- - - -- - -- -- - -- - -- -- ___ Wet Wet Wet 1,600 100 1,600 1,600 16,000 ;1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 >1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 - - - -- -- -- - -- - -- - - - -- 2,3 0(; l 10,000 110,000 1,600 1,600 500 1,600 9 000 ;1,600 1,600 300 1,600 300 ;1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 42 ( logmean) 181 { logmean) 219 (logmean) 115 Qogmean) 223 ( logmean) 67 (logmean) 484 (logmean) 1100 (logmearr) 527 (logmcan) 693 ( logmean) 775 Qogmean) 2,300 24,0(1(1 -- - 15.000 -- - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- - - -- -- - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- - - -• - -- - - - 7 - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- - 0.29 (mean) 0.76 (mean) 0.75 (mean) 0.44 (mean) 0.54 (moan) 0.25 (mean) 2.21 (mean) 0.96 (mean)_ 0.74 (mean) 0.46 (mean) 0.28 (mean) - -- _ -- Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda Countx Public Works Alameda Countv Public Works AlamcdaCounty Public Worts Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda Count} Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County , Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Cruz County D � t of Health Services - Santa Cruz County Dept of Health Services Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program - )unction Avenue Storm Drain )unction Avenue Storm Drain 03/02/89 Wu 150 - -- -- -- -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program N Walsh Avenue Stone Drain 04120/89 Wet _ 7,90D 7,900 4,600 4,600 ?,500 350,0(1(1 2,300 - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Walsh Avenue Storm Drain 11/23/88 Wet 2,400 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Walsh Avenue Storm Drain 02/09/89 Wet _ 2,400 93 - -- _- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Walsh Avenue Storm [pain 03/02/89 Wet - -- - -- Santa Clara Val ley Water District NPS Program Frances/8cama Street Storm Drain 04120/88 Wet 7,900 -- -- Santa Clara Valley Water District 1:YS Program 4 M - `� ---�>L COA)T-(D Location Date Weather Total Coliferms (MPH /100m1) Fecal Coliforms (MPN /100ml) Fees] Strep FC/FS Ratio Source Frances/Beamcr Strew Storm Drain 1123/88 Wet 46,000 11,000 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Franess/Beamer Street Storm Drain 02!09/89 Wet 11,000 4,600 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Franocs/Bcamcr Street Storm Drain 03/02/89 Wet 24,000 930 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Hale Cr+oek 04/2088 Wet 49,000 - -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Hale Creek 11/23189 Wet _24,000 >240,000 1 10,000 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Hale Creek 02!09/89 Wet 24,000 2,400 - - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Flare Creek 03102189 Wet 15,000 2,400 - -• -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Fremont 04/20/88 Wet 170,000 4,900 - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Fremont 11 /23/88 Wet 4,600 4n0 -- - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Fremont 01 /23103 We( 24,000 2,400 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Fremont 02109/89 Wet 46,000 2,400 - -- - Santo Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Fremont 03/02/89 Wet 46,000 2,400 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Paseta/Williams Stroct Storm Drain 04/20!88 Wet 70,000 500 -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Paseta/Williams Street Storrn Drain 11 /23/88 Wet 46,000 1,500 - -- _ - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Paseta/Williams Street Storm Drain 02/09/89 Wet 46,000 15,000 -- - -- Santa Clare Valley Water District NPS P %gram Pascta/Williams Street Storm Drain 03/02!89 Wet 2,100 240 - - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Stevens Creek 04/20/88 Wet 17,000 800 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Stevens Creek 11 /23/88 Wet 110,000 11,000 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Stevens Crack 02 /09/89 Wet 750 75 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Stevens Creek 03/02/89 Wet 93 93 --- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Calabazas Creek 02/26188 Dry 2,400 2,400 - -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program CalabazAs Creek 03/30/88 Dry 4,900 2,300 - -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Calabazas Creek 05/11/88 Dry 138000 8,000 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Calabazas Creel: 0210189 Dry _ 4,600 43 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Calabazas Creek 04/06189 Dry 11,000 1,500 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Calabpl?n Creel: 04 /20/88 Wd 35,0(10 3,300 - - - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Calabazas Creek 11/23/89 Wct >240,000 110,00(1 Calahazas Creek 02/0989 Wet >240,000 125,500 - -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Calabazas Creek 03/02/89 Wet 46,000 35,000 24,000 - -- - -- Santa Clara.-Val ley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 02/26/88 Dry 4,600 - -- - -- ISanta Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 03/30/88 _ Dry Dry 1,300 30,000 1,300 2,_000 -- - - -- - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 05/1 1/88 Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 02/01/89 Dr), 11,000 93 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 04/0689 Dry 2,400 460 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Prognm Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 04120/881 Wet 54,000 7,000 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 11/23/88 Wet 1 >240,000 <240,000 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program S �� I w Total Fecal Coliforms Coliforms Fecal FC/FS /Dealt °Q Date Weather (MPN1100ml) (I%IPN /100ml) Strep Ratio Source Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 01/23/89 Wet 24,000 11,000 - - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channel at Bayshore 02/09/89 Wet 240,000 1 1,000 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Sunnyvale East Channcl at Bayshore 03/0289 Wet 15,000 4,600 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Guadalupe River 02l2W88 Dry 5,400 2,400 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Guadalupe River 03/30/88 Dry 7,900 4,900 - -- - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Guadalupe River 05/11/88 Dry 110,000 2,000 - -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District VPS Program Guadalupe River 02/0189 Dry 17,500 33 - -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Guadalupe River Guadalupe 04/06/89 Dry 3,500 780 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program River 04/20188 Wet 240000 >240,000 NOW 24000 46000 2,400 17,000 - - ISanta Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Guadalupe River 11123/88 Wet <240,000 -- - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Guadalupe River 01/2389 Wet 4,600 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Guadalupe River 02/09/89 Wet 4,600 - - -- Guadalupe River 03/02/89 Wet 46,000 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Creek 02/26/88 Dry 920 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Credo 03/30/1212 Dry 24,000 24,000 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Creek 05111188 Dry 900,000 4,000 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Creek 02/01/89 Dry 4,600 93 - - -- Soma Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Creek 04/06/89 Dry 11,000 2,400 - - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Creek 04/2088 Wet 54,000 17,000 - -- - Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Creek 11123(88 Wet >240,000 110,000 -- - -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Crook 01123/89 Wet Wu >240,000 1 10,000 >240,000 15,000 - - - -- -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program Coyote Creek o/09/89 Coyote Crock 03/02/89 Wet 110,000 110,000 - -- I -- Santa Clara Valley Water District NPS Program w r. EXHIBIT D N / 600/p _qa1 a3 8' v 770 ions o ;�Vjwjw el#r t-wr�l Es ilv v s7 e4K pe,�(N�� T", (qq-3 SECTION 4 SELECTION OF TRACER PARAMETERS INTRODUCTION The detection and identification of inappropriate entries requires the quantification of specific characteristics of the observed outfall baseflow. The characteristics of most interest should be relatively unique for each potential flow source. This will enable the presence of each flow source to be noted, based on the .presence (or absence) of these unique characteristics. The selected characteristics are termed tracers, because they have been selected to enable the identification of the sources of these waters. One approach presented in this User's Guide is based on the identification and quantification of clean baseflow and contaminated components. If the relative amounts of potential components are known, then the importance of the baseflow can be determined. As an example, If a baseflow is mostly uncontaminated groundwater, but contains 5 percent raw sanitary wastewater, It would be a likely important source of pathogenic bacteria. Typical raw sanitary wastewater parameters (e.g., BOD, or suspended solids) would be in low concentrations and the sanitary wastewater source would be difficult to detect. Fecal coliform bacteria measurements would not help much because they originate from many possible sources. Expensive specific pathogen measurements would be needed to detect the problem directly, Tod-T-1 The ideal tracer should have the following characteristics: C• Significant difference in concentrations between possible pollutant sources; �J� f r IEW, • Small variations in concentrations within each likely pollutant source category; • A conservative behavior (i.e., no significant concentration change due to physical, chemical �� I1Qyy�S or biological processes); and, Ease of measurement with adequate detection limits, good sensitivity, and repeatability. rder to identify tracers meeting the above criteria, literature characterizing potential inappropriate entries into storm drainage systems was examined. Several case studies which identified procedures used by individual municipalities or regional agencies were also examined. Though most L_ /"'�t � /VA) of the investigations resorted to expensive and time consuming smoke or dye testing to locate � individual illicit pollutant entries, a few provided information regarding test parameters or tracers. These screening tests were proven useful in identifying drainage systems with problems before the smoke and dye tests were used. The case studies also revealed the types of illicit pollutant entries most commonly found in storm drainage systems. . This list of potential illicit sources (see Section 2) led to a search for information regarding the chemical and physical characteristics of these specific flows. This search yielded typical characteristics for sanitary wastewater, septic tank effluent, coin - operated laundries and car wash effluents as well as potable water and "natural waters ". This information, along with specifics obtained from case dies, provided the basis for selecting parameters for further study. Specific analyses will be needed to identify the characteristics of local potential inappropriate entries and uncontaminated water 18 r� ;i EXHIBIT E- study at right) Similar results were found in a stream near Champaign - Urbana, Illinois (Rolfe and Rein- hold, 1977 —not an inset).,where the upper, two inches of sediment in an urban stream reach had much higher lead concentrations (almost 400 uglg) than sediments in the rural stream reaches. Species diver- sity of plants and animals were • found to be lower in urban streams as compared to streams in rural areas. This impact is likely to be in- fluenced by habitat and tempera- ture changes, as well as pollutant levels. Bacteria Bacterial Ievels in undiluted urban runoff usually will exceed federal public health standards for water contact recreation and shellfish har- vesting. Because bacteria multiply faster during warm weather, it is not uncommon to find a twenty- fold difference in bacterial levels between summer and winter. The. substantial seasonal differences Often found do not correspond with comparable variations in urban ac- tivities. This suggests that in addi- tion to temperature effects, many sources of coliform unrelated to those traditionally associated with human health risk (e.g.. animal ex- crement, illicit connections, leaking sanitary collection systems), may be significant.. Thus, despite the high numbers of coliforms found in urban runoff, in the absence of con- tamination from sanitary sewage, the health implications are unclear. _ The current literature suggests that fecal coliform may not be consis- tently reliable in identifying human health risks from urban runoff pol- lution (Moffa. 1990). The impact of bacterial pollution in coastal wa- Saddle River; New.Jecaey (Meta(slToxtcants Saddles Riverdralns an: aree.oi 53 "miZ ezteridln atom the headwe. g tens iri Southern: Fiocklanif`Cou�tyT::t�lYtsz Gacfleid; m1whiewjei0• tercepts ftl 3ssalc.RlVer"`The StudV was ceiitered'aroeutdahe'' tower, reaches-ofthe.Saddl$ River And encompasses:ttie borciigh of Lodi; NJ; The are& fis - bavllTurbanlzed .viiittt.�,:ct'thearroug single -tamNy housTn fi9G;multE famlly:residentlal, 9� . trial;. 129' commercial ;1Q ;open <eijd; 2 y;.poblic s�ndrmunidpat (Wilber asld Hunteri:::19ao),': geoae.n,ntclpaf and rndustrfar wastewater is.'disptitched:to >Ptitssafc Valley Sevirttrage./luttis�iey s yfaarunkaewers :the;onlr'colldtje: frern> afthe Womt:se, were collected; plate. hydtoq. °copper:nlckel; ". �metals:tn storm ;:wese�ustiall ` toi Y. .Ralhi ir:as a soi IM h6iu ettieab ubfe`pli ICC9:.0' tern is illustrated in the Western Long Island Sound and Westport River, Massachusetts case studies (see insets next page). Studies conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration (NOAA. 1988, 1989, and 1990) indicate that urban runoff is a major pollutant source which ad- versely affects shellfish growing waters. The NOAA studies identi- fied urban runoff as affecting over 578.000 acres of shellfish growing waters on the East Coast (39 per- cent of harvest - limited area); 2.000,000 acres of shellftsh grow- lbrvali : overrthe.- cat» yzedfoc: teed; rinC <s °.`.: titrli5ut6m:W. heavy s. dtile .River itt$z> 1! percent..` CSC met- ing waters in the Gulf of Mexico (59% of the harvest - limited area); and 130,000 acres of shellfish growing waters on the West Coast (52% of harvest-limited areas). Although nearly every urban and suburban land use can export bacte ria at levels which will violate health standards, older and more in tensively developed urban areas typically produce the greatest ex- port: The problem is especially sig nificant in urban areas that experi- ence combined or sanitary sewer overflows that export bacteria de- rived from human wastes. z6 kz_ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. :a (, F� AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Authorization to participate in the ABAG Power Purchasing Pool for the first natural gas purchase Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign and deliver: 1) a Natural Gas Sales and Aggregation Agreement appointing ABAG as the Core Transport Agent for the City in procuring the purchase and transportation of natural gas and 2) PG &E's Customer Authorization for Core Gas Transportation Service. Report Summary: On November 1, 1995, the Council adopted Resolution No. 95 -49 authorizing: 1) the City's participation in ABAG's Power Purchasing Pool, and 2) the City Manager to sign an agreement with ABAG to conduct a Request for Proposal process for natural gay on the City's behalf and to negotiate bot,. i- .atural gas supply contract and transportation.7,_�ement for the City's review and execution. At this time, ABAG has successfully negotiated a natural gas price for ABAG members that is 5.5 percent below PG &E's cost of gas (gas only) and 2.3 percent below PG &E's bundled rate for natural gas and transportation. To enroll in the ABAG program and receive the discounted rates for natural gas, the City must now execute the two agreements described below. Council action is required for two reasons: 1) the agreement between ABAG and the City is "substantially different" than initially presented to Council, and 2) the agreement between ABAG and the City now includes language indicating ABAG's intent to use the agreements as securiL_r in a short -term financing to raise funds to cover both security deposits required by PG &E and cash flow deficits incurred by ABAG. Printed on recycled paper. ABAG Rates for Natural Gas: In order to secure the best possible price for natural gas, ABAG chose to "piggy- back" on a RFP /bid process conducted by the School Project for Utility Rate Reduction (SPURR), a natural gas aggregation program for school districts. The low bidder, Enserch Gas Marketing, Inc., was initially willing to extend their low bid to ABAG members. After further negotiation, Enserch offered additional price concessions, bringing the total reduction in the price of gas to 5.5 percent of PG &E's true cost of gas. In addition, the ABAG program will be able to achieve additional cost savings through commodity management techniques such as pipeline rebrokering, storage, and brokerage fees. These discounts combined are equal to approximately 2.3 percent of PG &E's bundled price for natural gas and transportation combined. Legal Agreement #1: Gas Sales and Aggregation Agreement: CPUC and PG &E regulations require all customers wishing to aggregate their gas requirements with others in order to purchase gas from a third party to sign an agreement with a Core Transport Agent. A Core Transport Agent purchases natural gas on behalf of the group of customers and provides other services such as nomination and delivery of gas supplies, treatment.of gas imbalances, management of gas storage inventories, and other procurement- related activities. The Core Transport Agent also is responsible for billing and collecting payments from the customers for both gas and the utility's transportation charges. After evaluating other options, ABAG decided that ABAG, rather than a gas supplier, should play this critical function with the assistance of a joint venture firm of Diablo Energy Consultants and IQ Solutions. The Gas Sales and Aggregation Agreement authorizes ABAG to serve as the Core Transport Agent for the City, and asks the City to acknowledge that ABAG may, in order to fund PG &E- required security deposits and cash flow deficits, incur short -term debt secured by this agreement. This agreement also provides information on ABAG's fees for this service. ABAG will collect one cent ($0.01) per therm consumed by the City as an operating fee to pay for the services described above. In addition, ABAG will collect one -third of one cent ($0.003) per therm consumed to offset its own administrative costs and the costs associated with start -up activities conducted by New Energy Ventures. The savings discussed above are net of these fees. (For full calculation, see the attached ABAG Rate Schedule.) Legal Agreement #2: PG &E Customer Authorization for Core Gas Transportation Service: By signing this agreement, the City authorizes PG &E to recognize ABAG as the City's Core Transport Agent and agrees that it will continue to be responsible for payment to PG &E of its transportation bills, even though the City authorizes PG &E to send the bill to the Core Transport Agent for payment. PG &E will continue to provide to the City all existing services except procurement of natural gas. These include meter reading, routine service calls, and emergency response. In addition to the bill sent by ABAG, PG &E will provide the City with an "information- only" invoice, displaying the City's actual meter reads for the purpose of confirming ABAG's bill. Fiscal Impacts: The City spends an estimated $12,000 per year for natural gas services. Based on ABAG's estimate of 2.3 percent discount off the PG &E rate, the City will save approximately $275. Although this may not seem like much savings now, according to ABAG, estimated savings will grow as further ' deregulation of natural gas transportation is planned by PG &E. In addition, the City's savings could increase further as additional gas is purchased in connection with the CNG fueling station. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution would not be adopted and the City would not be authorized to participate in the power pool. Follow Up Actions: The Agreements will be signed and transmitted to ABAG. Attachments: 1. Resolution authorizing City Manager to sign agreements. 2. Natural gas sales and aggregation agreement. 3. Customer authorization for core gas transportation services. 4. Estimated gas costs, savings, fees and first payment schedule. 5. Fact sheet about ABAG's Power Purchasing Pool. NATURAL GAS SALES AND AGGREGATION AGREEMENT By and Between ABAG and City of Saratoga For service within the territory of Pacific Gas & Electric Company NATURAL GAS SALES AND AGGREGATION AGREEMENT This Natural Gas Sales and Aggregation Agreement, hereinafter "Agreement ", is made and entered into as of this day of 199 , by and between the Association of Bay Area Governments, a California joint powers agency, hereinafter "ABAG ", and City of Saratoga, a California General Law City, hereinafter "Public Agency ". The parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Eligibility: Public Agency is a member or cooperating member of ABAG. ABAG shall provide directly, or at its option, shall contract to provide coordination services for the purchase and management of a natural gas program for members and cooperating members of ABAG participating in said program [Participant(s)]. 2. Authorities: Public Agency is a customer of an entity providing natural gas services, hereinafter "Utility" under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission, hereinafter "CPUC. " Public Agency appoints ABAG as its exclusive agent to coordinate its participation in the Utility's Natural Gas Aggregation Program for core transport customers, hereinafter "Program ", on behalf of Public Agency for the facilities listed in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. All parties understand and agree that the authority for the Program is granted by and subject to the CPUC, as initially authorized by CPUC Decision No. 91 -02 -040 and modified through CPUC Decision No. 94 -04 -027 and Decision No. 95 -07 -048. This agreement is pursuant to the Utility Aggregation Tariff Rate Schedule(s), Tariff Rules and terms and conditions set forth in such agreement. Public Agency represents and warrants that any prior aggregator authorizations which Public Agency may have executed will be terminated effective no later than the date of this authorization. 3. Services: ABAG shall deliver, or cause to delivered, the following services to Public Agency: 3.1 Analyze and evaluate natural gas supply and transportation strategies; 3.2 Negotiate and implement natural gas purchase, transportation and other similar gas services for Participants; 3.3 Forecast estimated monthly gas requirements of Public Agency; 3.4 Negotiate prices and quantities for natural gas purchases by Public Agency which may include a bid or request for proposal process; 3.5 Perform nominations of gas purchased and transportation services for Public Agency; se 16 Monitor gas account imbalances with transporters; 3.7 Provide for the delivery of natural gas to Participants' facilities as listed in Exhibit A and for storage as permitted by the Utility. 3.8 Generate gas purchase, transportation and storage invoices showing: 3.8.1 For each facility listed in Exhibit A, the meter cycle, monthly usage, gas charges, which include utility transportation charges, operational fees, ABAG administrative fees and any utility charges. 3.8.2 The status of the account identifying the prior account balance, any payments since the previous invoice, current charges plus any applicable late payment charges and credit balances as calculated pursuant to Paragraph 9.3; and 3.9 Provide general consultation services. 4. Enrollment Notification of Changes: Public Agency shall through the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein, submit to ABAG its list of accounts to be served hereunder. Public Agency represents and warrants that all facilities listed in Exhibit A distribute natural gas used by Public Agency and that none of the facilities will be serviced by another core transport agent as of the Start Date as defined in Paragraph 9.5. Public Agency shall also notify ABAG of changes in Public Agency's facilities or operations which are reasonably expected to increase or decrease the consumption of natural gas more than ten percent (10 %) as compared to historical levels. Public Agency may add facilities to Exhibit A upon prior written notice to ABAG and the submission of a "Customer Authorization for Core Gas Transportation Service" form (or Utility authorized equivalent) to the Utility. Public Agency may delete facilities from Exhibit A only upon written consent by ABAG, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, except that Public Agency may delete facilities without ABAG's consent if Public Agency abandons the facility or transfers the facility to another entity. 5. Agency Relationship: Public Agency authorizes ABAG to act as its exclusive agent for the Program and does hereby constitute and appoint an authorized officer or agent of ABAG to act on its behalf as its lawful agent for the implementation of the Program. This authorization shall include the right to do and perform all acts, with full power to execute all documents requisite and necessary to be done in all matters relating to the purchase, sale, and transportation of natural gas. Therefore, Public Agency authorizes ABAG to take actions appropriate to establish and implement the Program, including, but not limited to: 5.1 Aggregating the gas supplies and services of Public Agency with those of other Participants in conjunction with providing such gas supplies and services to Public Agency and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Program; -2- 5.2 Executing local distribution company riders and other documentation on behalf of Public Agency; 5.3 Nominating gas supplies on behalf of Public Agency; 5.4 Handling gas imbalances, gas storage, and all other operational transactions with the Utility in order to deliver gas to the Utility for subsequent redelivery to Public Agency; and 5.5 Arranging for payment of Program bills for natural gas, transportation and other Utility charges. Public Agency understands and agrees that in the event of nonpayment by ABAG, Public Agency will be responsible for payment of Public Agency's bills for gas and services, even if the Public Agency has already made payment to ABAG for those gas quantities and services. Public Agency understands that if ABAG's contract with the Utility terminates for any reason, on Public Agency's receipt of notice from Utility, Public Agency will receive gas service for Exhibit A accounts under core procurement service from the Utility commencing on the first day of Public Agency's next billing cycle pursuant to the terms and conditions of the applicable core procurement Tariff Rate Schedule for each Public Agency's accounts for the remainder of the Contract Year. 6. Title: All purchase, transportation and other gas service contracts shall be in the name of ABAG. 7. Term: Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 12 or 13 hereof, and receipt of timely notifications of alternative arrangements, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect from the date first written above until June 30, 1997. Subject to Paragraph 13, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for additional one -year periods upon ABAG's submission to Public Agency of written notice no later than June 1 of each year and stating all proposed fees for the extension period. 8. Fees: The operational fees for all the services described in Paragraphs 3 and 5 above will be one cent ($.01) per therm used by Public Agency until June 30, 1997. An administrative fee of three - tenths of one cent ($.003) per therm used by Public Agency will also be charged until June 30, 1997. 9. Payment: 9.1 On a monthly basis, unless otherwise approved by Public Agency, ABAG will provide, or cause to be provided, to Public Agency a consolidated invoice for the Public Agency's facilities serviced under this Agreement. Invoices will be directed to and payment is to be made directly by Public Agency to the escrow account designated pursuant to Paragraph 10 of this Agreement. Payment is due immediately upon receipt of the invoice. Late payment charges at the rate of one and a half percent (1.5 %) per month calculated daily on the outstanding balance will be imposed commencing on the thirty-first (31st) day after the mailing date of the invoice. Late payment charges may, at ABAG's sole discretion, be debited against Public Agency's Credit Account as defined in Paragraph 9.3. -3- 9.2 ABAG will invoice Public Agency, and Public Agency will pay, in fifteen (15) monthly installments sums representing payments in advance for the natural gas and services provided under this Agreement (Invoiced Amounts). Initially, Invoiced Amounts will be based on ABAG's estimate of Public Agency's consumption of natural gas for the month leveled to eliminate extreme consumption fluctuations but adjusted to reflect moderated seasonal fluctuations. Each invoice will also identify the costs, if any, of natural gas, transportation, utility charges, operational fees and administration fees charged to Public Agency for the period identified in the invoice (Actual Charges). Any disputes between the parties regarding the amount of any Actual Charges shall be resolved pursuant to Section H of Exhibit B to this Agreement and the Credit Account, as defined in Paragraph 9.3 will be adjusted as soon as practicable to reflect the resolution of the dispute. 9.3 For each invoice, ABAG will calculate (a) the difference between the Invoiced Amount and the Actual Charges, and (b) the, difference between the cumulative total of the Invoiced Amounts and the cumulative total of Actual Charges, adjusted pursuant to Paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 (Credit Account). Public Agency recognizes that the Credit Account is a calculation of payments, credits, debits and charges made pursuant to this Agreement and that ABAG will not be required to establish actual fund accounts on behalf of, or in the name of Public Agency, with monies. 9.4 . In accordance with the terms of Paragraph 10, ABAG will first apply the Invoiced Amounts to the payment of Actual Charges. Public Agency acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement ABAG has the right to use monies in the amount reflected in the Credit Account to pay Actual Charges incurred by other Participants in the Program as such Actual Charges become due. Such use of the monies will not be a debit against the Credit Account and will not obviate, eliminate or modify ABAG's obligation to pay Public Agency the Credit Account amount pursuant to Paragraph 13.3. ABAG retains the right to modify Invoiced Amounts to increase the sum of Credit Accounts in the Program in order to timely pay Actual Charges as they become due. 9.5 The initial invoice will be dated March 1, 1996 and must be paid by April 1, 1996 (Start Date), or.this Agreement terminates on April 1, 1996. Upon prior written notice to Public Agency, ABAG may delay the Start Date to accommodate Program requirements. 9.6 In the event Public Agency fails to make timely payment, consistent with the terms employed by ABAG, in addition to any other remedy it may have hereunder and notwithstanding the existence of any late payment penalty, ABAG may declare Public Agency to be in default and terminate the agreement. ABAG is further authorized to bill Public Agency for reasonable charges associated with demands for payment on late accounts as well as reasonable charges associated with suspension and resumption of service hereunder. -4- 10. Disbursement of Funds: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, ABAG agrees to provide for sale and delivery, and Public Agency agrees to receive and to pay ABAG for natural gas . Further, Public Agency agrees to pay for the Actual Charges. 10.1 An escrow account for the purposes of receiving payments by Participants and making payments to the Utilities, the gas supplier and other payees as authorized by ABAG will be established. 10.2 The instructions for this escrow account have been approved by ABAG, and shall include a list of the authorized recipients of payments from the account. 10.3 Only ABAG may authorize release of funds from the escrow account, and such shall only be to those payees identified in the escrow instructions. 11. Gas Program Pricing: The gas charges to the participants will include the gas commodity per therm rate which shall be equal to ninety-four and one -half percent (94.5 %) of the Utility's core subscription weighted average cost of gas (WACOG) multiplied by Public Agency's gas usage plus the applicable utility transportation charges. Any storage injection charges or storage withdraw credits will be calculated at the gas commodity per therm rate for the applicable month. The gas commodity price stated in this paragraph shall remain in effect until June 30, 1997 . 12. Change of Re lations: Any future change in law, rule or regulation, or utility practice which prohibits or frustrates ABAG or the Public Agency from carrying out the terms of this Agreement shall excuse both parties from their obligations, other than the obligation of Public Agency to make payments due for gas and services received. 13. Cancellation of Service: 13.1 Cancellation by Public Agency: Commencing in 1997, Public Agency may only withdraw or cancel this Agreement consistent with the rules and regulations promulgated by the CPUC and in a manner which releases ABAG from all responsibility and liability related to the subject matter of the Agreement. Public Agency may cancel the contract by giving ABAG written notice by June 15 of its intent to terminate on June 30 of that current year. ABAG may limit a Public Agency's ability to cancel at dates other than June 30. 13.2 Cancellation by ABAG: Actions by the utilities and /or CPUC to develop rules which are in conflict with sound business practices, or impose unnecessary risk on either party to this Agreement, or substantially prevent ABAG from performing its functions under this Agreement may result in the cancellation of this Agreement by ABAG. ABAG shall give Public Agency written notice ninety (90) days prior to such cancellation and both parties shall work diligently to minimize the negative effects on ABAG and the Public Agency of such cancellation. -5- 13.3 Credit Account Payout: Within ninety (90) days after cancellation, ABAG will pay to Public Agency the amount of its Credit Account as modified pursuant to Paragraph 9.2, less any debits imposed pursuant to Paragraph 9.1 and less any outstanding Actual Charges owed by Public Agency. 14. Power Purchasing Pool Committee: (Public Agency Representative), shall be the Public Agency's representative to the Power Purchasing Pool Committee to the ABAG Executive Board. The Power Purchasing Pool Committee shall provide policy direction for the Program. The Committee's powers shall include admission of new Participants and the extension of any contracts for the purchase of natural gas and/or related services under rules and procedures adopted by the Committee. 15. Approvals: The Public Agency Representative may grant any approval, or give any direction required by this Agreement, in writing or orally. Written approvals or directions may be transmitted physically, by facsimile or electronically. Oral approvals will be confirmed in writing by either party. 16. Attorneys' Fees: In the event either party invokes its right to arbitration under Section H of Exhibit B due to an alleged breach of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as determined by the arbitrator. 17. Ownership of Files. Reports Photographs and Related Documents: Upon termination of the Agreement, any and all files, reports, photographs, plans, specifications, drawings, data, maps, models and related documents respecting in any way the subject matter of this Agreement, whether prepared by ABAG, the Public Agency or third parties and in whatever media they are stored shall remain or shall become the property of the Public Agency and the Public Agency shall acquire title to, and copyright ownership of, all such documents. The Public Agency hereby grants to ABAG an irrevocable license to retain a copy of all records covered by this section for ABAG's files. 18. Indemnity: Public Agency shall indemnify and hold harmless ABAG, its directors, its member agencies, its agents and its employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance or non - performance of the services required by this Agreement, unless such is caused by the negligence of ABAG, its directors, its member agencies, its agents or its employees. 19. Assignment/Security Arrangements: Public Agency hereby acknowledges that ABAG may, in order to finance security deposit and cash flow deficits incurred in connection with the operation with this Program, incur short -term debt which may be secured by an assignment, encumbrance or hypothecation of this Agreement and/or payments due hereunder. 20. Notices: The following addresses for the giving of notices and billings shall be: Public Agency Notices Name: Address: Facsimile No.: Attn.: Public Agency Billing Address Name: Address: Facsimile No.: Attn.: ABAG Notices ABAG 3201 Danville Blvd., Suite 275 Alamo, CA 94507 ABAG Program Coordinator Telephone No: 510- 743 -7877 Facsimile No: 510- 743 -1014 -7- Telephone No.: Email: Telephone No.: Email: 21. Severability: If any provision of this Agreement or the application of any such provision shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable to any extent, the remaining provisions of this Agreement and the application thereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired, or invalidated. 22. Captions: The captions appearing in this Agreement are inserted as a matter of convenience and in no way define or limit the provisions of this Agreement. 23. Other Contract Provisions: This Agreement shall be subject to the other standard provisions which are set forth in the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands effective the date and year first above written. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS By: Date: �% >, ene Y ong, Exe! a Director Approved as to legal form and content: By: K . Moy, Legal Counsel PUBLIC AGENCY La Approved as to legal form and content: Account Number Date: H Date: Date: EXHIBIT B STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS A. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. B. Waiver. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach either of the same or a different provision of this Agreement. C. Controlling Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. D. Binding on Successors. Etc. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, or transferees of ABAG or Public Agency as the case may be. This provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign, transfer, hypothecate, or pledge this Agreement other than as provided above. E. Records /Audit. ABAG shall keep complete and accurate books and records of all financial aspects of its relationship with Public Agency in accordance with generally- accepted accounting principles. ABAG shall permit authorized representatives of Public Agency and/or any of Public Agency's governmental grantors to inspect, copy, and audit all data and records of ABAG relating to its performance of services under this Agreement. ABAG shall maintain all such data and records intact for a period of three (3) years after the date that services are completed hereunder or this Agreement is otherwise terminated. F. Prohibited Interest. ABAG's officers, employees or agents shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors, potential contractors, or parties to subcontracts. G. Insurance Requirements. (1) ABAG shall, at its own expense, obtain and maintain in effect at all times during the life of this Agreement the following insurance: (a) Workers' compensation insurance as required by law. (b) Comprehensive general liability insurance coverage of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) in the aggregate for products and/or completed operations and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for automobiles. (c) Professional liability insurance with minimum liability limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate. 1 (2) All ABAG's insurance policies shall contain an endorsement providing that written notice shall be given to Public Agency at least thirty (30) days prior to termination, cancellation, or reduction of coverage in the policy or policies, and all policies shall be carried by an insurance company or companies acceptable to Public Agency. (3) In addition, each policy or policies of insurance described in subparagraph (2) above shall contain an endorsement providing for inclusion of Public Agency and its directors, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds with respect to the work or operations in connection with this Agreement and providing that such insurance is primary insurance and that no insurance of Public Agency will be called upon to contribute to a loss. (4) Promptly upon execution of this Agreement, ABAG shall deliver to Public Agency certificates of insurance evidencing the above insurance coverages. Such certificates shall make reference to all provisions or endorsements required herein and shall be signed on behalf of the insurer by an authorized representative thereof. ABAG agrees that at any time upon written request by Public Agency to make available copies of such policies certified by an authorized representative of the insured. (5) The foregoing requirements as to types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by ABAG and approval of policies by Public Agency are not intended to, and shall not; in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by ABAG pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, liability assumed pursuant to ABAG's insurance policies under Subsections (1)(b) of this section. (6) ABAG shall require all subcontractors to comply with the insurance requirements described in Section G(1)(a) -(c), inclusive. H. Arbitration. Any dispute between ABAG and the Public Agency regarding the interpretation, effects, alleged breach or powers and duties arising out of this Agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be selected by agreement between the parties by lot from a list of up to six (6) arbitrators with each party submitting up to three (3) arbitrators. 2 Distribution: For PG &E use only ❑PG &E Program Administrator (original) CTA Group No.: ❑CTA Contract No.: ❑Customer Date Received: Effective Service Date: Termination Date: ATTACHMENT A CUSTOMER AUTHORIZATION FOR CORE GAS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE By this Authorization for Core Gas Transportation Service (Authorization), tt,usiomer, 1, my), a(n), whose business address is requests Core Gas Transportation service from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E), a California Corporation and authorizes Association of Bay Area Governments (CTA), a(n) California joint Dowers agenngy , whose business address is 101 Eiahth Street Oakland CA 94607 -4756 to act as CTA for the purpose of establishing and administering core gas transportation service on my behalf in accordance with the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). CTA is authorized to do any and all things both proper and necessary in establishing and administering such service for and on my behalf, including (by way of illustration and not limitation) the purchase, nomination and delivery of gas supplies, treatment of gas imbalances, management of gas storage inventories, and all procurement - related transactions for my PG &E accounts contained in this Authorization. Core Gas Transportation Service will begin no later than 90 days from the date PG &E receives this Authorization. The effective service date for the Authorization will be the first day of the month following its execution by PG &E (or the first meter reading date of the month following its execution by PG &E, if earlier). Each PG &E account will begin Core Gas Transportation Service on the normal meter reading date in the effective service month. The initial term of this Authorization will be (12) consecutive months from the effective service date and thereafter will continue month -to -month unless Customer closes its business, until Authorization is canceled by PG &E as specified in Rule 23, or either Customer or CTA executes and submits to PG &E Attachment E, Termination of Customer Authorization for Core Gas Transportation Service. Unless otherwise specified, Termination received by the first of the month will become effective for each account on the normal meter reading date in the following month. Customer authorizes PG &E to release to CTA by written or electronic transfer the current and historical gas -usage information for PG &E accounts contained in this Authorization. Customer releases, holds harmless, and indemnifies PG &E from any liability, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, or expenses resulting from unauthorized use of this information. PG &E will provide its services to Customer as established in the terms and conditions of Schedule G -CT, Rule 23, and other rules and regulations and any modifications thereto as authorized from time to time by the CPUC. Customer will continue to be responsible for payment of PG &E transportation bills, even if Customer authorizes PG &E to send its bill to CTA for payment. Customer is responsible for franchise fees under Schedule G -SUR and any Utility User's Tax that may be required as a result of receiving gas commodity through CTA. The CPUC does not regulate CTA, and any disputes with CTA will be Customer's sole responsibility. Billing disputes between Customer and PG &E will be resolved as specified in Rule 10 and Rule 23. Forth No. 79- 845 - Attachment A Pricing & Regulatory Support August 18, 1995 Pagel Check one: ❑ 1 request that PG &E bill me directly for its services at my current billing address(es). PG &E may provide CTA with an information -only statement of my PG &E charges. ❑ 1 request that PG &E send my PG &E bill to CTA for payment, subject to approval by PG &E. If PG &E approves the CTA for this billing option, I will receive an information -only statement of my PG &E charges, sent by PG &E to my current billing address(es). PG &E must receive one completed and signed original of Authorization. Facsimiles or photocopies must be accompanied by an original. PG &E will use the following addresses to send formal notices, tariffs, PG &E service information and executed agreements to Parties. This will not change the current billing address on PG &E accounts. (Customer Company Name) Mailing Address: Service Address: Attention: Telephone Number. Telecopy Number. s ) Association of Bay Area Gov'ts (CTA Company Name) Mailing Address: 3201 Danville Blvd Suite 275 Alamo CA 94507 Service Address: 3201 Danville Blvd Suite 275 Alamo CA 94507 Attention: ABAG Coordinator Telephone Number. ( 510 ) 743 -7877 Telecopy Number. ( 510 ) 743 -1014 (Please Type or Print Clearly) Signed by: (Signature of duly authorized representative) For (Customer Company Name) (Print Name) (Title) (Date) Pacific Gas & Electric Company Mailing Address: P.O. Box 770000 Mail Code H28H San Francisco CA 94177 Service Address: 123 Mission Street Mail Code H28H San Francisco CA 94105 Attention: Core Transport Program Admin. Telephone Number: (415) 973 -3059 Telecopy Number: (415) 973 -2384 Accepted by: (Signatu " of dulylqLdlorized represe tive) For: Association of Bay m nt (CTA Company Name) Eugene Y. Leong (Print Name) Executive Director (Title) (Date) Form No. 79- 845- Attachment A Pricing & Regulatory Support August 18, 1995 Page 2 For PG &E use only CTA Group No.: Contract No.: Date Received: Effective Service Date: Termination Date: ATTACHMENT A CUSTOMER AUTHORIZATION FOR CORE GAS TRANSPORATION SERVICE Customer requests that the following PG &E gas account(s) begin Core Gas Transportation Servichdress City Account Number 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVE #A 2 13777 FRUITVALE AVE 3 19700 ALLENDALE AVE 4 SARATOGA -SC RD 5 SS OAK 200 W /SARA LG ❑ Check box if additional listings of accounts are attached. Note: Under PG &E's CPUC- approved tariffs governing Core Gas Transportation Service, a CTA is "an individual or company that contracts with PG &E and participating core gas transportation service Customers as the responsible agent to manage natural gas deliveries to PG &E on behalf of a Core Transport Group." CTAs operate independent of PG &E. They are not agents of PG &E, and PG &E is not liable for any of the CTA's acts, omissions, or presentations. Form No. 79- 845- Attachment A Pricing and Regulatory Support August 18, 1995 Page 3 of _ SARATOGA XVJ3105171 SARATOGA XVJ3105341 SARATOGA XVJ3105851 SARATOGA YVJ4605121 SARATOGA YVJ4635961 ❑ Check box if additional listings of accounts are attached. Note: Under PG &E's CPUC- approved tariffs governing Core Gas Transportation Service, a CTA is "an individual or company that contracts with PG &E and participating core gas transportation service Customers as the responsible agent to manage natural gas deliveries to PG &E on behalf of a Core Transport Group." CTAs operate independent of PG &E. They are not agents of PG &E, and PG &E is not liable for any of the CTA's acts, omissions, or presentations. Form No. 79- 845- Attachment A Pricing and Regulatory Support August 18, 1995 Page 3 of _ Estimated Natural Gas Costs, Savings, Fees, and First Month Payment for Your Jurisdiction or Agency According to data submitted by PG &E to ABAG, your 1994 -95 natural gas usage and costs were: City of Saratoga Projected ABAG Savings $205 This is net savings with all administrative costs deducted. This estimate was calculated by multiplying your anticipated 1996 PG &E bills by the ABAG projected savings of 2.3 percent. Estimated First Month Payment $894 This payment is approximately one - fifteenth of the total value of your estimated natural gas consumption for the 15 -mo period April 1, 1995 - June 30, 1997. In order to participate in the ABAG program, you must remit this amount by April 1, 1996 (An invoice will be sent on March 1st). Actual PG &E Usage Cost 1994 -95 Jul 705 $422 Aug 418 $285 Sep 482 $320 Oct 683 $429 Nov 2,926 $2,121 Dec 3,336 $2,419 Jan 2,520 $1,896 Feb 1,762 $1,346 Mar 1,677 $1,258 Apr 1,118 $671 May 654 $412 Jun 566 $373 TOTAL 16,847 $11,952 Projected ABAG Savings $205 This is net savings with all administrative costs deducted. This estimate was calculated by multiplying your anticipated 1996 PG &E bills by the ABAG projected savings of 2.3 percent. Estimated First Month Payment $894 This payment is approximately one - fifteenth of the total value of your estimated natural gas consumption for the 15 -mo period April 1, 1995 - June 30, 1997. In order to participate in the ABAG program, you must remit this amount by April 1, 1996 (An invoice will be sent on March 1st). „,.,ABAG 'S POWER PURCHASING POOL .f ,. [• , rri [ r �/ • y`:rT 5_.. ,t t. r .r � ,t. r; t, ' ABAG's Sgwings Plan r 3 r a i r r.y 4— s 4 ABAG is pleased to offer: Pool participants a natural gas Lpurchase program that will ^� S estimated 2.30,46 reduction in PG &E's actual natural gas charges s pus .f.,j1 i v. 3JN'r, , ci..,c f1' tT ,k ,,Y tfl"t{,•'} h k ', t f'� b` r y. e* rh .. f ty >it T ,.r ,,at z �rY �t -�`[. ) , t:'. ,J ti ..•,y i ')i 'w :, r % ^ ! r {fl,a4:,'d, J 1, '� 'ir'!' 1 irri ,,s e i•/' S t4. ri 'hif !'lwtJ'} {.. �f- �I. Pl y. qtr :• ,t.r,�Yi, i�L n r:. twt><'r tti y , COt To understand ABAG s Savings an, rt s important to remember that only_ a gas'port. * "natural gas' service yhas been deregulated and that• the cost of gas represents'ronly'one -thin f�`:bundled rates ` The table bel6i i -shows ABAG's estimated savings ha as a percentage of U .r y t } ,! .as t y a ' p�er.c..e, n tage of PG ,e &r .E's } ac actual natural � nK at[ u rar.l g, ars f ch, ar rges F r r ­­.I Xi ; i,^ 31 ' , `��[.[!I'.t, )• !t t'4rJ ..L., tr; , N 4".tLl: } ;% '! �b�iGt'✓?!'j .G Y..' ith1��. t� , F ings for Pool`Panc�i ' ants Estimated Sav r G t L t ;... . .. s) ( c_. : -,..: ,k: ,'C e jr'}a.. .r _,:. ',•. .,a � rt,. ..kC': -r., a , aJt, +'wt!:,';.i •t y x i�' i!',C S'rt. Cents /therm) Gasp` �:, Total off off q'h tr }h .A _, )4 C[t t`tt /� r .Dl:. �... � ,�4 on Y* rs r,.• Gas Bill” , LrIa.i 1 �� r ? Ff,t#'y .'?� fF7r_ �' tof -.'ry. t '? r d a N;•ty1 a.F�l .7n iy '.. Y t.t �. ,' rra3 y� Commodity t„ r 0 ° _, 4 .93 5.5 /o r 2.0% Commode ty M anamt geen 50 8.9% r , t 3.0 % ,., Transportati on (Same as PG&E) ; t t Y ` 0 00 r r ' 0 0% 0 0% _ r r ` a a , •�pt..h ' ! ,' /'hiC M, { • -, H �. :r d 0 ,r C u � , ,. t;' � -. s. 'ri •�� ,+i. r•29 t .:.`'Y � _} -+ � R _, iv Savings before Service Fees ' h t �{ 2.43 + o r / f a[ £ �' 14/0 46/0 r � 4 Y. '� +'� aP�� r r , • 4 � �l * rt 7 [ qs 1..�`'# . 4; p �� n •� t s i+ r h + F > 1 t ` d ` ,. +q. , r r `' W ' � ,� t r. t; M if a t l y: '4•; , qb -1, i yvy Nr r 3�1 r l r' r...( \t ! ABAG Fees aP ' ti 1 30 . M t' 7 C) /0 tir 2 6/0 W >c 16, F TOTAL /° 2.3 /o (�7 ,'. �,a utl:�.: ' �� iV �� •The cost of gas is onlyone -third of PG &E's total bundled rate' * *Savings m' this chart are calculated as a percentage of PG &E's cost of gas plus PG &E's average �,,. �f transportation costs r V A A t'i Sld 4•;r•ti r Y' Fr T.'�fii N' '�� -. +.? +'� ri r,Spr + :. < >•. , s t. v � , atr v _ r t�. bL s R1 ,,` ti > , ZR r 4.r't:�+ ar }{t � t � •! 5 ,4t *� i' t:. P, , +Ai tta +,;t ti,+ ?'.'. 1+�:•yj• r.T tt.{ i h44t pi 17 � ea +f : J.•1 F ti wt � J '�;. i ,.. r,. t x ♦ - t ?'%' � � •i'.' _u - r. V ,., . ;.. c aF,� :. .,..vc ,�'.•.:�' fit'. ABAG savings are achieved m two ways Fast, participants will purchase natural gas at a price fixed S:5 vt percent less than PG &E's true cost of natural gas, as determined by PG &E's monthly Core Subscription ,,, - tariff (G -CSP). ` Second, ABAG estimates participants will receive an additional 8.9 percent discount on ` I the cost of natural gas through commodity management activities such as pipeline rebrokering, storage, Y , and brokerage fees. : ABAG anticipates' these savings will grow over the next ' two years as further] deregulation of the transportation portion is implemented. f -,'P. . r, `i "x ! ^ ..,. (: L.,�pt I1.^;d'4. .: t_, •1 } c, t` q _..74`•LAti ABAG fees to be deducted include: 1 an •operational fee of $0.01 per therm to cover the costs of issuing a consolidated monthly, bill and managing the, Pool's gas Supply requirements and 2) an administrative fee of 0 003 per the $ p rm to cove a costs , . r administrative . StratiV t f'F L • r See page 2 for additional information about ABAG rates. Questions? Please call Patty Spangler at (510)'46'4-7933 or Tom Solberg at Diablo Energy Consultants at (510) 743 -78770 4 tt kk Additional Information about ABAG Rate's I� r t+r r i } ��f` , (� ' • + 1 ! �j j't' at are the major difference between PG &E's rates and ABAG's`rates? _., � 111 rl }.y.�= �'.. 'r' y' � � ,.:�',ils � ia. �!Y r� t , �,F � jlr'� A {}r„ r'll .�, >< -�• �. t l S• f�(. � 7 -�.` � t,� -ydrt � 5t,�.-: 4"1", {,. ; PG &E's rates are based on a forecasted puce �of,gas' for a"two year period, while ABAG's rates 'ieflect ' iF x: f`' the 'actual price of gas m ,the month of use ; For example, PG&E's will charge 17 cents per therm" for N �, <�E; t Ytkl every therm used by customer for a two year period; and then refund any overcharges or underchaigesn �' `J a ��� + the next two yearcycle through a discount or fee call the Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA) ABAG 1 YYl'rikl P r7: . +� , a }. ♦.'r .l . y ,1� .. . .. r tyr '.' t } „ rates will` vary month to month but will always be 5 5 %0 less' than PG &E's ' char 6- after ) "`,the' P y` ` r S.a:�.�Si'..l�.. I4�,,S'!1;,��J e:�C:i.Sd.�' Li:r�t...lniw.nl!•F:f S.'v.i�l.- xt4,,.i�'r %$r.,. ,.;17v,.4.'fi;P.:'?, •^{ ^.. ..•�[ %.1- ......,. _ ..e.•... vt7J wu5 i uunts per ulerm -r,U&II is torecasting the average 1996 price to be T•.7 cents per therm. AS the � x - price'of gas climbs m winter months`ABAG saviii s r "will `w to 3 %. ;'4w�;ir� 4 T.- 2 1 tll1. t.r rk}1 <,!l -'•; / {r.y ., g V: t '� t4.i 1. �1�!' v A: td P i. �i, f f Ys3 :1;'A'� sl 1 1 ;t, ;1 Cs �: t.tr ���)hF�} igti i�i��n�e�t'} 7j� }y �, 1.te ^� fi.�v'f 1 � 4 y'" r .0 �' ,�'! �y ��" .•',y' l {, °,l � � �, ,y �,� Gas (cents /therm)) y �'} $�� �11r��.. r. W . , . � . ,•:: �.i� , ;, ,: •' -~ b -: ' = ..,,� rN- <,. >;c K • • ,• � �, n , x A LU LH LE LU LU LQ LU + I , a ',la :� v � +.: a �w t ,� I, • fi _.. �' Nf r it +! S t a -�,S\ ,1+ ,� ,, J i- 1 , +"' f e..6, ' > rJ .. ,ul ,. ,! '1i `'' S ,s t, _ :A h;. 'i 1� � .s •`. -J - ?• `t' � S'1* ` i'jtr 's. s �l�rf Y r..r i Fix Gas Discount 0.6 0.7 0.7 ' 10.8 0.8 0.9 ; : 0.9 ­41.0 1 0± 1.1 Ill 2 11 t 1 2� t, Com. Man. Savings f � . 5 t 1'.5 1.5 1.5' I.5 1'.5 1.5 1.5 1 5 � 1 5 l" 1 5 -1.5 '���11 5 t, + 4 Savings r7til 2.1 ,2 .1 2.4 2:4 2.5 2.5 2 6 2.7 '1' -2 4 r ! 1! .'2' = 1 Fees 1.3 r 1 3 1.3 1.3 1'.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1 3 -13 ,.Savings (Net of Fees) 0.8 J '0.8 0.9 1'.0 ;1.0 ; :1.1 ;11` 1'.2 1'.2 i _ 1.3 •14 x,14 ' { (f y v a�xi it �h i S1 w Percent of PG &E 1 %•2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% .2% 2% 2% 3% 3% ....'.�, ;Slay n ; y 1 i <, 4 ' , •1 >'t r J 1.,. ly. t �, , � - >t 1. e. + � ,r r; ; +. t: ♦ , , ' ,ti kr, -y y .f4 ;•, ' �, •1 'li �,,,� �` + +t ="�(S �+., �_ ' How much money•will ABAG, New Energy Ventures, and Diablo Energy Consultants receive ­4- fees remitted by participants and what do these fees pay for? . , t . , - r 1 J ' r w ` ° Y t c d / {' a J f b. ✓ y '� - t 5. * w t , jJ { 'r �r � 7 .f •' ,. } , t e '� yr ,w� � Total fees will vary .'4 r. .• a Yom'' -4 rl?�'�: Mt�`ini/ ti. •r t`�:!',.�3 ;.� r,S i.:�! 1J'r� },�i1� Jt With the ` number of participants and the annual amount of gas purchased. ABAG 1. estimates the final pool size will between 5 and 10 million therms annually Total fees for these amounts s r 4,,: r• { are shown below �� '+ �' ff +, >w F • , r �. 3 t'x �,. t1 , b { „e i u' , t `,�h{• rS 4., } k�. ^f,r.., -`y Y ,f t" r it nu`Il .nify,i�.t: '3. �i" 1 ', {q �: h �' J..i l• 1.' r , +xv �, +� �;h r ' t , �:. 1r k r_r t 1 V i•� f ,. "7 '�'t 1.v1 , `L� -l�`` V> 1,e6 ,},MA tf, �,f ! +�. P{ �) t { �S t till•.; �'t MI+ '' ' Pool Size (in nillions�l Total Value r ,t• .Total Fee 5,0001000 $ 850 000 f !�+ J �``;' fY; xl{ ",•'�� j r T�° „t.., r $ ;.65,000 t 1:7,500,000 1,275,000 $ 97,500 ..,10,000,000 $ 1,700,000 $ '130,000 w', f ' +,:, ss'ra, �� L,:•�' �' a •.r , .r ` r, ., � _ {.. J: .Y ti':: +y �._ , rL+ST� , � f �1 1� .•dr. _ Seventy -seven percent of the fee pays for the cost of billing and commodity management activities to be ' performed by Diablo Energy 'Consultants and IQ Solutions. The remaining 23% of the fee pays for costs} incurred by ABAG and New Energy Ventures to pay suppliers; manage both the escrow account and databases, and for ongoing liaison with participants. - ABAG estimates its administrative costs will exceed its portion of fee revenues b a significant P y amount in the start-up year of the Program. ' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-60-5 S AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 21, 1996 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office )1�7 e, pive 44 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Cable Television Franchise - Request for Transfer of Ownership Recommended Motion(s): Approve a request made by Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. to assign and transfer the Saratoga cable television franchise and enter into • Cable Television Transfer Agreement covering conditions for such • transfer. Report Summary: Council initially was asked to consider the transfer of Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. on December 20, 1995. At that time, the staff had identified many areas of concern regarding the transfer and recommended that the Council deny the transfer. An extension for the consideration of the transfer was agreed to by the City and Brenmor so that issues could potentially be resolved no later than February 29, 1996. Since December 20, staff held two meetings with Brenmor and TCI to review additional information regarding the issues outlined in the previous staff report. Staff has been in receipt of the majority of financial, legal and technical documents that were requested and is available to respond to any specific issues Council is interested in regarding those documents. A summary of the issues that were discussed as well as a summary indication of what information was provided in our first meeting in January accompanies this report as Attachment A. A transfer agreement has been prepared as Attachment B and, amongst other provisions, contains the identification of any remaining items which we believe should be grounded within the transfer document for emphasis and /or implementation, including "going forward" issues such as late fee charges, truck roll charges, etc. Staff has been analyzing the transfer documents provided by Brenmor in order to determine TCI- Cleveland's legal, technical and financial qualifications to assume responsibility for the City of Saratoga's cable television franchise. Staff reviewed these supplemental documents and is satisfied with the information provided for the majority of our concerns. Fiscal Impacts• There would be no direct fiscal impact from this recommendation. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact! Posting of the agenda. Brenmor and TCI received copies of this report. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: If the Council does not take action to approve the transfer, the City will be in violation of the federal cable act which requires the City to act (approve, deny, conditionally approve) on a franchise transfer request within 120 days of receipt of a complete transfer application, unless the City and Brenmor mutually agree to an extension. Follow Up Actions: City Manager will execute the Cable Transfer Agreement with Brenmor Partners, L.P. Attachments: I. Letter from TCI dated January 9, 1996 and subsequent fax of February 9, 1996 II. CATV Franchise Transfer Agreement 2 TCI Cablevision of California January 9, 1996 Mr. Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock: ��TgCN�►�Nd Hand Delivered We are pleased to respond to the issues raised in your December 20, 1995 staff report to council on the impending franchise transfer from Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d.b.a. South Bay Cablevision ( "Brenmor ") and TCI of Cleveland, Inc. ( "TCI- Cleveland "). At this time, our responses are limited to those pertaining to TCI - Cleveland. 1) Staff Report Concern - ... "there has been no certified indication that Brenmor will require TCI - Cleveland, Inc. to unconditionally assume all the obligations, (past, present and future) of the current cable franchise which are stipulated in the City of Saratoga's cable television ordinance and existing franchise agreement with Brenmor." Response: We are unclear as to your specific concerns because TCI - Cleveland will assume all of the obligations of the Brenmor's existing franchise agreement with the City of Saratoga and the City's cable television ordinance, subject to applicable federal, state and local law. 2) Staff Report Concerns - ... "TCI- Cleveland has not at this time provided the City of Saratoga a guarantee of TCI - California's performance as the manager of the Saratoga cable system. We intend to request that TCI - California be willing to sign a franchise agreement and warrant that it would abide by and be bound by all of the franchise provisions." Response: Attached is the chart showing the ownership of TCI - Cleveland. TCI - California is acting as manager of the system specifically for operational reasons based on geographical necessity. As a result of this transfer, TCI - California will not become the owner of any assets in Saratoga cable system. The management structure anticipated between TCI - Cleveland and TCI - California is quite common among TCI - related entities. Because of operational and geographical logistics, one TCI entity acts as the day -to -day operator of a cable television system in which it does not directly own assets. Under these circumstances, TCI typically has determined that a formal management agreement is not necessary. For this reason, TCI - California will operate the Saratoga cable system on behalf of TCI - Cleveland. TCI - Cleveland is willing to offer the City a guarantee of an upper tier subsidiary of TCI, TCI Development Corporation. In lieu of this guarantee, if it would provide more comfort to the City, TCI - Cleveland and TCI - California will enter into a management agreement whereby TCI - California commits to manage the system on behalf of TCI - Cleveland in accordance with the terms of the franchise. Mr. Harry Peacock January 9, 1996 Page Two 3) Staff Report Concern - "We still desire to have notification that TCI- Cleveland is certified to do business in California through TCI - California prior to any transfer of ownership." Response: TCI - Cleveland will provide certification prior to the transfer of ownership, that TCI - Cleveland is certified to conduct business in the state of California. Additionally, TCI - California was incorporated under California law and is therefore qualified to do business in the state of California. 4) Staff Report Concern - "We have requested that TCI - Cleveland provide a listing of Board members and their individual signatures that they have never been convicted or held liable for acts involving moral turpitude, and have never had a judgment in an action of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation entered against it, her, him or them by any court of competent jurisdiction." Response: TCI - Cleveland is unclear as to why the previously submitted Officer's Certificate from Stephen M. Brett, does not sufficiently address the City's concern. Not only is it impractical to provide individual certifications of all current directors, officers and those persons currently having a legal or equitable interest of 25% or more of the Company's voting stock, but also unnecessary since Mr. Brett has the legal authority to act on behalf of TCI - Cleveland and its directors. 5) Staff Report Concern - "While the attorney for Brenmor and TCI - Cleveland clarified that the financial reports that were provided were in fact what is routinely prepared by the company, and therefore in compliance with the requirements of the Cable Act, staff believes that if the company is publicly held, then they must need to file according to generally accepted accounting principles. We believe that their annual financial report to the shareholders likely looks different that the reports routinely prepared for the franchise authorities." Response: TCI- Cleveland provided to the City with the Form 394 the audited financial statements of TCI Communications, Inc. The City has questioned whether the financial statements provided are prepared for shareholders. The answer to that concern is "no ". TCI Communications, Inc. is not a publicly held company. Its parent, Tele- Communications, Inc. is the publicly traded company. As previously explained, the financial statements of TCI Communications, Inc. that were provided with the Form 394 are prepared in accordance with the indentures governing the public debt of TCI Communications, Inc. Since these financial statements satisfy investors holding in excess of three billion dollars in public debt, we would hope that these financial statements would in turn satisfy the City of Saratoga. Mr. Harry Peacock January 9, 1996 Page Three 6) Staff Report Concern - "Staff is interested in pursuing more detailed information regarding how the transfer will impact the subscribers rates and charges." Response: TCI- Cleveland anticipates that the transfer, inofitself, will not immediately impact subscriber rates and charges. However, Brenmor is currently awaiting an FCC decision on its cost of service filing which, once rendered, could affect rates. Other factors, such as the changing regulatory environment and the unpredictable clarifications and modifications to FCC Rules and Regulations, make it impossible to forecast rates and the methodology used for their calculation. 7) Staff Report Concern: "It would be our interest to seek additional information relating to the performance of the proposed transferee in these jurisdictions as such performance may reflect upon the probable performance of the transferee within the City of Saratoga." Response: Since we as yet do not operate the cable systems in Milpitas, Newark, Los Gatos, we have provided you copies of the NCTA performance standard report and certification for the City of San Jose showing compliance in all measured categories in 1995. We hope these responses address your concerns. Sincerely, i Kathi Noe Area Government Affairs Manager Enclosures cc: Valerie Castellana Kathryn A. Hutton, Esp. Bob Haehnel Peggy Knight AN N O N I- Lo N cM co O a 0 z a 00 m TELE- COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ff0 it TCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TCI CABLEVISION TCI OF NEW OF NEW JERSEY, INC. MEXICO, INC. 1 95.28% .3% \.9% 198.6% TCI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION �n TCI HOLDINGS, INC. l00% r C7 100% lam. TCI TCI TCI GREAT TCI SOUTHEAST, CENTRAL, LAKES, WEST, INC. INC. INC. INC. �-7 wl -772 dl ) TCI OF CLEVELAND, INC. TCI CABLEVISION OF CALIFORNIA, INC. "NA,�"j cLk�y T.C.I. Cablevslon of Californla, CONSOLIDATED ARE Performance Standards for FCC / NCTA DESCRIPTIONS 1 OFFIQE AND TELEPHONE AVAILABILITY is KNOWLEDGEABLE CUSTOMER SV lb 30- SECOND TFI FPHONF ANCWFF will be open for transactions Monday through Friday during normal business hours. Additionally, based on community needs systems will schedule supplemental hours on weekdays and/or weekends..' 2 INSTALLATIONS, OUTAGES 8 SERVICE CALLS 2a 7 -DAY INSTALLATION PERFORMANCE INTERVAL 2b 24 -HOI1R SFRVICF IIJTFRRI IPTInN RFPCnNCF INTCOV71 Dec -94 1 1 Jul -95 1 3 COMMUNICATIONS, BILLS AND REFUNDS SAN JOSE: 5/95 CUPERTINO: 5/95 SAN MATEO: 5195 PACIFICA: 5/95 SUNNYVALE: 3a INSTALLATION PACKETS Include: loo.00% 1DO.oO% 100.001/6 100.00% 9t.43% 93.85% 98.48% 94.58% 57.14% 55.38% products and serAco# offered 54A3% 86.67% 87.69% 91.54% 88.63% 1 00.00'/6 1 DO 0011. 100.00% 100 00'. 100.00 % prices and service options 100.001/. 100 00'. inn n(rl. 100 00'. . 1100 rill. 100 00'/. 1 no n(M 100 0(Y. 1 _00 0"m 100 00'. IVALUEl #VALUE[ #VALUE1 #VALUE[ Installation and service policies 100.00% 100.00% 1oo.00% how- lo-uso the cello sorvlce Irki,00i ____.__.__.__.__.....__._ 10(LIX)% ton W/. 100.00-. Ino rin % 100.00% IDO no- /. __.._._ ton.00% Ino no-/. ..__..__.__. 10000% Inn on% _____..__.__._..___....._...._. too.00 1fN wl. lo(Yon'. 1M orr. IoO.n(r. Ion MY, 100.009 _-- 3b 01LLS WILL Dli Ct.f":Ai\ AND CONCISE 3c REFUND CHKS ISSUED NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS " IVAI.UEl IVALUEl #VALUE) #VALUE) IVALUEl IVAI OEl #VAI 1)E1 ►VAI 11Fl IVAI UEI 3d CUSTOMERS NOTIFIED 30 DAYS PRIOR TO RATE OR CHANNEL CHANGE 1 100.00% 10020% 100-00% 100.00% 100.00% _. 100.00' /6 100.0014 100.D0% 100.009 COMMENTS HERE: Currently working with the MIS dept and CSG to generate a report to track this Information NCTA CERTIFICATION DATE: SAN JOSE: 5/95 CUPERTINO: 5/95 SAN MATEO: 5195 PACIFICA: 5/95 SUNNYVALE: 5/05 cc: Tom Lacey, Senior Staff, Llssa Mirzayoo orfgfnalor: Laurel Neilson SOP-95 100 00% OCI.95 100.00% N2v -95 100.00% F.C.C. AVERAGE 100.00% 92.00% 91.00% 91.00% 91.33% 0.00% o.ro% o.00% o.00'. loo.00% 1DO.oO% 100.001/6 100.00% 9t.43% 93.85% 98.48% 94.58% 57.14% 55.38% 50.77% 54A3% 86.67% 87.69% 91.54% 88.63% 1 00.00'/6 1 DO 0011. 100.00% 100 00'. 100.00 % 100.00'/. 100.001/. 100 00'. inn n(rl. 100 00'. . 1100 rill. 100 00'/. 1 no n(M 100 0(Y. 1 _00 0"m 100 00'. IVALUEl #VALUE[ #VALUE1 #VALUE[ 100.00'. 100.00% 100.00% 1oo.00% J::1B PfA Ikn a .: ..., r'° .R."•�r -�..'' k.1 R'.I�sr 4 'S.' ^1 dl,S ti rwN�Jo3. _` rd,. 1. .ri "t^sz:�.�.'i'�.`- k�``�'A'b�• National Cable Television Association Mr. Tom Lacey General Manager TCI of California 234 Gast Gish Road San Jose, CA 95112 Dear Mr. Lacey: Industry A `airs Department 1724 Massachusetts P.enue, Northwest Washing;=. G.C. 20036 -1969 202 77E -3669 August 9, 1995 We have received your application for renewal of the NCTA Seal of Good Customer Service, and we are pleased and proud to enclose the attached certificate. This certificate reflects that your cable system has achieved and maintained over the last year the NCTA Recommended Standards for Good Customer Service, and that you have reported this to your local franchising authority. Congratulations on your continued success in maintaining the industry's customer service standards. Sincerely, JG Barbara York G Vice President cc: Lauri Smith TCI Cablevision of California February 9, 1996 Harry R. Peacock, DPA City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Harry: Via facsimile We're taking telet ision into tomorrow Please find enclosed the State of California certification to TCI of Cleveland, Inc. authorizing the corporation to transact business in the State of California. Si er ly, Kathi Noe Government Affairs Manager Enclosures KN /rg cc: Jennifer Britton Valerie Castellana Kathy Hutton Bob Haehnel 234 East Gish Road P.O. Box 114 San Jose, CA 95103 -0114 (408)452.9100 FAX (408) 452 -5720 An Equal Opportunity Employer f 1 t 1 i .1.. \ 1 u • • • �. I L : r . L .1 i :� v'•:Z1 ,1, . �1,.� •tUU t_:.1 /� �II[i�.l•• {1 .. I1I_'f.•v.0 •+ J: 1J 0 o S in., HOME& SECRETARY OF STATE'S 3FFICE CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION I, BILL JONES, Secrem-y of State of the Sta:e of California, hereby certify: That on the 25th davof Jan uar: 19_ TCI OF CLEVELAND. TNC. 1958614 96 a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Tennessee candied with the requirements of Californ= law in effect on that dale for tke purpose of yuulifying to transact intrastate business L,: t, e State of California, and that as of said dada said corporation became and now is qualified and authorized to trawact intraitare brininess in the State of Ca! fornia, Tubjec. 7owever, to any licensing requirements otherwise imposed by the lasvt of this State IY WITNESS W. EREOF, I execute this ca *are and affix the Greta Seal of the State of California this 29th dayof January, 1996 Secretary of S _ .1: •. Jc:JU1'\yt la•A�'fv. L•1. .— .lk�a� J \3WIMw.1.• .. \' i j( i ,1 �i • _�... u. ��.1 L �U U.e.. -' 1 JU v•JY1.11 st "L o 400' 1 - -)(1Cr-M L\ � HUM.-MU . T 1 U. l ) SECRETARY OF STATE CORPORATION DIVISION 1958614 1, BILL JOKES, Secretary of State of the State of California, hereby certify: That the annexed transcri_ot has been compared �tiith the corporate record on file in this office, of which it Purports to be a copy, and that same is full, true and correct. ,..» .... IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State of California this JAN 2 9 1996 i reRAI �i� Secrerary of State .:LIi LUI • iLi i_c :J, u-r .. 1'u.. •v'tl.h - ,:)V 74U -L I I- ..::11LAAL-i :1 dC IIV N.vVJ- +I:: I i STATEMENT AND DESIGNATION BY FOREIGN CORPORATION TC1 Of Claveisnd, Inc. 1958614 (Name of Corporation) DO NOT WRITE IN tNIS UACr ;1\1uORSED FILED In the dlice of t "e 53 r�tary of the S,ait of CAternN JAN 2 5 1946 MLI.1063, W'u ri of S1ih a corporation organized and existing the laws of Tennessee makes the following statements and designation: rate or .ace of 1r corperation) I. The address of its principal exec:. :ive office is 5615 DTC Parkwa -: , Engle,,;ood Co? orado 80111 (Insert complete aacress of prl.z. zal execu *.ive ottlCe wnerever leca:ea.) DO NOT U—SE POST OFFICE 6OX 2- ►fie address of its principal office in the State of Cali!ernia is a R -= ,r— Road, Sac- aner.cc Cy ` `8i5 Unserr complete adders a: 02 iCe In d.iicrnla.) DO NOT USE POST OFFICE BOX DEZIGNATION OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS WrTHIN THE STATE OF CALLeORNLA 3. (Use thls paragraph is the process agent is a natural person.) i� a natural person residing in the State of California, whose Complete acd;ess L, 00 NOT USE FO T OFFICE BOX is designated as its agent upon whom process directed to the corporation may be served within: the Stare of California in the manner provided by law. (FORM TO BE COMPLETED ON REVERSE S:DIr} Tha Prentice -Hall Corporation Svetem. .nc. ___+ a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware is designated as agent upon whom process directea to the undersigned corporation may be served within The State of California, in the manner provided by law. NOTE: Before it may be designated by any foreign corporation as its agent for service of - process, a corporate agent must comply with section 1303, California Corporations Code. (See instruction Z.) 1. The ' undefsigned corporation hereby irrevocably consents to service of process directed to it upon the agent designAted above, and to service of process on the Secretary of State of the State of California if the agent so designated or the agent's successor is no longer authorized to act or cannot be found at the address given. ^T tton) of Corporate gtavhen H. Brett. 'lice President ypea Zm and Mtfe of Officer Signing) INST UCTIMi 1. there moat be annexed to this etataoent, an original certificat■ by an outhoriad public official of the atats or pions or incorporation of tye corporation, to the effect that the corporation asking the statement is an existing corporation in good standing In that state or place. IF A NO;MOfIT COMATIM 15 TO BE QUAIIFIEO, the eartiflests aunt also indicate that the corporation is a nonstocx, nonprofit corporation. Z. No domestic corporation nay be designated an agent for sarvics of process unless it has filed with the Secretary of State the certificate provided for by Section 1505, California Corporations Code (CC:.), and no foreign corporation may be designated unlese it has qualified for the transaction of intrastate businew in California and has riled with the Secretary of State of the State of California the cartificote provided for by Section 1,505, CCC. A domestic or foreign corporation must be currently wAhorizsd to engage in business in this State and be in good standing status on the records of the Secretary of State of the state of Callromis, in order to file a certificate pursvent to this section. NOTEi A CORPORATION CANNOr ACT FOR ITSCLF AS AGMT FOR SERVICE OF PROMSS. 3. If a corporation is required to qualify under an assumed name (news other than the true corporate franc) pursuant to Section 2.I06(b), CCC, Mrn in the first line of this atateewt set out the correct corporate news, followed by "which will do bueincom in California as _,, setting forth the assumed naew in the apace indicated. the assumed namw should not be net out in connection with the corporate nose anywhere alma in the statement. 4. If the corporation changes its names the corporation mist file an Mended Statement by Foreign . Corporation. A forts may be obtained fro* the Secretary of State. 4. (Use this paragraph if the pctictss agent is a corporation.) Tha Prentice -Hall Corporation Svetem. .nc. ___+ a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware is designated as agent upon whom process directea to the undersigned corporation may be served within The State of California, in the manner provided by law. NOTE: Before it may be designated by any foreign corporation as its agent for service of - process, a corporate agent must comply with section 1303, California Corporations Code. (See instruction Z.) 1. The ' undefsigned corporation hereby irrevocably consents to service of process directed to it upon the agent designAted above, and to service of process on the Secretary of State of the State of California if the agent so designated or the agent's successor is no longer authorized to act or cannot be found at the address given. ^T tton) of Corporate gtavhen H. Brett. 'lice President ypea Zm and Mtfe of Officer Signing) INST UCTIMi 1. there moat be annexed to this etataoent, an original certificat■ by an outhoriad public official of the atats or pions or incorporation of tye corporation, to the effect that the corporation asking the statement is an existing corporation in good standing In that state or place. IF A NO;MOfIT COMATIM 15 TO BE QUAIIFIEO, the eartiflests aunt also indicate that the corporation is a nonstocx, nonprofit corporation. Z. No domestic corporation nay be designated an agent for sarvics of process unless it has filed with the Secretary of State the certificate provided for by Section 1505, California Corporations Code (CC:.), and no foreign corporation may be designated unlese it has qualified for the transaction of intrastate businew in California and has riled with the Secretary of State of the State of California the cartificote provided for by Section 1,505, CCC. A domestic or foreign corporation must be currently wAhorizsd to engage in business in this State and be in good standing status on the records of the Secretary of State of the state of Callromis, in order to file a certificate pursvent to this section. NOTEi A CORPORATION CANNOr ACT FOR ITSCLF AS AGMT FOR SERVICE OF PROMSS. 3. If a corporation is required to qualify under an assumed name (news other than the true corporate franc) pursuant to Section 2.I06(b), CCC, Mrn in the first line of this atateewt set out the correct corporate news, followed by "which will do bueincom in California as _,, setting forth the assumed naew in the apace indicated. the assumed namw should not be net out in connection with the corporate nose anywhere alma in the statement. 4. If the corporation changes its names the corporation mist file an Mended Statement by Foreign . Corporation. A forts may be obtained fro* the Secretary of State. . .'uv • v•v-A'.4 • vUJ iuJ'J—'i I— JCILK.11.i.1 a IIVm.a,VJ. +1 J. l:i li .. S1. $3� SECRETARY OF STATE CORPORATION DIVISION 91 1958614 I, BILL JONES. Secretary o If State of the State of California, hereby certify: That the annexed transcript has been compared with the corporate record on file in this office, of which it purports to be a copy, and that same is full, true and correct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this certificate and affix the Great Sea] of the State of California this JAN 2 9 1996 Secretary of State i,_, ` d, urr.. a'u u•wl •, UUJ t�iU'J li— JfIL1l.1.. {1 �i I1UMALAU. :11 1:3 STATEME.'TT AND DESIGNATION BY FOREIGN CORPORATION TC' of Cleveland, Inc. 1958614 (Name of C.orperation) DO NOT WRITE L`i THIS SPACE -:NDORSED FILED 1-1 the voice of tt{ Sn rel3rr d INIC of the S13'! ;1 C311fnrnp JAN 2 5 1996 --4� 8111 JOKES, Se ry of su11 a corporation organized and existing under : ^e laws of Tennessee fate or :ace of incorrcration� makes the following statements and Cesignaticn: I. The address of i:s principzi execu :ive office is 3519 DTC Parkway, Engleraood. Colorado 80111 ( -t ccmpiete address o; princ.pai executive oilice wnerever locatea.1 DO NOT USE POST OFFICE BOX Z. The address of its principal office in the State of California is :u=ze 2`0 14;; — "qa Road. Sacramenro. C_1 9 015 (insert c=piete accress o: princtpal of ice in C.alizcrnia.) DO NOT USE POST OFFICE BOX DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR SE.RYICE OF PROCESS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3. (Use t ^is paragraph if the process agent is a natural person.) a natural person residing in the State of California, whose complete address is is designated as its agent upon whom process directed to the corporation may be served within the State of California in the manner provided by law. (FORM TO BE COMPLETED ON REYER5E SIDE) JL%A Ur •r r Lcr A. aJ: .. c.' 1-'Jo . V•U:ii , UUJ !UU "J.:.lr- JI1LALJ_� % c 4. (Use this paragraph if the procesa agent is a corporation.) The Prentice -Hall Corporation System In g. , a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delay is designated as agent upon whom process directed to t e undersignea corporation may be served within the State of California, in the manner provided by law. NOTE: Before it may be designated by any foreign corporation mu its agent1S03 service of process, a corporate agent must conV1y with California Corporations Code. (See instruction Z.) S. The undersigned corporation hereby irrevocably consents to service of process directed to it upon the agent designated above, and to service of process on the Secretary of State of the State of California if the agent so designated cr the agent's successor is no longer authorized to act or cannot be found at the address given. orporatton t nature of Corporate .ohen M. 3rarr. `•'ice President i ypeo Name ana jillc of icer Jigningi DWRUCT1WSi 1. There must be annexrd to thhis atateWnt, an c:iginal certificate by an authorized public official c.' the state or place of incor;arstion of the corporation, to the affect that the corporation sakIN the state t 113 an existing corporation in 9wd standing in that state or pits+. IF A NOMMWIT CORPORATION 1S TO BE QUALIFIED, the certificate rust also indicate that the corporation is a nvrntocic. nonprofit corporation. 2. No domestic corporation may be designated u agent for sonic: of pracesa unleaa it has filed with the Secretary of State the certificate provided for by Section 1505, California Corporations Ccde (SCi, and no foreign corporation any be designated :mass it has qualified for the t:anesction of intrastate business In California and has filed wide the Socretsty of State of the State of California the Cartificste provided for by Section 1303, =. A dc tic or foreign corporation must be currently authorized to "ago in business in this State and be in good standing statue on tha rvc- -t`a of the Secretary of State or the State or califcmis, in order to file a certificate pursuant to this sectia. NOTES A CD7rCRATION CANNOT ACT FCR ITSELF AS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS. 3. if a corporation is requzrad to qualify unoar an assumed naM (nano other than the true corporate none) pursuant to 5*ctlOn 2106(b), CCC, then in the First line Of this etatemant sat out tha Correct corporate nose, followed by 'which will do business in California as " eatti.ng forth the sasusrd name in the apace indicated. The aaauard now should not be sat out in ecrnlectiGl with the.corporste naar anywnere aloe in Me state — t. 4. if the corporation changes its now the corporation must file an A.ended Statement by Foreign Corporation. A for+ say be obtained from the Secretary of State. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 6 0d—' AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Resolution removing a crosswalk and modifying parking restrictions on Komina Avenue adjacent to Saratoga School Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution. Report Summary: In December, the Principal of the Saratoga Elementary School wrote the City to request some minor changes to traffic controls on Komina Avenue adjacent to the School. The requested changes are intended to further improve traffic circulation and safety when children are dropped off in the morning and picked up in the afternoon. Specifically, the Principal is requesting the elimination of the mid -block school crosswalk, and an extension of the red "No Stopping" zone on the School side 'of the street a distance equal to about one car length. The proposed changes were reviewed by the School's Traffic Safety Committee and by City staff both of which concur that the changes are a good idea. The attached Motor Vehicle Resolution, if adopted, would implement the changes by amending Motor.Vehicle Resolution No. 161 adopted on November 7, 1985. If the Council adopts the Resolution as recommended, the changes would become effective as soon as the necessary signs and markings are put into place and /or removed, all of which could be accomplished within the next two weeks. . Fiscal Impacts• Approximately $300 for labor, materials and equipment to complete the work. Sufficient funds exist in Activity 33 (Traffic Control) in the current budget to complete the necessary work. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution would not be adopted and the traf f is patterns on Komina Avenue would remain as they are. Follow Up Actions: A work order will be issued to remove the mid -block crosswalk and to extend the "No Stopping" zone. Attachments: 1. Motor Vehicle Resolution No. 161.1. 2. Letter from Lily Ogden dated December 1. 3. Motor Vehicle Resolution No. 161. 4. Location map. Dec. 1, 1995 Mr. Emun Dorsey City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA ^9,57070 Dear Mr. Dorsey: Your prompt response to our last request has helped us implement a traffic plan that has eliminated many of the problems we've had in the past. Even though there are still glitches from time to time, traffic is the best it has ever been. I think we have finally hit on a plan that meets our needs. To finish off the plan here are the final changes that need to be made: 1. Eleminate the crosswalk in front of the kindergarten gates by painting it out. We are asking parents to drop off students on the school side only. 2. Extend the red zone towards Aloha one more car length. This will allow cars to pull into the loading zone more easily. Again, thank you for quick response and cooperation. Sin ely rs, Lily O en RESOLUTION NO. MV- 161 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CROSSWALK BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS AND PROHIBITING STOPPING AT CROSSWALK LOCATION - KOMINA AVENUE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: This resolution is adopted pursuant to vehicle Code Section 21106 of the State of California, and Section 9 -2 of the Saratoga City Code. Section 2: Pedestrian crosswalk is hereby established at the following location across the following public street of the City of Saratoga, and the Director of Community Development of this City is hereby directed to cause the painting of parallel lines across said street at said point, to designate said crosswalk, said lines to.be approximately 10 feet apart: STREET Komina Avenue LOCATION OF CROSSWALK Approximately 250 ft. southeasterly curb line of Oak Street Section 3: The following designated portion of street in the City of Saratoga is hereby declared to be a congested area and the following limits for the stopping of motor vehicles is hereby established for said portion of said street: STREET DESCRIPTION Komina Avenue On both sides of street, one (1) space each, ad- jacent to the crosswalk lines as described in Section 2 of this Resolution STOPPING LIMIT NO STOPPING 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday The above sections shall become effective at such time as the proper markings and signs are installed as delineated above. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of November , 1985, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmeznbers Callon, Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: z. City Clerk MAYOR .G'A4E: / =40 two .�r� lirw R?inf C- osswo /k Frio • ,.. aAc• io Ol SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2—(Da MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITE CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: CNG Fueling Facility - Approval of sole source purchase of mobile fuel storage trailer and station start up services, and approval of interim agreement for fuel supply services. Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to approve a sole source purchase of a mobile fuel storage trailer and installation and start up services from Pacific Cryogenics, Inc. (PCI) of Oakland for a not to exceed amount of $62,185. 2. Move to approve an interim agreement with PCI for fuel supply services and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. Report Summary: As the Council will recall, the City is involved in a joint effort with West Valley College to build a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility at the Corporation Yard. The project is intended to demonstrate both the economic and technical viability of CNG as an alternative source of fuel, in addition to the environmental benefits of CNG as a clean fuel. The project is supported through Clean Air grant funds obtained by both the City and the College from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. On February 20, the final site work at the Corporation Yard to bring the fueling facility on line will commence. This involves PG &E upgrading the electrical power supply to the Yard from single phase to three phase at no cost to either the City or the College (a significant side benefit of the overall project), and the installation and testing of the fueling station ground equipment (air compressor, sequencing unit, and fuel dispenser) on loan from PG &E. This work will take approximately two weeks to complete, after which all should be ready to begin fueling vehicles. At this time, it is necessary to complete the purchase of the mobile fuel storage trailer (tube trailer) , the unit which both stores the CNG fuel and which is transported back and forth between the "mother" supply station where it is filled and the City's "satellite" fueling station. The trailer is a DOT certified, reconditioned unit capable of storing up to 70,000 cubic feet (700 therms) of CNG at a pressure of 2,400 psi. In conventional terms, this is roughly the equivalent of a 550 gallon liquid storage tank. Pacific Cryogenics Inc. (PCI) of Oakland is currently the sole vendor known to be furnishing mobile tube trailers suited for this use in this area. This firm has been instrumental in developing the satellite station concept and architecture which they have successfully implemented at several fuel depots from Sacramento to Bakersfield over the past few years. During this time, they have also worked very closely with BAAQMD, PG &E and the South Bay Clean Cities Coalition (of which Saratoga is a member) to overcome the many technical and institutional obstacles hampering the efforts to make CNG a viable fuel alternative in the Bay area. At last, it appears as if these efforts are about to pay off as CNG fueling facilities will soon be operating in Los Gatos, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Saratoga, in addition to a new "mother" station at PG &E's Blaney Ave. yard in Cupertino. Furthermore, the commitment to alternative fuel technology in Santa Clara County is evidenced by the recent development of an Alternative Fuel Master Plan by the Transportation Agency which is intended to govern the programming of future AB 434 (Clean Air) funds through the year 2000 for additional alternative fuel demonstration projects, see attached Draft Plan (Attachment 3). PCI will furnish the CNG station components and tube trailers to Coalition members at discounted prices as well as final installation and station start up services. Their proposal dated January 29 indicates these prices (Attachment 1) . The tube trailer needed for Saratoga's station is offered for $54,000 maximum (a 10% discount over current prices) plus sales tax, and installation and start up services are offered for $4,000. As both the trailer and support services are needed to make Saratoga's station operational, it is recommended that the City Council approve a sole source purchase from PCI for these two items for an amount not to exceed $62,185. In approving the recommended purchase, the Council would be making the required finding in Section 2- 45.120 of the City's Municipal Code, i.e. "Where the supply or service required by the City can only be obtained from a single source ", (Attachment 4). Additionally, staff is recommending that the Council approve the attached agreement with PCI to supply CNG fuel for the City's station (Attachment 2). Essentially, this would involve transporting the tube trailer between the "mother" station and the City's station such that an adequate fuel supply is maintained at all times. Staff is proposing to enter into this agreement for an initial term of six months during which time alternative fuel supply arrangements will be explored. It is estimated that a full tube trailer will be of sufficient capacity to fuel between 50 and 60 vehicles before it must be refilled. Based on projections of the number of vehicles owned by West Valley College, the Saratoga Post Office, and the City which will ultimately be using the City's fueling facility, it is anticipated that the tube trailer will need to be refilled somewhere between 5 and 10 times per month, estimated at $500 -$750 per fill. These costs will then be fully recovered via the sale of CNG fuel to the College and the Post Office. .Fiscal Impacts• As noted above, the cost for the tube trailer and station installation and start up services is $62,185 maximum. This cost will be fully reimbursed to the City from BAAQMD's Clean Air Grant to West Valley College. Because costs and funding arrangements for the CNG station project were unknown at the time the budget was developed, there are no revenues or expenditures programmed in the adopted budget for the project. However, if the Council approves the recommended purchase, then the changes which would need to be made to the adopted budget to reflect the additional project revenues and expenditures can be approved by adopting the Budget Amendment Resolution located elsewhere on the agenda for your meeting. The Resolution, if approved, will appropriate the expenditure in Activity 82, Account 6715 (Land Improvements), from available reserves in Fund 15 (Environmental Programs Fund), and reflect a reimbursement of an equivalent amount as additional revenue to that Fund. Sufficient funds for the purchase and delivery of CNG fuel do exist within Activity 82. These costs were anticipated when the budget was developed. In summary, there are no General Fund impacts from this project, and the costs to develop the project are fully reimbursable from the Clean Air Grant Program. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The purchase of the tube trailer and start up services would not be authorized, and /or the agreement for fuel supply would not be approved. In either event, it would not be possible to commence operation of the fuel station. Follow Up Actions: 1. Purchase order for the tue trailer and start up services will be issued to PCI. 2. The agreement for fuel supply services will be signed. 3. A Resolution to amend the budget as discussed above will be prepared. Attachments: 1. Letter proposal from PCI dated January 29, 1995. 2. CNG Fuel Supply Agreement. 3. Draft Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project Master Plan. 4. City Code Section 2- 45.120. s rcl 2311 Magnolia Street Oakland, CA 94607 - (510) 444 -8081 January 29, 1996 Mr.. Larry Perlin City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Perlin: Enclosed is a copy of a CNG Fueling Agreement, a Coalition Price List, and for your information a standard lease agreement. Price per the enclosed price list for a reconditioned, newly recertified trailer is $54,000.00. The ground equipment (control panel, dispenser, booster pump, meter and the air compressor) has been delivered and is covered by a separate agreement with PG &E. A newly certified trailer would be available in 6 to 8 weeks. Lease trailers are available for immediate delivery. Lease trailers in our inventory can be purchased for the quoted price of $54,000.00 less $200.00 per month of recert time expired (trailers must be recertified every 60 months). The CNG Fueling Agreement includes information on the transportation of the CNG station trailer. It is preferred that trailers be filled in off -hours to both minimize transportation costs and service interruptions. Typically, once a use pattern is established the trailers are filled in the evenings or on the weekend at a fairly regular schedule. This activity should be fairly transparent to the City, with no apparent down time of the CNG station. If a phone line is installed, we can remotely monitor both performance and trailer inventory. As stated on the Fueling Agreement, we are currently quoting $50.00/hour for the transport of the trailers. However, we will take title in Febuary of a new natural gas powered Kenworth tractor. This ' has been partially funded by the AQMD. This tractor by the way is a production vehicle now offered by Kenworth and the result of two years effort by ourselves and Cummins. We hope that once financing is finalized and with the help of the AQMD funds to be able to offer transportation for around $40.00/hour. PCI will provide technical assistance and drawings to assist in site preparation. a PCI can provide final installation and start-up. Assuming that the air compressor is set in place, wired and plumbed; the air line and conduits are run to the control panel pad, and the concrete poured; we can make the above ground conduit and gas line runs between the dispenser and the control panel. We should be able to accomplish installation, testing, and start-up /preliminary training in two days (4 man -days) if everyone's schedule allows. Allow one more day of training on -site after the unit has been accepted and personnel have some operating experience. Installation and start-up should not exceed. $4,000.00. PCI looks forward to working with you. Our goal is to make this a successful project. If there are any questions, or if we can offer any other support, please call. Sincerely, 46s7eph5M. English Sales Manager �V Coalition Pricing 1) Sequencing /Control Panel w /metering, remote dispenser, and air driven booster pump.'..... .. ........................$29,950 2) Air Compressor (130 psi,85 cfm) with . af.tercooler and filters(requires 230/460v., 3 phase circuit) ................$ 7,050 3) Reconditioned /recertified 2400 psi trailer (subject to availability) ......... $54,000 .70,000 cu.ft. capacity .60,000 cu.ft. useable capacity 5 year lease (trailer only) .............. $ 1,085 /mo. 4) 3600 psi trailer ......................... $99,500 .100,000 cu.ft. capacity . 90,000 cu.ft. useable capacity 5 year lease ............................. $ 1,800 /mo. 5) Trailer Rentals (one year minimum) .2400 psi ............................... $ 1,500 /mo. .3600 psi ............................... $ 2,250/mo. Notes: On a one year rental, renter is responsible for clean -up of trailer if not placed back into CNG Service. Approximate cost is $12,000. Lessor assumes cost of wear and tear on chassis, brakes, tires,etc. Recertification cost: Assume $15,000 every five years. Not applicable if leased or rented. Financing is available on sequencing /control panel. a r COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS FUELING AGREEMENT GENERAL I. This Agreement, between PCI Clean Fuels (PCI -CF), a California Corporation, and city of Saratoga (Customer), is for the supply of compressed natural gas (CNG) for the refueling of motor vehicles. 1. Customer agrees to purchase and PCI -CF agrees to provide a supply of CNG pursuant to the terms of this Agreement at the rate specified on the attachment - Exhibit A. BILLING 3. PCI -CF will bill customer at the applicable rate(s) set forth on Exhibit A for the total compressed gas service during the calendar month. Rate will be indexed to PG &E's G -NGVI Noncore Gas Rate. 4. PCI -CF will send the Customer's monthly billings to the following address: City of Saratoga - Dep't. of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 TAXES S. Customer acknowledges that the use or sale of natural gas as a motor fuel may subject Customer to Use Fuel, Sales, or other taxes imposed by governmental -jurisdictions. While PCI -CF may collect such taxes from Customer as required by applicable laws, PCI -CF makes no representation and undertakes no obligation as to Customer's compliance with Customer's own tax obligations and liabilities. TERM AND TERMINATION six. (6) 6. The initial term of this agreement shall beAWAQ months commencing on city's agthorizatic This agreement shall continue on a month -to -month basis until terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. i DELIVERY AND STORAGE SITE 7. Purchaser shall furnish at dispensing location(s) an accessible, secure site satisfactory for the delivery and storage of CNG, including foundations, fences, and other equipment necessary for the safe distribution of CNG to the vehicles. Purchaser shall maintain the foregoing in good repair and safe operating condition as well as all licenses and permits required. 8. All Deliveries shall be made by PCI -CF to the site. Deliveries may be made at any time, 24 hours per day, seven days per week; upon 24 hours notice, or a mutually agreed to schedule. Purchaser may request delivery at specified times, and if PCI -CF is able to comply, Purchaser shall pay any additional expenses. ALLOCATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY 9. Neither party shall be liable to the other for consequential damages under any circumstances. 10. Purchaser's exclusive remedy for each unexcused failure on the part of PCI -CF to deliver CNG when required hereunder shall be to recover from PCI -CF the incremental cost of a substitute purchase. by (for Customer) (for PCI Clean Fuels, Inc.) (Signature) (Signature) Harry R. Peacock (Name) (Name) City Manager (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) Incorporated 'Attachment: Exhibit A - Billing Schedule Illustrative Attachment: PG &E Rate Schedule G -NGV -I 2 EXHIBIT A BILLING. SCHEDULE CUSTOMER: City of Saratoga DATE: PG &E "Experimental Natural Gas Vehicle Service: G -NGVI" Rate, dated May I, 1995: 0.406 PCI -CF Incremental Rate (includes compression and filling costs): 0.390 Sales Price per 100 cuk, less transportation* and applicable taxes: AN *Transportation will be invoiced at $50.00/hour which will include mileage charges. 3 AFV 2000 Summary Cost Sheet Estimated Cost for Proposed Additions to Fueling Network Project Name Capacity (CFM) Central Yard (Alma @ Senter Cost per CFM p Total Cost . Edenvale (Off Hwy 85 near 101) 300 100 $1,500 $450,000 Schallenb�erger (Oakland Rd @ Hostetter) 300 $1,500 $150,000 West Yard (Lawrence @Williams) 100 $1,500 $450,000 Almaden (Almaden @ Blossom Hill) 100 $1,500 $150,000 Main Yard (Sixth @ Taylor) 100 $1,500 $150,000 Airport (Airport Yard) 100 $000 $150,000 Milpitas (At any of 3 Yards) 100 $1,500 $150,000 Total $1,500 X150.000 $1,800,000 i • Estimated Cost for AFV Conversion I . 10% of 2300 candidate vehicles= 230 vehicles for AFV Conversion Incremental cost for conversion ranges from $4,000 to $6,000 230 vehicles * [$4,000 to $6,000] results in an an overall cost range of $920,000 to $1,380,000 $1'3 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF AFV 2000 $3,180,000 1/23/96 . 7Ar Transportation Agency 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 -1906 Santa Clara County Bus, Light Rail, Congestion Management AFV 2000 Executive Summary Introduction This workplan provides direction for the disbursement of Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project funds, as part of the Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) 40% subvention program. As a countywide effort, the Project aims to reduce vehicle emissions within the region through the replacement of member agencies' traditional gasoline powered vehicles with alternative fuel technologies. Goals The TFCA 40% subvention funds are part of a broad strategy for emission reductions from industrial and motor vehicle sources, whose overall goal is a 75% reduction in exposure of residents to ozone. To assist in the achievement of the 75% reduction of exposure goal, the California Clean Air Act of 1988 calls for a 5% reduction in ROG and Nox emissions per year. The 5% reduction goal for the Bay Area translates to a countywide goal of 44 tons per year emission reductions from motor vehicle fleets. In addition, the county would like to follow "the initial state fleet conversion goal of 10% of new purchases being alternatively fueled. Ultimately, the number of alternative fuel vehicles in Santa Clara County should allow for the construction of profitable third party stations. At which point, a sufficient demand for alternative fuel vehicles and fueling stations will exist and outside funding will no longer be necessary - the alternative fuel marketplace will be self - sustaining. Existing Fueling Network Fueling facility development is perhaps the greatest opportunity for the expansion of alternative fuels activity in Santa Clara County. As of January 1996 the compressed natural gas fueling network is limited to three operable fueling stations available for SBCCC use. None of these stations are permanent stations owned by the local SBCCC user. PG &E Stockton Street, San Jose (no long term public access) 50 CFM 6th Street San Jose (equipment on loan from PG &E) 25 CFM Sunnyvale Fuelmaker 1 CFM In addition, there are four stations currently under construction or in the planning stages (only one of which is a `true' station operated by a Member Agency) which should become op:xable in' 1996: PG &E Blaney Ave Cupertino Sunnyvale Tube Trailer Saratoga Tube Trailer Town of Los Gatos 300 CFM 700 therms storage 700 therms storage 90 CFM Proposed Additions to Fueling Network Project Name & Location 1. Central Yard (Alma at Senter) 2. Edenvale (Off Highway 85 near 101) 3. Schallenberger (Oakland Road at Hostetter) 4. West Yard (Lawrence at Williams) 5. Almaden (Almaden at Blossom Hill ?) 6. Main Yard (Sixth and Taylor) 7. Airport (Airport Yard) 8. Milpitas (At any of 3 Yards) Capacity (CFM) Potential Users 300 City of San Jose, Post Office, Federal GSA, UPS 100 Oak Grove Schools, PG & E, IBM, City of San Jose, SC County 300 SC County, SJ Mercury News, BFI, San Jose Airport, Regional Post Office 100 City of San Jose, SC County, Schools, City of Campbell 100 SC Water District, Schools 100 City of San Jose 100 San Jose Airport e 100 City of Milpitas and Schools, SC County (Jail) Cost The workplan calls for the construction of eight compressed natural gas fueling facilities, with a combined fueling capacity of 1,200 CFM. At an approximated cost of $1,500 per CFM, the completion of the above plan has an estimated cost of $1.8 million. The two 300 CFM capacity projects cost approximately $450,000 apiece, while the 100 CFM capacity projects cost an estimated $150,000 apiece. Total cost for each project is likely to vary due to extraneous costs and delays. The cost of alternative fuel vehicles depends on vehicle availability, amount of funding approved for fueling facilities, and the convenience of the fueling facilities. The additional cost for AFV's depends on the manufacturer, vehicle type, and vehicle specifications, however, one may likely expect an incremental cost in the $4,000 to $6,000 range for sedans, vans, and pickups. Timeline The workplan is a five year planning document. During the five years of planning and construction, the workplan should undergo a review process every April. DWM �p Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project Masterplan I. Introduction The Santa Clara County Transportation Agency /Congestion Management Program, in its role as overall Program Manager for AB 434 40% funds, is coordinating a countywide effort known as the Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project, to help reduce vehicle emissions within the region. The Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project seeks to replace. traditional gasoline powered vehicles with alternative fuel technologies within the operating fleets of its Member Agencies and to demonstrate the viability of alternative fuel technologies across a large geographic area. This Masterplan is to serve as a policy and planning document to govern the programming of the Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) 40% subvention funds by the Transportation Agency. It serves to provide information on efforts to improve air quality through the use of alternative fuel vehicles. This action plan provides the necessary direction for the application of seed money to facilitate a successful demonstration of low emission vehicle viability. The overall goal for the demonstration project is to ensure the long -term viability of low emission vehicles. Ultimately, the number of low emission vehicles in the region would allow for the eventual construction of a comprehensive fueling station network run by private businesses for profit. However, for private third party stations to become. a reality, a critical mass of low emission vehicles must first exist to make natural gas fueling facilities profitable. II. Overall Goals A primary goal for this Masterplan is to provide direction for the County to comply with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) policies. State law requires efforts for the reduction of emissions from motor vehicle fleets, such as city and county owned vehicles. One suggested method for the reduction of motor vehicle fleet emissions is through the introduction of low emission vehicles. The primary pollutants of concern for the demonstration project are ozone precursors, reactive organic compounds (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (Nox). In Santa Clara County, ozone is the main component of,summertime smog with motor vehicles accounting for approximately 62% of summertime Nox emissions and 53% of the ROG emissions. As specified in the CAP, the TFCA 40% subvention funds are part of a broad strategy for emission reductions from industrial and motor vehicle sources, whose overall goal is a 75% reduction in exposure of residents to ozone. To assist in the achievement of the 75% reduction of exposure goal, the Calfornia Clean Air Act of 1988 requires the CAP to contain strategies for a 5% reduction in ROG and Nox emissions per year. As part of the 5% emissions reduction goal, the CAP estimates that low emission vehicles will reduce 125 tons per year in pollutants from motor vehicle fleets in the Bay Area (based upon 250 operating days per year). Motor vehicle emissions in Santa Clara County comprise approximately 35% of the total mobile source emissions (125 tons per year) in the entire Bay Area For Santa Clara County to contribute its proportional `fair share' of emissions reductions, Santa Clara would need to reduce 44 tons (.35 x 125 tons) per year from fleet operations. For comparison, one ton per year reduction in emissions may be achieved by 2 natural gas heavy duty street sweepers or 20 to 30 natural gas sedans; dependant on their usage. It should be noted that the County wide goal of 44 tons per year emission reductions from motor vehicle fleets should serve as a benchmark minimum goal; a starting point for air pollution reduction, rather than an ending point. The proposed strategies and goals for ozone reduction addressed in the Bay Area 1994 Clean Air Plan were drafted with the intention that a proportion of mobile source emission reductions would be reduced through transportation improvements contained in Measure A. Since the transportation improvements contained in Measure A will not be implemented on schedule, this necessitates greater reductions from other sources, if the reduction in 5% of Bay Area ozone per year goal is still to be achieved. Alternative fuel vehicles are an excellent way to replace the lost transportation improvement emission reductions. The level of intequrisdictional cooperation and support for this program will set a precedent for continued cooperative decision - making and consensus building on future air quality and congestion management issues in Santa Clara County. The successful demonstration of low emission vehicles as a cost- effective technology for the improvement of air quality depends on their continued acceptance among fleet operations. By demonstratingthat .a.variety .of alternative fuel technologies can be implemented across jurisdictional boundaries, this project is the beginning of larger public alternative fuel fleets. As the number of low emission vehicles increases and the fueling station network improves, fleet conversion to alternate fuels will accelerate and lead to the eventual self- sustainability for alternate fuel markets. The Santa Clara Valley would like to use the federal guideline in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 ( EPACT) as another goal for the conversion rate of gasoline- powered vehicles into alternative fueled vehicles. EPACT is designed to reduce the United States dependence on foreign oil imports by spurring the demand and supply of domestically produced alternative fuels. EPACT directs state fleets to begin phasing -in the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, with 10 percent of new state government fleet vehicles purchased or leased in 1996. A conversion program may be substituted for new purchases. In 1999, municipal government fleets will follow the purchase goals of 20 percent, increasing to 70 percent in 2006, but the program is conditional on an early rule - making. Because the local government fleet rules are not solidified, the Santa Clara Valley would like to follow the initial state fleet conversion goal of 10 percent of new purchases being alternatively fueled as a general guide to achieve sustainability. The long range plan for the Santa Clara Valley is a network of open access. natural-gas fueling facilities and electric vehicle recharging stations. Initially, these stations will provide fuel primarily to public sector fleets. Through the construction of an adequate network of open access fueling stations combined with marketing efforts, the region should expect an increase in public and private fleet conversions. As the number of natural gas vehicles in the region increases, the fueling network should have the ability to accommodate the additional demand. To ensure maximum participation in low emission vehicle efforts, the South Bay Clean Cities Coalition (SBCCC) is seeking the participation of existing alternate fuel users, as well as new potential partners, such as the South Bay Clean Schools Coalition. Section III. Status of Existing Fleets and Fueling Stations A. Estimated Inventory of CNG Vehicles in SBCCC Member Fleets by June 1996 (Information provided in-part by an engineering study done in December 1994) CNG USER_ VEHICLE TYPR Sedan Pick -up Van Truck Bus Sweeper San Jose 42 8 18 22 0 4 Palo Alto 12 15 6 3 0 0 West Valley College 2 17 4 1 0 0 Sunnyvale 0 12 1 0 0 0, Saratoga Post Office 0 0 0. 35 0 0 Los Gatos 12 1 2 0 0 0 Assumptions VEHICLE FUEL TYPICAL FUEL VEHICLE CAPACITY MILEAGE �T'HERMSI WLEITHERMI Sedan 10 22 Pick -up 15 15 Van 15 18 Truck 20 10 Bus 70 5 Sweeper 35 5 According to a Pacific Gas and Electric data source, there are approximately 200 natural gas vehicles in service currently in the Santa Clara region. Most of these vehicles are light duty vehicles fueled from PG &E's Stockton Street station. The number of natural gas vehicles within the region should increase dramatically over the next year as there are several large municipal purchase orders coming due this year. For the successful future expansion of regional alternative fuel activity, more medium and heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks and buses, should be converted to natural gas. 4 Ar III B. Existing CNG Fueling Stations As of January 1996 the compressed natural gas fueling network is limited to three operable fueling stations available for SBCCC use. None of these stations are permanent stations owned by the local SBCCC user. PG &E Stockton Street, San Jose (no long term public access) 50 CFM 6th Street San Jose'(equipment on loan from PG &E) 25 CFM Sunnyvale Fuelmaker 1 CFM In addition, there are four stations currently under construction or in the planning stages, all of which should become operable in 1996: PG &E Blaney Ave Cupertino Sunnyvale Tube Trailer Saratoga Tube Trailer Town of Los Gatos III C. Private Sector Fleets 300 CFM 700 therms storage 700 therms storage 90 CFM There are close to 700 private and public fleets in Santa Clara County. Each fleet currently uses gasoline or diesel fuel and may be considered a potential user of alternate fuels. Following are two tables which provide some indication of the sizes and numbers for private and public fleets within the region (this information is derived from a recent private business database). Size otTleets m the Ureater San Jose Area (includes public and pnvate eets < to 20 402 to 30 130 to 40 45 to 50 37- to 60 19- to 70 17 70-to 80 8 to or more 5 San Jose Area Fleets with 90 or More Vehicles IBUSINESS NAME -]Fleet Size STREET CITY ZIP CITY OF SAN JOSE 1,419 801 NORTH FIRST STREET SAN JOSE 95110 AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION 857 605 VISTA WAY MILPITAS 95035 MOBILE LINK SOLUTIONS 855 2150 N FIRST ST #330 SAN JOSE 95131 PENSKE TRUCK LEASING 693 1695 N 4TH ST SAN JOSE 95112 CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS 487 390 COMMERCIAL ST SAN JOSE 95112 INC CITY OF SANTA CLARA 444 1500 WARBURTON SANTA 95050 AVENUE CLARA BA CATERING TRUCK REPAIRS 330 651 MARTIN AVE SANTA 95050 CLARA WILKINSON EQUIP CO INC 319 2150 OTOOLE AV SAN JOSE 95131 PACIFIC BELL 318 2 N 2ND ST STE 625 SAN JOSE 95113 PACIFIC BELL 318 1550 LEIGH AVE SAN JOSE 95125 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 299 90 W. YOUNGER SAN JOSE 94110 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 299 1555 BERGER DR. SAN JOSE 95112 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 299 100 SKYPORT DR SAN JOSE 95110 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 299 1555 BERGER DR SAN JOSE 95112 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 299 840 GUADALUPE PKY SAN JOSE 95110 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 299 1555 BERGER DRIVE SAN JOSE 95112 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS INC 291 750 RIDDER PARK DR SAN JOSE 95190 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC -CO, 269 6402 SANTA TERESA BLVD SAN JOSE 95119 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 269 100 METCALF RD SAN JOSE 95138 RYDER SAN JOSE 258 2481 OTOOLE AVE SAN JOSE 95131 NEW CAR LEASE CORP 250 900 W CAPITOL EXPY SAN JOSE 95136 EASTSIDE UNION HIGH SCH 232 830 N CAPITOL AVE SAN JOSE 95133 LOOMIS ARMORED INC 230 128 E SAINT JOHN ST SAN JOSE 95112 RYDER TRUCK RENTAL INC 224 3118 RASMUS CIRCLE SAN JOSE 95148 TOOL SHED INC 223 2144 OTOOLE STREET SAN JOSE 95131 LANGENDORF BAKERIES 218 1695 S 7TH STREET SAN JOSE 95112 DAVEY TREE SURGERY CO INC 185 1055 COMMERCIAL CT SAN JOSE 95112 DALCO TRUCK RENTALS 175 1346 E TAYLOR ST SAN JOSE 95133 ROLLINS LEASING CORP 155 1691 OLD BAY SHORE HWY SAN JOSE 95112 EAST SIDE UNION HIGH 143 CAPITAL AVE SAN JOSE 95133 COCA COLA BTLG CO OF CAL INC 138 1555 OLD BAYSHORE HWY SAN JOSE 95112 ALHAMBRA NATIONAL WATER CO 130 480 ALDO AVE SANTA 95054 CLARA BOTTOMLEY DISTRIBUTING CO INC 126 755 YOSEMITE OR MILPITAS 95035 THERMA CORPORATION 123 2051 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE 95131 SAN JOSE UNIFIED 122 1605 PARK AVE. SAN JOSE 95126 WASTE OF SANTA CLARA 120 715 COMSTOCK SANTA 95054 CLARA TRACTOR EQUIPMENT CO 114 705 TULLY RD SAN JOSE 95111' RAISCH EQUIPMENT CO 112 99 PULLMAN WAY SAN JOSE 95111 OLIVER DE SILVA INC 110 12 N SUNSET AVE SAN JOSE 95116 MIKE CONROTTO TRUCKING (A 103 6490 CHESTNUT ST GILROY , 95021 CORP.) CHRISTOPHER RANCH 102 305 BLOOMFIELD GILROY 95020 CITY OF CAMPBELL 95 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL 95008 ROSENDIN ELECTRIC INC 95 880 MABURY RD SAN JOSE 95133 Section IV. Fleet Conversion Issues A. Funding Options The Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project was designed to provide SCCTA/CMP Member Agencies with maximum flexibility in obtaining specific alternative fuel technologies based on their individual needs. When partnered with a Member Agency, private agencies are also eligible to receive funds. Public /private partnerships will significantly increase the use and benefits of alternate fueling facilities (compressed natural gas stations, "tube trailer" refueling stations; and "quick charge" electric refueling stations) available to neighboring cities, which encourages the expansion of alternative fuel technologies across the county. For those jurisdictions not investing directly in alternative fueling facilities, the provision of such facilities in neighboring jurisdictions is a critical incentive to embark on an alternative fuel fleet program. Several smaller jurisdictions in Santa Clara County would not have considered alternative fuel vehicles without this. incentive. This countywide "technology sharing" will help to make alternative fuel vehicles a viable clean air alternative to heavier polluting vehicles. Funding this project is part of a continuing effort to help Member Agencies achieve a "critical mass" of alternative fuel technology. In order to realize the full benefits of this emerging technology, the project must establish a base level fueling station network over several years. Through multi -year programming, participating agencies will be given a `jump -start' towards establishing viable alternative fuel fleets and fueling facilities throughout the County. The SCCTA/CMP intends to fund this ongoing project with AB 434 40% funds until the development of a sufficient critical mass of vehicles that will entice third party operations run for profit. In 1991, AB 434 (Sher) allowed for an increase in vehicle registration fees of up to $4 for the implementation of certain transportation control measures contained in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD's) adopted Clean Air Plan. The eligible types of projects are specified in Health and Safety Code Section 44241(b). Projects available for county funding include: • Implementation/support of trip reduction programs • Purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for school districts and transit operators • Provision of local feeder bus or shuttle service to rail and ferry stations and to airports • Implementation/maintenance of local arterial traffic management (e.g. signal timing, transit signal pre - emption, bus stop relocation, "smart streets ") • Implementation of rail -bus integration and regional transit information systems • Implementation of demonstration projects in congestion pricing of highways, bridges, public transit, and low - emission vehicles • Implementation of bicycle facility improvement projects that are included in an adopted countywide bicycle plan or congestion management program 7 In addition, AB 434 created two sources of funds to implement these programs; AB 434 60% funds ( "60% funds "), which are administered by the BAAQMD, and AB 434 40% funds ( "40% funds "), which are administered by a program manager selected within each county. The 60% funds are open to all public agencies within the Bay Area and are awarded on a competitive basis. For 60% funds, there is no proportional return-to- source approach and no guarantee of future or continued funding for selected projects. The 40% funds are distributed based on each county's proportional share of AB434 vehicle registration fees. The program manager-for each county is responsible for determining the projects that will receive 40% funding. The AB 434 40% funds will be divided into two groups; the Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project (based on the proposed/adopted plan) and the remainder will fund other projects. In the initial funding cycle, project sponsors were encouraged to apply for AB 434 60% funds prior to applying for AB 434 40% funds because 60 % funding maximizes cost efficiency. and return-to- source revenues. Beginning in the 1996/97 AB 434 60% funding cycle, members will be required to apply for 60% funds before submitting applications in the 97/98 AB 434 40% cycle. Only SCCTA/CMP Member Agencies will be eligible for AB 434 40% funds, while other public agencies or private sector organizations are encouraged to join in applications with an eligible agency. Using the SCCTA/CMP funding formula as a guide (50% jobs; 50% subventions), equitable fund distribution will be achieved among participating Member Agencies for the Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project over the life of the project. Last year was the first year of a five year plan for the 40% funded Alternative Fuels Demorrstration Project. For FY 1994/95 and FY 1995/96 the following alternative fuel technology acquisitions have been or are currently being made: • 47 electric light -duty vehicles • 12 CNG light -duty vehicles • 7 Bi -fuel vehicles (6 light -duty, 1 medium -duty) • 30 CNG conversions • 1 CNG street sweeper • 2 CNG tube trailers • 1 CNG fuel maker • 1 propane - powered street striper • 9 electric charging stations IV B. Electric Vehicle Availability There is a great desire for electric vehicles among SBCCC members. The County of Santa Clara is ready to make a bulk purchase bid for electric vehicles on behalf of interested municipalities. Unfortunately, a proven quality product that meets coalition member standards does not yet exist in the electric vehicle market. Another electric vehicle project, the electric shuttle bus project for the City of San Jose Airport, was scuttled because the contractor decided not to participate. On the bright side, electric parking meter scooters have been purchased, but this type of vehicle is obviously for a specialized use. An electric TDM/Ford Ranger pickup might be available this summer and the county is pursuing this possibility. IV C. Natural Gas Vehicle Availability Over the past few years, there has been a great amount of uncertainty associated with natural gas vehicles. In the past, manufacturers lacked strong commitment to these new technologies because a proven market had not yet formed. A lack of manufacturer commitment led to wariness among fleet purchasers over'the availability of vehicles, and this caused more lack of commitment among manufacturers. Though cities diligently worked toward introducing low emission vehicles into their fleets, progress has been slow due to limited vehicle availability. Market uncertainties are the major challenge in the establishment of a clean vehicle fleet. For instance, in 1994, General Motors recalled all their compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.. At the time of the recall, a dedicated CNG pickup was simply not available in the marketplace. This led to a waiting period for a suitable replacement vehicle. Finally, Chrysler stepped in and announced the production of a dedicated pickup with a likely purchase date of April 1996. Given the amount of headaches involved with the acquisition of dedicated and bi -fuel natural gas vehicles in the past, it is quite encouraging to report that the natural gas vehicle market is maturing and the outlook for the future is quite positive. There are currently several natural gas vehicles ready for purchase - this is great news. Ford offers a bi -fuel line of vehicles that includes the F150 and F250 trucks, the E250 and E350 cargo vans, and the Club Wagon passenger van. Ford also offers the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dedicated Crown Victoria sedan and plans to release the Contour sedan in bi -fuel or dedicated versions in 1996. Chrysler offers a dedicated line of vehicles that includes the Ram Van, Ram Maxi Van, Ram pickup, and the Grand Caravan minivan. The manufacture of natural gas vehicles is progressing and the future of natural gas vehicle acquisition looks promising. 9 In addition to dedicated and bi -fuel natural gas vehicles, SBCCC members have the option to convert gasoline powered engines over to natural gas. There are several California Air Resources Board (CARE) certified conversion kits available for 1995 model year engines. Ford offers kits to convert its medium duty trucks, its cargo and passenger vans, and the Crown Victoria sedan. General Motors offers conversions for its light, medium and heavy duty trucks, as well as its cargo and passenger vans. Chyrsler offers conversions for its mid -size sedan, and its cargo and passenger vans. The increase in demand for alternative fuel vehicles should lead to a corresponding increase in the manufacturers' supply of alternative fuel vehicles. The current strategy to increase demand is to focus on appropriate alternative fuel options for different classifications of vehicles, as well as improve the fueling network to better serve those who wish to convert part of their fleet to alternative fuels. The SBCCC plans to focus on CNG and electric power for light duty vehicles, CNG and LNG for medium duty vehicles, and CNG and liquid natural gas (LNG) for heavy duty vehicles. IV D. Infrastructure Availability Fueling facility development is perhaps the greatest opportunity for the expansion of alternative fuels activity in Santa Clara County. The three existing and four planned stations are unable to accommodate additional alternative fuel fleet conversions. Even if these stations had the capacity to handle additional demand, they would not provide the convenience desired by most fleets to be considered a feasible alternative to conventional fuels. Typically, fleet managers require fueling to be at most five minutes away from their fleet location. With fleets spread out across the county, the addition of the eight natural gas fueling stations proposed in the workplan (see section V. part B) would greatly increase number of county fleets that meet the proximity requirements. Successful fueling facilities are difficult to develop in the county. Currently, the county is a long way from having a sufficient number of natural gas vehicles to justify an investment in a fueling station by a third party. Investors need to secure a minimum expected volume of sales before they will build and operate a station for profit. Although natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline or diesel, fueling stations are expensive. The most economical size for a station is about 250 CFM, which can support both medium and heavy duty vehicles. The economics improve as fueling station and fleet sizes increase. Consequently, fleet owners need to either build their own stations or contract with third parties. Given the business climate for alternative fuels, conversion strategies should rely on large fleets in Santa Clara County, especially public agencies, which have the greatest potential to convert vehicles to natural gas. , The improvement of the fueling network involves a four step process to enable a transition from a `demonstration' project phase to a profitable self sustaining market for alternative fuels. Step one is to use PG &E stations to support the first.vehicles converted to CNG. Step two is utilize a variety of funding sources to help develop non -PG &E stations which will provide support for the first and second wave of CNG and electric vehicles. Step three involves identifying public and private organizations that will commit a portion of their fleets to alternate fuels when convenient and economical stations become available. Finally, step four entails developing publicly accessible stations where justified by the existing and planned demand for alternative fuels. IV E. Public Resistance and Public Education One hurdle in the introduction of alternative fuels is public resistance. The public often has an inaccurate perception of the utility and safety of alternative fuels. After a century of use, gasoline has become part of American culture. The public often forgets the effort and expense of establishing gasoline fueling infrastructure and they choose to notice only the immediate benefits of gasoline's cost and convenience. Alternative fuels are measured against this ingrained perception and are met with the skepticism typical of an established culture addressing something new. To overcome public resistance, an alternative fuels paradigm shift is required. Continued public education and the successful demonstration of alternative fuels are necessary to shift the popular paradigms about fuels and transportation. As with any new technology, various claims are advanced from both the old and new technologies that must be sifted through and verified by research. There is a fair amount of mis- information and over zealous claims in the search for alternative fuel solutions. After one separates fact from fiction; it is still necessary to properly define, plan, execute, and verify the benefits of demonstration projects. These valuable services are being provided by PG &E, SBCCC members, and consultants. The merits of alternative fuels deserve better attention and communication. Only through continued high profile successes in the alternative fuels program will public perceptions change. Section V. Alternative Fuels Action Plan Background A. Background The South Bay is poised to mature from a small scale implementation of low emission vehicles to a significant�demonstration of-low emission vehicle viability. Given the current number of alternative fuel vehicles and the anticipated increases in the next few years, new fueling stations are not only necessary, but of paramount importance. According to an independent engineering study of the region, estimates of current alternative fuels demand for the region strongly support additional fueling stations. Furthermore, the SBCCC would like to welcome new partners such as the South Bay Clean Schools Coalition, whose efforts to adopt low emission vehicles are limited by their current lack of refueling facilities. Efforts to establish a self sustaining market for alternative fuels in the South Bay are hindered by the fact that there are few convenient locations to purchase them. An adequate alternative fueling station network simply does not exist. In a recent regional Clean Cities workshop, South Bay cities highlighted the fact that the region is behind with alternative fueling station development and furthermore, that there are no funding plans for further expansion of the fueling station network. In addition to meeting the demand of existing low emission vehicles, fueling stations `drive' the market for future low emission vehicle expansion throughout the South Bay region. Convenient fueling stations will act to support and encourage purchases of low emission vehicles. If low emission vehicles are to make the transition from public fleets to private fleets, adequate fueling station facilities are needed. To reach a critical mass of low emission vehicles in the region, alternative fueling facilities must go hand in hand with alternative fuel vehicle purchases. While alternative fueling facilities do not directly provide clean air benefits, their absence severely hinders any potential air pollution reductions. Under the current alternative fueling network, many of the clean air benefits of low emission vehicles are lost due to the inefficiencies of the fueling network. The unnecessary added vehicle miles traveled due to the inconvenience of a lack of fueling stations leads to a significant decrease in air quality benefits. In addition, dispersed fueling locations lead to inefficient use of low emission vehicles and staff hours, which in turn, acts to malign the entire effort. Such inefficiencies are major barriers to low emission vehicle acceptance. Without funding for fueling stations, inefficiencies frequently occur and the demonstration of low emission vehicle viability is severely handicapped. 12 V B. Suggested Fueling Station Sites Through a geographical review of the county, the following criteria were identified for the potential future fueling facilities: existing yards, existing CNG fueling stations; fleet users of CNG fuel, potential future-partners, and high use transportation corridors. The following is a list of eight recommended locations for CNG fueling infrastructure, the suggested capacity in CFM, and the potential users. The addition of these eight CNG fueling stations would provide fueling capability reasonably close to most fleets in the county. The added infrastructure would allow existing CNG fleets to expand and enable new organizations to participate in converting their fleets to CNG. Ultimately, a critical mass of CNG vehicles in the area should enable the future construction and operation of profitable CNG fueling stations:(note: this is a preliminary analysis and each project requires more detailed analysis of need, practicality and cost effectiveness. Final approval of station locations are subject to City Council review and approval). Project Name & Location 1. Central Yard (Alma at Senter) 2. Edenvale (Off Highway 85 near 101) 3. Schallenberger (Oakland Rd at Hostetler) 4. West Yard (Lawrence at Williams) County, of Campbell 5. Almaden (Almaden at Blossom Hill ?) 6. Main Yard (Sixth and Taylor) 7. Airport (Airport Yard) 8. Milpitas (Atany of 3 Yards) Capacity Potential Users 300 City of San Jose, Post Office, Federal GSA, UPS 100 Oak Grove Schools, PG &E, IBM, City San Jose, SC County I) 300 SC County, SJ Mercury News, BFI, San Jose Airport, Regional Post Office 100 City San Jose, SC Schools, City 100 SC Water District, Schools 100 City San Jose 100 San Jose Airport 100 City of Milpitas and Schools SC County (Jail) Capacity Methodology The capacity for each proposed fueling facility is based on rough estimations of existing demand and BAAQMD priorities. An engineering report done on CNG vehicle use in the area and figures provided by PG &E led to the estimates for capacity at the Central Yard and Schallenberger, respectively. A benchmark minimum of 100 CFM is derived- from - the minimum economic feasibility for a CNG fueling station because stations with less than 100 CFM are not significantly cheaper. Although larger fueling stations (250 CFM and above) are more economical to construct, 100 CFM stations help conserve capital and increase the distribution of stations throughout the South Bay. It should be noted that the proposed fueling facilities are all introductory capacity sizes and would have the capability for enlargement, if needed. V C. Inventory for Potential Conversions For the growth of low emission vehicle use in the South Bay, it is helpful to identify - those existing fleet vehicles which may be candidates for future conversion to alternate fuel. Vehicles with the potential for conversion will have short to medium use daily travel and must have sufficient access to fueling facilities. The following list is an indication of the organizations that use alternate fuel vehicles or may have expressed an interest in becoming a partner with the SBCCC fueling station network development: - Coalition members (Cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Mountain View, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Los Gatos, Campbell, PG &E, and Santa Clara County) -South Bay Clean Schools Coalition, US Postal Service, Federal GSA, United Parcel Service, San Jose Mercury News - Possible Interest: Caltrans, City of Palo Alto, BFI, CHP, Local Water Districts, San Jose Green Team, Odwalla, Entemanns, Sun Microsystems, shuttle services, delivery companies. KAI Potential Conversions to Alternative Fuels Among SBCCC Member Fleets VEHICLE CLASS VEHICLE FUEL TYPE DAILY USE (MILES) Gas/Diese CNG Electric Less 50 50 to 150 - 1 Cars /Station 1321 14 0 475 328 Wagons/Minivans Police Cars 1131 0 0 40 93 Light Trucks & Utility Vans 1799 35 0 490 386 Transit Buses 26 0 0 1 11 Specialized Equipment 455 0 2 62 250 Others 534 0 23 110 40 Total 5266 49 25 1178 1108 (The above information is based on a survey conducted of SBCCC members. This information is not complete, as not all members responded to the survey). Those fleet vehicles in the above chart which average under 50 miles of daily usage have the potential for replacement by electric vehicles or natural gas vehicles. Given the current limited range of electric vehicles, those - vehicles which receive minimum use, primarily for short trips, are most suitable for replacement by the electric vehicle. If, and when, an adequate electric vehicle is available for fleet use, these short range daily use vehicles will be the obvious target for conversion efforts. For those vehicles which receive a moderate amount of daily use, between 50 miles and 150 miles, natural gas vehicles are most suitable for conversion considerations. Given the current scarcity of fueling facilities available to service natural gas vehicles, usage patterns must be carefully analyzed to determine suitability. Additional infrastructure would greatly increase the amount of medium use vehicles available for conversion to natural gas. 15 V D. Economic Impact: Costs of Vehicles and Stations Compressed Natural Gas Station Construction Costs The work plan calls for the construction of 8 compressed natural gas fueling facilities, with a combined fueling capacity of 1,200 CFM. At an approximated cost of $1,500 per . CFM, the completion of the. above plan. would, cost in the neighborhood of $1.8 million spread over the five year workplan period. The two 300 CFM capacity projects would cost around $450,000 apiece, while the 100 CFM capacity projects would cost around $150,000 apiece. The total cost for each project is likely to vary due to extraneous costs and delays. Electric Vehicle Recharging Station Construction Costs At this time, there are no plans to construct a comprehensive electric vehicle recharging station network. First, electric vehicles have not yet proven themselves reliable for fleet use applications. Santa Clara County is still interested in making a bulk purchase of electric vehicles on behalf of SBCCC members, but has yet to identify suitable vehicles for purchase. With continuing changes in the electric vehicle marketplace, there is the possibility that electric vehicles may become viable for fleet use and the construction of recharging stations will be considered at that time. Second, electric vehicles do not require significant investments in infrastructure. Currently, recharging stations would simply consist of a 220 volt plug, which would not require major improvements to existing infrastructure. For these reasons, the SBCCC is taking a `wait and see' attitude towards electric vehicles and the possibility of recharging stations. Vehicle Costs The current cost of compressed natural gas vehicles varies. Vehicle cost depends on whether the vehicle in question is a conversion from a gasoline engine, or if it is directly purchased from an original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Generally, there is an additional cost for natural gas vehicles above that of gasoline powered vehicles. This additional cost varies depending on the manufacturer, vehicle type, and vehicle specifications, however one may likely expect an incremental cost in the $4,000 to $6,000 range for sedans, vans, and pickups. The additional cost of natural gas vehicles is offset by several incentives for their purchase. First, there is the state of California low- emission vehicle tax credit, though this is not available to municipalities because they are not subject to taxes. There is also a federal tax credit program for clean fuel vehicles, but again this is not available for municipalities. Unfortunately, incentives are no longer available from PG &E for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles. In a recent decision, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that the Clean Air Transportation Program would heretofore exclude the use of any incentive or rebate programs previouly offered by utilities. 16 Section VI. Timeline A. Time Necessary to Achieve AFV Sustainability The purpose of the work plan is to provide the necessary direction for the application of seed money for the alternate .fuel demonstration project. The ultimate goal for the demonstration project is to ensure the long -term viability of alternate fuel vehicles. Thus, the end target for the demonstration should be the indication that alternate fuel vehicles, and the fuels that power them, have reached the point of economic self - sufficiency within the South Bay region. Ultimately, the end point for the demonstration project is that the number of alternate fuel vehicles in the Santa Clara County region should allow for the construction of profitable third party stations. At this point, a sufficient demand for alternative fuel vehicles and fueling stations will exist and outside funding will no longer be necessary -- the alternative fuel marketplace will be self - sustaining. Another strategic indicator of the successful demonstration of alternative fuel viability is the percentage of new fleet purchases that are alternative fueled. The Santa Clara Valley would like to use the federal guidelines of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 ( EPACT) as a goal for the conversion rate of gasoline- powered vehicles into alternative fueled vehicles. EPACT directs state fleets to begin phasing -in the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, with 10 percent of new state government fleet vehicles purchased or leased in 1995. A conversion program may be substituted for new purchases. The Santa Clara region would like to:follow the initial state fleet conversion goals of 10 percent of new fleet purchases as a general guide to achieve sustainability. Though municipalities are not subject to the EPACT mandate, the 10 percent goal may act as an idealized percentage for which the region should strive. Attainment of the 10 percent EPACT goal would help lower the region's automobile emissions and allow the region to be in line with national energy policy. VI B. Annual Progress Review Upon approval of the work plan in April of 1996, preliminary work would commence on the projects planned for the first year. It should be noted that the work plan is not a finished document and is subject to periodic reassessment and review. During the five years of planning and construction, the work plan should undergo a review process every April. The yearly review would analyze the status of completed projects, as well as the feasibility of future projects. It is likely that the action plan will change and evolve as project priorities adjust to the changing business landscape. 17 a 2- 45.100 Purchases under $100. The purchase of supplies or services having a cost of less than One Hundred Dollars can be made without a purchase order by the Purchasing Officer or other employ- ee of the City having authorization from the Purchasing Officer to do so. A petty cash fund can be used for such purchases. 245.110 Open market purchases. (a) Purchases of supplies or services having a cost of One Hundred Dollars or more but less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars may be made in the open market without formal competitive bidding procedures, if authorized by either the Purchasing Officer or the City Council as provided in Section 245.070 of this Article. (b) Open market purchases involving a cost of Five Hundred Dollars or more shall, whenever possible, be based upon at least three informal price quotations and shall be awarded on the basis of the price quotation most advantageous to the City. The Purchasing Officer may solicit price quotations either orally or in writing, or may utilize price information on file with the City or available elsewhere. 245.120 Competitive bidding; exceptions. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (b) of this Section, all purchases of supplies or services involving a cost of Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more shall be made by contract awarded pursuant to the formal competitive bidding procedure set forth in Section 2- 45.130. (b) A contract for the purchase of supplies or services involving a cost of Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more may be awarded by the City Council without competitive bidding in each of the following cases: (1) Where the City Council determines that the immedi- ate preservation of the public peace, health or safety requires the purchase to be made without competitive bids; (2) Where the supply or service required by the City can only be obtained from a single source; (3) Where the contract is for specialized or professional services such as, but not limited to, services rendered by architects, engineers, attorneys, appraisers, geologists, and other specialized consultants; (4) Where the City Council determines that use of the competitive bidding process is impracticable or impos- sible, or would not be likely to result in a lower price to the City from a responsible bidder, or would cause unnecessary expense or delay under the circumstances; 25 2- 45.130 (5) Where the City Council utilizes the request for proposal method of purchase, as set forth in Section 2- 45.140 of this Article. 2- 45.130 Formal bidding procedure. Where formal competitive bidding is required, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) Notice inviting bids. Notices inviting bids shall include a general description of the supplies or services to be purchased, the place where bid forms and specifica- tions can be obtained, the time and place for opening bids, whether a bid deposit or bond will be required, and whether a performance bond will be required. The notice shall be published at least once, not less than ten days prior to the date set for final receipt of bids, in a newspa- per having general circulation in the City, and shall be posted at the City Hall location used for the posting of legal notices. Notices shall also be sent to persons who have submitted a written request to the City to be notified of such bidding opportunities, and notices may be sent at the discretion of the Purchasing Officer to any additional persons. (b) Bidder's security. When deemed necessary by the Purchasing Officer, bids shall be accompanied by a bidder's security in the form of a cashiers check, cer- tificate of deposit, money order, or unconditional and irrevocable letter of credit, payable at sight to the City, or a surety bond in favor of the City, in such amount as determined by the Purchasing Officer to be adequate for protection of the City's interests. Bidders shall be entitled to return of their bid security; provided, however, a successful bidder shall forfeit his bid security upon failure or refusal to execute a contract within ten days after mailing the notice of award, unless the City is responsible for the delay. The City Council may, on failure or refusal of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award it to the next lowest responsible bidder, in which event, the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City first to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, then toward payment of any other costs, expenses or damages incurred by the City as a result such failure or refusal, and the balance of the security, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. (c) Bid opening procedure. Sealed bids shall be sub- mitted to the Purchasing Officer and shall be identified as bids on the envelope. Bids received after the deadline for submitting the same shall not be accepted and shall be returned to the bidder unopened. The bids shall be opened in public at the time and place stated in the public notice. All opened bids shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours from the time SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z �O AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. Community Development, Codes Administration SUBJECT: Appointment of Chief Kraule, Saratoga Fire District, to the Nuisance Abatement Board of Appeals. Recommended Motion(s): Appoint Chief Kraule, Saratoga Fire District, to the Noticed Nuisance Abatement Board of Appeals as the member not employed by the City in accordance with S 3- 15.070 of the City Code. Report Summary: At the regular City Council meeting on October 4, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance 71 -151 amending Article 3 -15 of the City Code entitled "Noticed Nuisance Abatement Procedure ". In accordance with S 3- 15.070 of that article, a Board of Appeals was created in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the City Manager. Additionally, the members of the board shall consist of the City Engineer, Community Development Director, and a member who is qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to nuisance abatement and who is not employed by the City. Staff recommends that the City Council appoint Chief Ernest Kraule, Saratoga Fire District, to the Noticed Nuisance Abatement Board of Appeals as the member not employed by the City.' Staff makes this recommendation based on Chief Kraule's experience and training in nuisance abatement matters. Chief Kraule has been the Fire Chief for the Saratoga Fire District for the past 25 years. The majority of the City is within the jurisdiction of the Saratoga Fire District. During his tenure, Chief Kraule administered numerous nuisance abatement orders, including hazardous fire conditions, health and safety violations, and building code violations. Chief Kraule has been a resident of the City for 40 years. He is progressive in the continuing development of life/ fire safety programs and participates at the County level in fire prevention matters. He is respected and recognized by colleagues and the public for his professionalism and altruism. 1 Fiscal Impacts• None. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: None required. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Board of Appeals can not convene until the non - employee member has been appointed. Pending nuisance abatements will be delayed and another appointee recommended. Follow Up Actions: None. Attachments: 1) Ordinance 71 -151 2) Resolution c: \updocs \exec961.sum 2 r 4 .t ORDINANCE NO. 11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 3 -15 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, RELATING TO NOTICED NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Article 3 -15 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended to read as follows: Article 3 -15 NOTICED NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE 3- 15.010 Authority. 3- 15.020 Right of Entry. 3- 15.030 Declaration of Nuisance. 3- 15.040 Notice and order. 3- 15.050 Notices; publication and mailing. 3- 15.060 Hearing. Recordation.of Notice of Code Violation. 3- 15.070 Board of Appeals. 3- 15.080 Appeal of Notice and Order. 3- 15.090 Enforcement of Notice and Order. 3- 15.100 Abatement Work. 3- 15.110 Notice and Hearing; report of costs. 3- 15.120 Protests and Objections. 3- 15.130 Payment of Abatement Costs. 3- 15.140 Filing Report with County Tax. 3- 15.150 Taxes paid in error, refund.; claims. 3- 15.010 Authority. This Article is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 38773.5 of the Government Code. 3- 15.020 Right of entry. When it is necessary to make an inspection to_ enforce the provisions of this code, or when the City Manager or the City Manager's authorized representative has reasonable cause to believe that there exists a parcel*of 1-and or structure upon a* premises a condition which makes a parcel of land or structure a nuisance as defined in this code, the City Manager may enter the building or premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by this code, provided that if such building or premises be occupied that credentials be presented to the occupant and entry requested. If such building or premises be unoccupied, the City Manger shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry. 3- 15.030 Declaration of Nuisance. When the City Manager has inspected or caused to be inspected any condition on any parcel of land or structure and has found and determined that such condition on such parcel of land or structure 1 or is a nuisance, the City Manager shall commence proceedings to cause the abatement of such - nuisance and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the parcel upon which such nuisance exists. 3- 15.040 Notice and Order. (a) The City Manager shall issue a notice and order directed to the record owner of the parcel of land. The notice and order shall contain: 1. The street address and a legal description sufficient for identification of the parcel of land and structures thereon. 2. A statement that the City Manager has found the premises or structures to be nuisance with a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building dangerous under the provisions of Saratoga City Code. 3. A statement of the action required to be taken as determined by the City Manager. 4. Statements advising that if the abatement work is not commenced within the time specified, the City Manger may proceed to cause the work to be done and charge the costs thereof against the property or its owner. 5. Statements advising (i) that any person having any record title or legal 'interest in the parcel of land may appeal from the notice and order or any action of the City Manager to the Board of Appeals, provided the appeal is made in writing and filed with the Office of the City Manager within 30 days from the date of service of such notice and order (or within 10 days from such date if the City Manger has determined that the condition is such as to make it immediately dangerous to the life, limb, property or safety to the public or adjacent property); and (ii) that failure to appeal will constitute a waiver of all right to an administrative hearing and determination of the matter. (b) Service of Notice and Order. The notice and order, and any.amended or supplemental notice and order, shall be served upon the record owner and posted on the property; and one copy thereof shall be served on each of the following if known to the City Manger or disclosed from official public records: the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance of record; the owner or holder of any lease of record; and the holder of any other estate or legal interest of record in or to the building or the land on which it is located. The failure of the City Manger to serve any person required herein to be served shall not invalidate any proceedings hereunder as to any other person duly served to relieve any such person from any duty or obligation imposed by the provisions of this section. (c) Method of Service. Service of the notice and order shall be made upon all persons entitled thereto either personally or by mailing a copy of such notice and order by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt required, to each such person at their address as-it appears on the last equalized assessment roll of the county or as known to the City Manager. If no address of any such 2 person so appears or is known to the City Manager, then a copy of the notice and order shall be so mailed, addressed to such person, as the address of 'the parcel of land involved in the proceedings. The failure of any such person to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of any proceedings taken under this section. Service by certified mail in the manner herein provided shall be effective on the date of the mailing. (d) Proof of Service. Proof of service of the notice and order shall be certified to at the time of service by a written declaration under penalty of perjury executed by the persons affecting service, declaring the time, date and manner in which service was made. The declaration, together with any receipt card returned in acknowledgment of receipt by certified mail shall be affixed to the copy of the notice and order. retained by the City Manager. 3- 15.050 Notices; publication. (a) In addition to posting and serving the notice and order required by Section 3- 15.030, the City Manager shall direct the City Clerk to publish such notice once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3- 15.060 Recordation of Notice of Code Violation. If compliance is not had with the notice and order within the time specified therein, and no appeal has been properly and timely filed, the City_ Manager shall file in the office of the county recorder a certificate describing the property and certifying a notice of code violation in accordance with Article 3 -10 of the City Code. 3- 15.070 Board of Appeals (a) In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the City Manager relative to the application and interpretations of this article, there shall be and is hereby created a Board of Appeals consisting of the. City Engineer, Director of Community Development and a member who is qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to. nuisance abatement and who is not employed by the City. The City Manager shall be an ex officio member and shall act as secretary to said board but shall have no vote upon any matter before the board. The member not employed by the City shall be appointed by the City Council and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules of procedures for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant, with a duplicate copy to the City- Manager. Appeals to the board shall be processed in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3- 15.080 herein. Copies of all rules or regulations adopted by the board shall be delivered to the City Manager, who shall make them freely accessible to the public. (b) The Board of Appeals shall have no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of this code nor shall the board be empowered to waive requirements of this code. 3- 15:•080 Appeal of Notice and order (a) Any person entitled to service under this article may appeal from any notice and order or any action of the City Manager 3 M under this code by filing with the office of the City Manger a written appeal containing:. 1. A street address and a description sufficient for identification of the property and the affected structures thereon. 2. The names of all appellants participating in the appeal. 3. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants in the structure or the property involved in the notice and order.-- 4. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific order of action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant. . 5. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought and the reasons why -it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. 6. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing addresses. 7. The verification (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at least one appellant as to the truth of the matters stated in the appeal. The appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of service of such notice and order or action of the City Manager; provided, however that if the parcel of land or structure is in such condition as to make it immediately dangerous to the life, limb, property or safety of the public or adjacent property, such appeal shall be filed within 10 days from the date of the service of the notice and order of the City Manager. (b) As soon as practicable after receiving the written appeal, the secretary of the board of appeals shall fix a date, time and place for the hearing of the appeal by the board. Such date shall not be less than 5 days nor more than 30 days from the date the appeal was filed with the .City Manger. Written notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least 5 days prior to the date of the hearing to each appellant by the secretary of the board either by causing a copy of such notice to be delivered to the appellant personally or by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, addressed to the appellant at the address shown on the appeal. (c) Failure of any person to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the City Code shall constitute a waiver of the right to an administrative hearing and adjudication of the notice and order or any portion thereof. (d) Only those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant shall be considered in the hearing of the appeal. 3- 15:090 staying of order under Appeal 4 r (a) Enforcement of any notice and order of the City Manager issued under this code shall be stayed during the pendency of an appeal therefrom which is properly and timely filed. (b) Procedures for the conduct of the appeals hearing shall comply with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Chapter 9. 3- 15.100 Action by Appeals Board. If the Board of Appeals has upheld the City Manger's determination of nuisance, and proposed abatement, the Board shall order the City Manager to abate the nuisance.. 3- 15.110 Abatement work. The abatement work may be performed by the City's own employees or by independent contractors, or any combination thereof. The City Manager and his authorized representatives and contractors may enter upon private property as may be necessary or appropriate in order to abate the nuisance declared to exist upon such property. Prior to commencement. of the abatement work by or on behalf'of the City, the property owner may abate the nuisance at his own expense. 3- 15.120 Notice and bearing; Report of costs. The City Manager shall keep an accurate account of the abatement costs incurred by the City, including attorney's fees. Such account shall indicate, where appropriate, the costs attributable to each separate parcel of- land upon which the abatement work is performed. Following completion of all abatement work, the City Manager shall prepare a final itemized written report showing the total abatement costs and he shall submit such report for confirmation by the City Council at its next available regular meeting after the notice period set forth herein. At least ten days prior to the date of such meeting, a copy of the report together with a written notice of the date on which the same shall be considered by the City Council shall be mailed to the persons to whom notice was mailed pursuant to Subsection 3- 15.050(a) and a copy thereof shall also be posted upon the property involved and at City Hall. 3- 15.130 Protests and Objections. At the time fixed for considering the report of costs provided for in Section 3- 15.090, the City Council shall hear any objections of the owners of the property to be assessed for the abatement costs. Any person filing any protest or objection who is affected by the proposed charge may file a written report of the objections with the City Clerk at any time prior to the time set for the hearing on the report of costs. Each such objection must contain a description of the property in which the signer thereof is interested and the grounds of the objection. The City Council may modify the report of cost if deemed necessary. The City Council may then, by resolution, confirm the report as submitted or modified. 3- 15.140 Payment of Abatement Costs. "The City Manager may receive payment in full of the abatement costs charged against a parcel of land at any time after confirmation of the report by the City Council pursuant to Section 5 3- 15.130 and prior to the filing of such report with the County Tax Collector pursuant to Section 3- 15.150. 3- 15.150 Filing report with County Tax Collector; collection of assessment. After the City Council has confirmed the report of costs to abate the nuisance declared to exist upon a parcel of land, and if such costs have not been paid in full, the City Clerk shall transmit a copy of the report together with a copy of the resolution confirming the same to the County Tax Collector, who shall add the amount of abatement costs',' or unpaid portion thereof, to the next regular tax bill as a special assessment, for the municipal purposes, against such parcel. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner as ordinary municipal taxes. If such assessment is delinquent, the amount shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. 3- 15.160 Taxes paid in error; refund; claims. The City Council may order refunded all or any part of a tax paid pursuant to the provisions of this Article if the City Council finds that all or any part of the tax has been erroneously levied. A tax, or any part thereof, shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with the City Clerk on or before March 1st after the tax became due and payable. The claim shall be verified by the person who paid the tax or his guardian, executor, administrator, personal representative or successor in interest. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted .at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the forth day of October, 1995, by the following vote. AYES: Councilmembers Burger. Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs NOES: None ABSENT: None MAYOR ATTE T: City Cler September 29, 1995 c: \wpdocs \abateord.fin 0 r I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2—(o-7 cl AGENDA ITEM 7 MEETING DATE: February 21, 1996 CITY MGR. ' ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT: 1995/96 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Recommended Motion(%): Approve resolution amending the Fiscal Year 1995/96 Budget. Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1995/96 Budget for the following four items: 1) transfer of the Street Maintenance budget to the Facilities Maintenance budget to cover replacement worker wages resulting from an employee on medical leave, 2) amendment of the Environmental Programs Fund revenue and General Fund appropriation budget for a CNG fueling station project, 3) a supplemental appropriation from the State Park Bond Fund unreserved fund balance for additional Project 955 - Wildwood Park costs and 4) a supplemental appropriation from the Environmental Programs Fund to augment the Integrated Waste Management budget for landfill disposal consultation services. Also included with the resolution are a Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule for your consideration. The first item, transfer of $2,400 for replacement worker wages, is discussed in greater detail in the attached memorandum from the Public Works Director. The second item, amendment of the Environmental Programs Fund revenue and the General Fund appropriation budget for $62,815 CNG project, requires an interfund transfer because the program incurring the cost is not in the same fund as where the revenue is reported, is discussed at length by the Public Works Director in a related report on Council's Agenda for February 21, 1996. The third item, a supplemental appropriation from State Park Bond Fund for additional Wildwood Park costs, has been requested by the Public Works Director to cover $4,000 in anticipated construction improvements in the project that were originally scheduled to occur last fiscal year, but were deferred to the current year. This appropriation will allow for the completion of the project. 1 The fourth and final item, a supplemental appropriation of $8,179 from the Environmental Programs Fund, Integrated Waste Management program for landfill consultation services, is more fully discussed by the City Manager's Office in a related report on Council's Agenda for February 21, 1996. There are sufficient balances available in the Environmental Programs and State Park Bond Funds to cover the supplemental appropriation requests. Fiscal_ Impacts.: Overall revenues increase by $62,185. Overall expenditures increase by $74,364. $62,185.00 in General Fund costs associated with the CNG project will be recovered by a like amount in transfers from the Environmental Program Fund. Accordingly, there is no overall impact to the General Fund. Specific changes by Fund are as follows: Fund Revenues Expenditures Transfers 01- General Fund $0.00 $62,185.00 $62,185.00 15- Environmental Prog $62,185.00 $8,179.00 ($62,185.00) 22 -State Park Bond $0.00 $4,000.00 ollow Up Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended _Motions: 1) Facilities Maintenance year end part time wages account line will be over budget, 2) CMG project will not be completed, 3) Wildwood Park improvements will not be completed, and 4) consultant reviewing the feasibility of an alternate landfill site will not be hired and the potential savings of $208,000 to solid waste ratepayers will not be achieved. Attachments c: \execsumm \exsm02l6.96 2 TO: Finance Director FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: Inter - Program Transfer of $2,400 DATE: February 13, 1996 This is to request your assistance with preparation of a Budget Amendment Resolution for City Council approval on February 21. The Resolution is needed 'to approve the transfer of $2,400 from Activity 31 (Street Maintenance), Account 3020 (Wages, Part - Time) , to Activity 84 (Facility Maintenance) , Account 3020. Sufficient funds exist in the adopted budget in the credit account to accomplish the requested transfer. The funds are needed in Activity 84 to pay supplemental part -time wages for 30. days to an individual who has been hired to fill in for Norm Ralston while he is off on medical leave. The part -time employee will be paid $10 /hour for a maximum of 240 hours. The requested transfer does not require a supplemental appropriation and does. not impact the General Fund. The remaining balance for part -time wages in Activity 31 will be sufficient to carry us through the remainder of the fiscal year. If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this, please let me know. W444VI'. Larry IV P rlin k SARATOGA`CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. !O AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 21, 1996 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT: JUNE 30, 1995 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT AND SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Recommended Motion(s): Note and file as recommended by Finance Advisory Committee. Report Summary: Background- Pursuant to the U.S. Government's OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments, the City is required to undergo an annual audit to obtain assurance that the financials are not misstated and that the City complied with federal financial assistance laws and regulations. The Saratoga Public Financing Authority is subject to provisions of a 1993 Revenue Bond Trust Agreement that require an annual audit of it!s financial information. Attached herewith are the required reports. Discussion- The auditors, Maze and Associates, have completed there work for the year ended June 30, 1995, and have issued their reports for the Single Audit and Public Financing Authority. The reports contain "clean opinions ", i.e. highest level of assurance given. The Single Audit and Public Financing Authority Financial Statements have been reviewed and accepted by the Finance Advisory Committee. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: Distribute reports to interested parties. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Not applicable. Attachments 1. City of Saratoga Single Audit Report - June 30, 1995 2. Saratoga Public Financing Authority Financial Statements - June 30, 1995 c: \execsumm \exsm0208.96 SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30,1995 AND 1994 SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Financial Statements For The Years Ended June 30, 1995 and 1994 Table of Contents Rage Independent Auditor's Report ..................................................................................... ..............................1 Financial Statements: Balance Sheets - All Governmental Fund Types:and Account Group ........................ ......::......................2 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Governmental Fund Types .................................................... ..............................3 Notes to Component Unit Financial Statements ........................................................ ............................... 4 � AJAZE & � ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1670 Riviera Avenue -Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (510) 930 -0902 • FAX 930 -0135 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To: The Governing Board of the ' Saratoga Public Financing Authority Saratoga, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Saratoga Public Financing Authority as of and for the years ended June 30, 1995 and 1994 as listed in the table of contents. These financial ' statements are the responsibility of the Authority's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining on a test basis evidence ' supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. ' In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the Saratoga Public Financing Authority as of June 30, 1995 and 1994, and the results of its operations for the years then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. ' September 8, 1995 ' 1 A Professional Corporation SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY BALANCE SHEETS ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS JUNE 30, 1995 WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR JUNE 30, 1994 ASSETS Cash and investments held by trustee (Note 2) Investment in Leonard Road and Parking District #3 Bonds (Note 3) Amount available in debt service fund Amount to be provided for retirement of general long -term debt Total Assets LIABILITIES Revenue bonds payable (Note 4) FUND EQUITY Designated for delinquencies Reserved for debt service Total Fund Equity Total Liabilities and Fund Equity GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE ACCOUNT GROUP TOTALS (Memorandum Only) $15,489 General 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,490,678 1,435,489 Long -Term $1.435.489 $1.420.000 $2,855.489 $2,990.678 Debt Service Debt 1995 1994 $216,498 $216,498 $194,192 1,218,991 1,218,991 1,296,486 $1,420,000 1,420,000 1,490,678 9,322 $1,435.489 $1,420.000 $2.855.489 $2,990,678 $1,420,000 $1,420,000 $1,500,000 $15,489 15,489 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,490,678 1,435,489 1,435,489 1,490,678 $1.435.489 $1.420.000 $2,855.489 $2,990.678 See accompanying notes to financial statements 2 SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 WITH COMPARATIVE AMOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1994 L REVENUES Interest on investment in Leonard Road and Parking District #3 Bonds Amortization of unamortized original issue discount Interest on cash and investments held by trustee Contribution from Parking District #3 Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Debt Service: Bond retirement Interest Underwriter discount, costs of issuance and fiscal charges Total Expenditures EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Proceeds from issuance of Bonds EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES Fund balance at beginning of year Fund balance at end of year 1995 1994 98,529 $54,290 2,505 10,743 11,797 63,583 111,777 129,670 80,000 100,000 86,966 58,204 80,788 1669966 238,992 (55,189) (109,322) 1,600,000 (55,189) 1,490,678 1,490,678 $1,435,489 $1,490,678 See accompanying notes to financial statements 3 SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1- SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. General Description - The Saratoga Public Financing Authority (SPFA) is a joint powers agreement which was formed on June 16, 1993 by a joint exercise of powers between the City of Saratoga Parking Authority and the City of Saratoga (City). The purpose of SPFA is to provide financing of public capital improvements for the City and the purchase by the Authority of Local Obligations. B. Description of Funds and Account Group - The accounts of SPFA are organized on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self - balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. SPFA uses the following fund and account group: GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE Debt Service Fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of principal, interest and related costs of general long -term debt. ACCOUNT GROUP: General long -term debt account group is used to account for long -term debt of the SPFA. C. Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The Debt Service Fund is a governmental fund type and is accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting, under which revenues are recognized when they become available and measurable as net current assets. Expenditures are recognized when the related fund liability is incurred. Revenues susceptible to accrual consist principally of interest. "Total (Memorandum Only) " Information - Columns on the accompanying combined financial statements captioned "Total (Memorandum Only)" do not present consolidated financial information. They are not necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements, but are presented as additional analytical data. NOTE 2 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS In accordance with the Indenture of Trust dated July 29, 1993, a Trustee holds the portion of Revenue Bond proceeds established as a reserve to be used for debt service on the Revenue Bonds. To satisfy this requirement, the Trustee has an investment agreement guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. which earns interest at 5.3% and matures September 16, 2013. SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 2 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued) At June 30 1995 and 1994, the bond proceeds were invested as follows: 1995 Money Market Funds (U.S. Securities) $56,278 Investment Agreement 160,000 Cash 220 Total $216,498 1994 $33,978 160,000 214 $194,192 The Trustee is only permitted to invest in obligations of the U.S. Government or its agencies, certificates of deposit, interest bearing deposits which are fully insured and meet certain collateral requirements, repurchase agreements, money market funds, investment agreements, and tax -exempt obligations subject to specific requirements. Investments are purchased and held by the Trustee in the name of the Trustee. NOTE 3 - INVESTMENT IN LEONARD ROAD AND PARKING DISTRICT #3 BONDS In connection with the issuance of the Revenue Bonds, the Leonard Road Assessment District and Parking District #3 Reassessment District both issued and sold Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds to the Authority. These Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds are secured by special assessment levies placed on property within each of these District's boundaries. Owners of these properties pay these assessments over the term of the Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds to each District which in turn uses these assessments to pay debt service on the Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds. The Districts remitted the following amounts to the Authority during the years ended June 30: 199.5 1994 Principal $80,000 Interest 98,529 $54,290 $178,529 $54,290 The Investment in Leonard Road and Parking District #3 Bonds comprises the following at June 30, 1995: ' Parking District #3 Bonds, at par $1,164,900 Deduct: Unamortized original issue discount 47,595 Carrying value 1,117,305 ' Leonard Road Bonds, at par 101,686 Total carrying value $1,218,991 ' Parking District #3 Bonds bear interest at rates of 6.95% to 7.75% payable semiannually on March 2 and September 2. ILeonard Road Bonds bear interest at 7.5 %, payable semiannually on March 2 and September 2. SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 3 - INVESTMENT IN LEONARD ROAD AND PARKING DISTRICT #3 BONDS (Continued) Anticipated principal and interest receipts on these Bonds are shown below for the fiscal years ending June 30: NOTE 4 - 1993 REVENUE BONDS Tntnl $178,664 180,618 178,582 176,088 177,940 $1,843,383 The 1993 Saratoga Public Financing Authority Revenue Bonds were issued on August 2, 1993 under the provisions of the Marks -Roos Bond Pooling Act, to provide financing for capital improvements of the Leonard Road Assessment District and to assist Parking District #3 in refinancing its prior bonds. Under this Act, bond proceeds may be used directly to finance capital improvements, or to acquire obligations of the City, Agency or other California municipality which have been issued to finance qualified capital improvements. The Revenue Bonds bear interest at 3.75% to 7.0 %, and are due September 15, 2013. - Principal payments are due annually commencing September 15, 1994. Interest payments are due semi - annually on September 15 and March 15. Revenue Bonds may be redeemed prior to maturity at par plus a premium of three percent. The Revenue Bonds are special obligations of the Authority payable solely from receipts from the Investment in Leonard Road and Parking District #3 Bonds, and cash and investments held by the Trustee. In February 1994 the Trustee used unexpended Revenue bond proceeds to call and redeem $100,000 of the Revenue Bonds. Parking Leonard Year District #3 Road 1996 $169,415 $9,249 1997 168,305 12,313 1998 166,644 11,938 1999 164,525 11,563 2000 166,752 11,188 Thereafter 824,993 126,498 Total $1,660,634 $182,749 NOTE 4 - 1993 REVENUE BONDS Tntnl $178,664 180,618 178,582 176,088 177,940 $1,843,383 The 1993 Saratoga Public Financing Authority Revenue Bonds were issued on August 2, 1993 under the provisions of the Marks -Roos Bond Pooling Act, to provide financing for capital improvements of the Leonard Road Assessment District and to assist Parking District #3 in refinancing its prior bonds. Under this Act, bond proceeds may be used directly to finance capital improvements, or to acquire obligations of the City, Agency or other California municipality which have been issued to finance qualified capital improvements. The Revenue Bonds bear interest at 3.75% to 7.0 %, and are due September 15, 2013. - Principal payments are due annually commencing September 15, 1994. Interest payments are due semi - annually on September 15 and March 15. Revenue Bonds may be redeemed prior to maturity at par plus a premium of three percent. The Revenue Bonds are special obligations of the Authority payable solely from receipts from the Investment in Leonard Road and Parking District #3 Bonds, and cash and investments held by the Trustee. In February 1994 the Trustee used unexpended Revenue bond proceeds to call and redeem $100,000 of the Revenue Bonds. SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 4 -1993 REVENUE BONDS (Continued) Annual debt service requirements, including interest, on the above bonds at June 30, 1995, are as follows: Fiscal Year Ending: Principal Interest Total 1995 $90,000 $83,440 $173,440 1996 95,000 79,040 174,040 1997 100,000 74,040 174,040 1998 105,000 68,527 173,527 1999 115,000 62,362 177,362 Thereafter 915,000 301,352 1,216,352 Total $1,420,000 $668,761 $2,088,761 7 CITY OF SARATOGA SINGLE AUDIT REPORT YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,1995 CITY OF SARATOGA SINGLE AUDIT REPORT YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS ae Federal Financial Assistance Programs: Independent Auditor's Report on Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance..................................................................................................... ..............................1 Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance ................................................... ............................... 2 Independent Auditor's Combined Report on Internal ControlStructure .......................................................................................... ..............................3 Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance, Based on an Audit of the General Purpose Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ........................................................ ............................... 6 Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with GeneralRequirements ................................................................................. ............................... 7 Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Specific Requirements Applicable to Major Federal Financial AssistancePrograms ................................................................................... ............................... 8 AJAZE & ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1670 Riviera Avenue -Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (510) 930 -0902 • FAX 930 -0135 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the City of Saratoga, California, for the year ' ended June 30, 1995 and have issued our report thereon dated September 8, 1995. These general purpose financial statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these general purpose financial statements based on our audit. ' We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and OMB Circular A -128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining on a test basis evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the general purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. ' Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance is presented for purposes of ' additional analysis and is not a required part of the general purpose financial statements. The information in that schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements and in our opinion is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the general ' purpose financial statements taken as a whole. ' September 8, 1995 OM A Professional Corporation CITY OF SARATOGA SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 (1) Receipts represent principal and interest collections from the City's Rehabilitation Loan Program which must be used to fund future loans. All such amounts are maintained in a restricted account 2 Program Entitlements Program Revenues Federal Catalog Current Prior Year Cash Accounts Program Grantor Agency and Grant Title Number Year Carryover Total Received Receivable Total Expenditures Major Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Block Grants 14.218 5654,052 5654,052 $248,200 $68,985 5317,185 5317,185 (passed through County of Santa Clara) Rehabilitation Loan Program 14.218 37,201 37,201 (1) Subtotal 654,052 654,052 285,401 68,985 354,386 317,185 Nonmajor Program: Department of Transportation Highway Planning and Construction (passed through California Department of Transportation) 20.205 $340,000 340,000 Total Federal Financial Assistance 5654.052 5340.000 5994.052 5285.401 568.985 5354.386 5317.185 (1) Receipts represent principal and interest collections from the City's Rehabilitation Loan Program which must be used to fund future loans. All such amounts are maintained in a restricted account 2 MA ZE & SSOC /A TES ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1670 Riviera Avenue -Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (510) 930 -0902 • FAX 930 -0135 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S COMBINED REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga, California iWe have audited the general purpose financial statements of the City of Saratoga, California as of and for the year ended June 30, 1995 and have issued our report thereon dated September 8, 1995. We have also audited the City's compliance with requirements applicable to major federal financial assistance programs and have issued our report thereon dated September 8, 1995. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and OMB Circular A -128 require that we plan and ' perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement and about whether the City complied with laws and regulations, noncompliance with which would be material to a major federal financial assistance program. The management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure policies and procedures. The objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of general purpose financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that federal financial assistance programs are managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors, irregularities, or instances of noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. In planning and performing our audit of the general purpose financial statements for the year ended June ' 30, 1995 we obtained an understanding of the internal control structure. With respect to the internal control structure, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and whether they had been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general purpose financial statements, to report on the city's compliance with requirements applicable to major federal financial assistance programs, to report on the internal control structure in accordance OMB Circular A -128 and not provide an opinion on the internal control structure. Accordingly we do not express such an opinion. IA Professional Corporation INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S COMBINED REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE (Continued) For the purpose of this report, we have classified the significant internal control structure policies and procedures in the following categories: ' Accounting Applications Cash receipts /revenue Cash and investments ' Receivables Other assets Fixed assets ' Purchases /disbursements Payroll/personnel Accrued liabilities /accounts payable ' Budgeting Financing/debt General ledger ' General Requirements Political activity Davis -Bacon Act Drug -Free Workplace Act Civil rights Cash management Relocation assistance and real property acquisition Federal financial reports O Allowable costs /cost principles Administration requirements Specific Requirements Types of services allowed or unallowed Eligibility Matching, level of effort, and/or earmarking Special reporting Cost allocation ' Special requirements, if any Monitoring subrecipients ' Claims for Advances and Reimbursements Amounts Claimed or Used for Matching For all the internal control categories listed above, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and determined whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk. INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S COMBINED REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE (Continued) ' During the year ended June 30, 1995, the City expended 90% of its total federal financial assistance under the Housing and Community Development Block Grant major federal financial assistance program. We performed tests of controls, as required by OMB Circular A -128, to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of internal control structure policies and procedures that we considered. relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with specific requirements, general requirements, and ' requirements governing claims for advances and reimbursements and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to the City's major. federal financial assistance programs listed above. Our procedures were less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on these internal control ' structure policies and procedures. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal ' control structure that might be material weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that O errors or irregularities, in amounts that would be material in relation to the general purpose financial statements being audited or the noncompliance with laws and regulations that would be material to the federal financial assistance programs identified above, may .occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we have reported to the City's management in a separate letter dated September 8, 1995. . This report is intended solely for the use of management and all applicable federal agencies and those other government agencies from which federal financial assistance was received and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City, is a matter of public record. September 8 1995 1 p , AJAZE & ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1670 Riviera Avenue -Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (510) 930 -0902 • FAX 930 -0135 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE, BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS Honorable Mayor and City Council ' City of Saratoga, California I We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the City of Saratoga as of and for the year ended June 30, 1995 and have issued our report thereon dated September 8, 1995. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial ' statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to the City is the responsibility of the ' City's management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the City's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. However, our objective was not to provide an ' opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under ' Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the use of management and all applicable federal agencies and those other ' government agencies from which federal financial assistance was received and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City, is a matter of public record. ' September 8, 1995 A Professional Corporation � AJAZE & � ASSOCIATES _ ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1670 Riviera Avenue -Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (510) 930 -0902 • FAX 930 -0135 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga, California We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the City of Saratoga, California as of and for the year ended June 30, 1995 and have issued our report thereon dated September 8, 1995. We have applied procedures to test City compliance with the following requirements applicable to its federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the schedule of federal financial assistance, for the year ended June 30, 1995: General Requirements Political activity Davis -Bacon Act Drug -Free Workplace Act Civil rights Cash management Relocation assistance and real property acquisition ' Federal financial reports Allowable costs /cost principles Administrative requirements Our procedures were limited to the applicable procedures described in the OMB's Compliance Supplement for Single Audits of State and Local Governments. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the City's compliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the second paragraph of this report. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. This report is intended solely for the use of management and all applicable federal agencies and those other government agencies from which federal financial assistance was received and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City, is a matter of public record. September 8, 1995 A Professional Corporation AJAZE & ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1670 Riviera Avenue -Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (510) 930 -0902 . FAX 930 -0135 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MAJOR FEDERAL ' FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga, California We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the City of Saratoga, California as of and for the year ended June 30, 1995 and have issued our report thereon dated September 8, 1995. We have also audited City compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed; eligibility; matching, level of effort, or earmarking; special reporting; special tests and provisions for the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program; claims for advances and reimbursements; and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance, for the year ended June 30, 1995. City management is responsible for compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with those requirements based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance with those requirements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and OMB Circular A -128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the requirements referred to above occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about City compliance with those requirements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the requirements listed in the second paragraph of this report that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1995. This report is intended solely for the use of management and all applicable federal agencies and those other government agencies from which federal financial assistance was received and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City, is a matter of public record. ISeptember 8, 1995 0 A Professional Corporation SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 21, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Request from West Valley Solid Waste Program to Negotiate a Landfill Disposal Contract with BFI to Dispose of Trash at Newby Island Landfill and to Adjust the Integrated Waste Management Budget to Provide Funds to Analyze the Economic, Environmental and Legal Issues Relating Thereto Recommended Motion(s): Authorize the City Manager with BFI, Inc. for solid Island Landfill and approv Budget by $8,179. Report Summary: to pursue the negotiation of a contract waste disposal services to the Newby e augmenting the Environmental Services The Program Staff for the West Valley Cities Solid Waste Management Program has provided the attached information regarding cost savings that could be realized were the Program to consider alternative land sites for disposal of solid waste. Saratoga, along with the other West Valley Cities and the County seeks authority for the City to pursue further an agreement with BFI to haul solid waste to Newby Island Landfill. In order to complete the environmental and legal requirements necessary in this process, the City of Saratoga is asked to spend $8,179. This is more than is currently budgeted in the Environmental Services fund balance. Staff recommends Council approve the augmentation to the Environmental Services budget in the amount of $8,179 for this purpose. Further, Council is being asked to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a disposal contract to use the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, which is the more cost - effective landfill site. Should Council take action to approve the negotiation of these contracts, the City will be required to conduct further environmental review according to the schedule attached to this report. Fiscal Impacts• By utilizing the landfill at Newby Island, the Council could expect a savings to the Saratoga rate payers well into the six - figure ranae annually. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Posting of the agenda. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: By not authorizing the negotiation of the consultant services and expenditure for those services, the Council will forego a cost savings to the solid waste ratepayers... Follow Up Actions: The City Manager will enter into agreements with the consultants specified in the attached report from the West Valley Program Management staff for environmental and legal services for consideration of an alternate landfill site. The City Manager will implement the schedule of future meetings pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The Finance Director will make the budget augmentation to the Environmental Services fund in the amount of $8,179. Attachments: I. Report from Vera Dahle, West Valley Cities Solid Waste Program Manager II. Environmental Review Schedule for Alternate Disposal Site Proposal III. Resolution for Budget Augmentation of $8,179 to the Integrated Waste Management Appropriation from the current balance in the Environmental Services Fund ( included in Item 5. B. (7) ) FROM -': City of Monte Sereno FEH. 13. 1996 4:17PM P 2 PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 West Valley Cities Solid Waste Management Program 18041 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Monte Sexeno, CA 95030 fel: 408- 354 -5017 Fax: 408 -395 -7653 February 14, 1996 Member huisdidions: City of Campbell To: Rate Review Committee City ofMonte Sereno City of saraloga From: Vera Dahle- Lacaze Town of Los Gatos West Valley Cities Solid Waste Program Manager Subject: Alternate Disposal Site Study SUMMARY Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company (GRDC) and the West Valley Cities (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga) are in a dispute concerning the calculation method for disposal fees. The Rate Review Committee and City Managers have each met several times with GRDC staff, beginning in November 1994, to attempt to resolve the issue, but have not been successful. The West Valley city managers decided to explore potential alternate disposal sites to determine whether there could be a cost savings by arranging to use a site other than Guadalupe Landfill. To make that evaluation, the managers asked for disposal fee proposals from the Sunnyvale SMART Station and Browning -Ferris Industries (BFI). The jurisdictions received a verbal estimate from Sunnyvale staff and a written proposal from BFI. The contents of both proposals are confidential; with BFI's proposal offering the potential for significant cost savings. Consultant assistance is needed in two areas, First, to evaluate the impact on refuse collection costs if waste is hauled to Newby Island Landfill, rather than Guadalupe Landfill. And, second, to analyze the potential impacts on the environment, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Following completion of the environmental review and initial study and assuming the parties - successfully negotiate a contract, staff will request that Council certify the environmental documents and approve a disposal contract. The project could be completed in May 1996. Since Green Valley Disposal Company would continue to provide refuse collection services if Newby Island Landfill is selected, staff intends to work with Green Valley to identify and evaluate implementation measures that would have an impact on Green Valley's costs. All parties involved have a legal obligation to provide accurate data for this study. BACKGROUND Each of the West Valley Cities has a 20 -year (1983 - 2003) disposal contract with GRDC to landfill all municipal refuse intended for disposal and collected by Green Valley Disposal. This disposal contract is not an exclusive contract in that the cities are not required to dispose of their refuse at -FROM' City of Monte Sereno Memo to Rate Review Committee Alternate Disposal Site Page 2 FEB. 13. 1996 4:17PM P 3 PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 Guadalupe Landfill. The cities' attorneys have reviewed the landfill agreement and confirmed that the cities may enter into an agreement with another landfill operator without altering the existing contract with GRDC. As illustration, in 1993, Green Valley initiated disposal of a portion of the refuse collected in the West Valley cities to All Purpose Landfill in Santa Clara, to take advantage of temporary cost savings. Guadalupe Landfill is located in south San Jose, near Los Gatos, The West Valley Cities appear to be the only jurisdictions having such disposal contracts with GRDC. The same four shareholders own both Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company and Green Valley Disposal Company, as well as several related companies. Last October, GRDC filed suit against the other West Valley Cities to settle a dispute concerning the calculation method for disposal fees. The existing agreement entitles GRDC to charge a "tipping fee', for compacted solid waste disposed at the landfill. The method for calculating the per ton fee is addressed in Section 4 of the agreement, and is based on an annual survey of disposal fees charged jurisdictions by other disposal sites located in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The litigation brought by GRDC against the West Valley Cities challenges the cities' calculation of the 1994 -95 tipping fee because it is based on a survey of other municipal contract rates, rather than public gate rates. Contract rates are generally used in long -term collection and disposal agreements similar to the West Valley Cities' current disposal agreement, and typically reflect a lower per unit fee than public gate rates. Public gate rates, by contrast, are based on a fee per cubic yard delivered by a non - contract party on an as- needed basis, and typically yield a fee considerably higher than a contract rate. It appears that GRDC maintains that the jurisdictions' tipping fee should be based on a survey of public gate rates, although GRDC staff do not refer to public gate rates in their fee survey data. Projected disposal fees for calendar 1995 for all four West Valley Cities are: A. using the public gate rate method: $4,150,132 B. using the contract rate method: $3.334,615 Projected Difference: $ 815,517 As noted earlier, the Rate Review Committee and City Managers have each met with GRDC staff to attempt to resolve the issue, but have not been successful. General Manager Jim Lord stated that if the disposal fee is reduced, GRDC would experience a financial hardship. The jurisdictions responded that there is no intent to cause undue hardship and asked if the company's financial records could be reviewed to ensure a reasonable fee. There is no requirement under the agreement that GRDC open its records for review, and W. Lord declined the request. DISCUSSION This dispute over the method by which to calculate disposal fees is important since the amount of the tipping fee has a direct impact on refuse rates paid by residents and businesses in the four cities, and staff has a fiduciary responsibility to seek the most cost - effective services for ratepayers. 'FROM': City of Monte Sereno Memo to Rate Review Committee Alternate Disposal Site Page 3 FEB. 13. 1996 4:18PM P 4 PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 BFI owns the Newby Island Landfill, which is located in north San Jose, near highways 237 and I- 880. Other jurisdictions disposing at Newby Island Landfill include Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, San Jose and Santa Clara. Tipping fees for 1995 -96 charged all but San Jose are $34.02 per ton. San Jose's fee is considerably lower due to larger quantities disposed from that jurisdiction. By comparison, the 1995 -96 tipping fee determined by GRDC for the West Valley Cities is $47.48 per ton. It is not possible to predict with certainty that the West Valley Cities will successfully negotiate a disposal contract with BFI, nor would negotiations with BFI preclude GRDC from offering different contract provisions, such as a lower rate per ton. It is important to note that the West Valley Cities do not intend to terminate the existing disposal contracts with GRDC -- rather, the intent is to provide the ratepayers with the most cost - effective proposal and to maintain a backup proposal. This proposed project has been reviewed with the Solid Waste Program Manager of Santa Clara County, who has indicated that she is interested in evaluating the potential to participate in this project. Coordination with the County would simplify any changes in disposal since refuse from the unincorporated areas is commingled with refuse from the West Valley Cities. Consultant contracts will be executed by the City of Monte Sereno, in accordance with the agreement between the West Valley Cities to provide solid waste management services. FISCAL IMPACT Projected consultant fees to perform the environmental assessment are $11,500. The projected cost to evaluate the impact on refuse collection costs is $15,580. Projected legal fees to complete the project are $600, for a total of $27,680. The consultants selected are highly qualified and able to assist in litigation, if necessary, though such fees are not included in the budget estimate. This project will have a significant impact on the West Valley Solid Waste Management Program workplan for the remainder of this fiscal year and potentially next fiscal year. The West Valley Cities may need to adjust program tasks or make adjustments in resources for the program. CRNILSit. CEQ _ 2 -13 -1996 10 :23AM Wed, Feb 7 FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS 408 3760958 an ,q?"TfYc,gmem- Z Post -it- Fax Note 7671 Date .2 paoges� To J �N, Delivery of 10 copies of completed Environmental Assessment and one set of From S Co. /Dept.G rl� I s G r Co. Los Gatos, Monte Semw Saratoga for following Wednesday publication in Phone h Phone tF Declaration Notice to County Clerk for posting by April 10. Fax s L -741 - 3Z Fax # Express for next Wednesday publication: Mauling of Negative Declaration to EI MONMENTAL REVIEW SCHEDULE for ALTERNATE DISPOSAL SITE PROPOSAL 1996 Deadline Cities' aomments on David Powers & Associates proposed Scope of Work for Environmental Assessment. Tues, Feb 20 Campbell, Los Gatos, and Monte Sereno Councils consider proposed consultant contracts (ECODATA and David Powers & Associates). Q.os Gatos Council meets this Tuesday due to Monday holiday). Wed, Feb 21 Saratoga Council considers proposed contrails - Thurs, Feb 22 Consultant receives Notice to Proceed from each City, and copy of each City's Environmental Assessment, Negative Declaration and noticing forms. Thurs, March 13 Administrative Copy of Environmental Assessment delivered by David Powers & Associates to each city Planting Director for review. Thurs, March 21 Deadline for receipt of comments from cities' planting departments on Administrative Copy of the Environmental Assessment. Mon, April 1 Delivery of 10 copies of completed Environmental Assessment and one set of Negative Declaration papers to each City. Thurs, April 4 Deadline for delivery of Negative Deciaration notice to MetroNews by 2 pm Los Gatos, Monte Semw Saratoga for following Wednesday publication in ' Los Gatos Weekly Times and Saratoga Neves: Mailing by each city of Negative Declaration Notice to County Clerk for posting by April 10. Fri, April 5 Deadline for delivery of Negative Declaration notice by Campbell to Campbell Express for next Wednesday publication: Mauling of Negative Declaration to County Clerk by Campbell for deadline Wednesday posting. Wed, April 10 Publication of Negative Declaration Notice in MetroNews papers and Campbell Express; beginning of 20 day review period for all cities. Tues, April 30 End of required 20 day public review /comme tt period for Negative Declaration for all Cities (later comments at discretion of cities) Wed, May 1 Saratoga Council hearing on alternative sites. Mon, May 6 Los Gatos Council hearing on alternative sites. Tues, May 7 Campbell, Monte Serena Councils' hearings on alternative sites. r L 1 �l \3f IA� FA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. +D � AGENDA ITEM Of MEETING DATE: February 13, 1996 CITY MGR. Va ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Consider Requesting Assemblyman Cunneen to Introduce Legislation Which Would Remove Existing Barriers to the City's Ability to Privatize Services Recommended Motion(s): Make such a request that an approRR,�x��iate bill be introduced by the February 23, 1996, deadlines for introducing legislation. Report Summary: Background: The Final Report on Privatization Study, which was reviewed by Council on February 3rd, references legal issues which must be considered. These legal issues are discussed by the City Attorney in his memo to the City Manager of November 3, 1995. (Attached). His memo states, "Lacking statutory authority, the City may not contract with private parties for the provision of services presently performed by permanent Cty (sic) employees for the sole purpose of saving money." The applicable statutes are Sections 37103 and 53060 of the Government Code. (Attached). An Attorney General opinion to the District Attorney, County of Ventura, dated May 5, 1993, discusses these limitations as they relate to general law counties. (Attached). Since statutes which govern general law counties are almost identical to those governing general law cities, it is assumed that the opinion would also apply here. Included in the opinion are references to separate statutory authority for personal service contracts issued by state agencies. The authority resides in Sections 19130 et. seq. of the Government Code. (Attached). Discussion: The basic difference between the two statutory authorities lies in the ability to contract for personal services to achieve cost savings. Cities and counties can not contract services solely for that purpose, the State can. As a result, there are more legal constraints on privatization efforts by cities and counties than there are on State agencies. Although a number of conditions have to be met by a State agency to issue a personal services contract to achieve cost savings, a careful reading of the conditions indicates they are generally common sense, good management requirements which for the most part would be followed even „if they were absent in the statute. Since cities and counties are currently handicapped, compared to the State when it comes to privatizing services, thought should be given to, at a minimum, allowing cities and counties to operate under the same legal framework as State agencies. This, of course, requires that a bill be introduced and successfully navigate the legislative process. Action must be immediate as I have been informed the last day for members of the legislature to introduce a bill in this session is February 23rd, a week from Friday. Conclusions and Recommendations: I propose that the City seek amendment to Sections 37103 and 53060 of the Government Code which would add the authority of Section 19130 (a) of the Government Code, with the word "city" substituted for the word "state" wherever it appears. I believe this would provide much improved flexibility in determining how services are to be delivered. I also believe that this change would further the objectives of the State Constitutional Revision Commission recommendations in this area of government reform. I recommend that the City Council discuss whether it wishes to pursue such a course of action with our Assembly representative, Jim Cunneen, with the objective of having him author just such a bill on behalf of the City. Fiscal Impacts: Unable to quantify, but they would only be positive. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: As part of the posting of the agenda for the meeting of February 13th. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: I believe that it will be more difficult to attempt to privatize existing services where the result is an achievement of cost savings. Follow Up Actions: Contact Assemblyman Cunneen and request that he consider sponsoring legislation on behalf of the City. Request the City Attorney assist the City Manager in drafting proposed language for a bill to be delivered as soon as possible to Assemblyman Cunneen. Attachments: City Attorney Memo of 11/3/95 Section 37103 GC Section 53060 GC Attorney General Opinion of 5/5/93 Sections 19130 -19133 GC MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK KENNETH A. WILSON CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP WENDY A. ROBERTS DAVID W. SKINNER STEVEN T. MATTAS RICK W. JARVIS LARISSA M. SIFTO OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TO: Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga FROM: Michael S. Ribacic City Attorney GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481 RE: Restrictions on Privatization of City Services Background and Issue: SANTA ROSA OFFICE 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 TELEPHONE: (707) 545.8009 FACSIMILE: (707) 545.8817 RE 9 E � IN E D NOV 6 19D5. Li-, ,,v ortrtATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: November 3, 1995 An internal task force (consisting of City Manager, Public Works Director, Finance Director and Parks, Buildings Maintenance Superintendent) is conducting a study to determine the cost effectiveness of contracting for City services with the private sector. Among the constraints discussed in the Interim Status Report on Privatization Study dated October 18, 1995 were "personnel regulations (MOU and meet and confer process)." In addition to these City - specific personnel pressures, it is important for the task force to be aware that there are also State statutes regarding municipal contracting. The purpose of this memo is to summarize the restraints placed upon the City by State laws regarding the City's ability to contract out for services. Brief Answer: Lacking statutory authority, the City may not contract with private parties for the provision of services presently performed by permanent Cty employees for the sole purpose of saving money. The City may contract for services with private parties for specialized, skilled services which are enumerated by State statute, or in situations where services- cannot be adequately, competently or satisfactorily performed by City employees. TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROM: Michael S. Ribacic, City Attorney RE: Restrictions n Privatization of City Services DATE: November 3, 1995 PAGE: 2 Discussion: General law cities are only allowed to exercise those powers specifically granted to them by the State. The State requires cities to establish a merit or civil service system.' The State also provides that cities are authorized to contract out for "special service and advice" in the fields of finance, economics, accounting, engineering, law, and administrative matters.2 Read together, the State provides that general law cities are only permitted to contract out for those services enumerated, and must use permanent City employees for all other matters.' The California Attorney General has concurred with this determination that any subcontracting of work by a public entity is prohibited unless it complies with the requirements in the statutes.4 The statutes require that the municipality only contract for services from third parties in situations where the enumerated "special services" are needed. Whether services are special requires a consideration of facts, such as the nature of the services, the ' Govt. Code section 45000 et seq. ' Govt. Code sections 37103 and 53060. ' This is further supported by the fact that if the State legislature had wanted to give cities more flexibility in contracting out, the State could have adopted statutes allowing for such a result. The State has adopted a law (with twenty -six conditions) which allows the State to contract for services with private parties. See generally Govt. Code section 19130. 4 76 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 86 (May 1993). In the opinion, the Attorney General evaluated whether a county could contract out services to private parties based solely on the fact that the outside party could provide the services at a lower cost. (Note that counties are governed by statutory provisions regarding contracting for private services which are almost identical to municipalities.) The Attorney General reasoned that the county could not exercise the power to contract out services in absence of a grant of authority from the State and in the absence of any specified conditions. TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Restrictions in Privatization of City Services DATE: November 3, 1995 PAGE: 3 qualifications of the person furnishing them and their availability from public sources -S In our situation, one of the activities being selected for comparison is facility maintenance. The City would probably have a difficult time demonstrating that there are special skills associated with building maintenance which can only be found from a private source. Additionally, if the City's main motivation is cost savings, State statutes would bar the City from contacting out services such as facility maintenance. An exception to these limitations does exist where the services cannot be performed adequately, competently, or satisfactorily by permanent City employees.6 In such limited situations, the City would be able to go to private sources for services. However, if the City evaluated present levels of service and determined that some areas were deficient in terms of being performed in a less than an adequate, competent or satisfactory manner, the City should first meet and confer with the employee association to try to find a solution to this deficiency! Meeting and conferring is especially critical if City employees may be terminated or given fewer working hours as a result of the City's decision to contract out. . , The City's ability to contract with private parties for non - special services is severely limited by State statute. This limitation needs to be highlighted as one of the constraints in the Report on Privatization Study. s Iavnes v. Stockton (1961) 14 Cal.Rptr. 49 (where court held that school district was not authorized to employ private attorney when county counsel is available for the same purpose.) 6 California State Emphvees' Associ tion v. State of California (1988) 245 Cal.Rptr. 232. (See also Cal. Constitution Art. XI, § 7.) San Diego Ad t Education v. PERB (1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 53, 58. TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Restrictions n Privatization of City Services DATE: November 3, 1995 PAGE: 4 Please contact me if you have further questions with regard to the above - raised issues. �. Michael S. Riback City Attorney MSR:rja J:\WPD\MNRSW\273\MEMO\NOV95\PRIVATIZ.W61 § 37103 LEGySLATIVE BODY —POWER Div. 3 Ubrary References Licenses CJ.S. Licenses §§ 2 et sal•. 26 et seq. § 37101.7. LiceMW of contracto" t provisions of subdivision (b), the legislative (a) In accordance with the p upon, who body may license for revenue, and fix the license p` urssuan t o Chapter 9 a contractor transact in the city the business of of Division 3 licensed of the pursuant usiness and Profes- (commencing with Section 7000) sions code. (b) The ordinance which adopts stuns subect o it who as contractors, have a greater license tax upon those the city, than upon those contractors w no fixed place of business rovided, however, that such have a fixed place of business within the city.' d according to gross receipts ordinance may impose a license tax grad regardless of whether or attributable to contracting work done. within a city, not the contractor has a fixed 81 § 1 business within the city. (Added by Stats.1965, C. 1043, p. 2681, References ci license, see Business and Statement required by ty or city and county requiring contractor's Professions Code § 7033. Ubrary References Licenses 11(5), 29. CJ.S. Licenses §§ 30, 48. § 37102. Employment of needy ent to The legislative body may use any available funds to provide employment the city's destitute or needy unemployed residents. (Added by Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 153, § 1•) Historical Note Derivation: Stats.1883, c. 49, p. 93, § 862.25, added Stats.1935, c. 737, p. 2074, § 26. Ubra>ty References Social Security and public Welfare 4-3• CJ.S. paupers § 2 et seq. fields; compensation § 37103. Contracts for special servicest trained and experi- The legislative body may contract with any specially rson, firm, or corporation for special services and advice in financial, ecoed pe engineering, legal, or administrative matters. economic, accounting, � � it deems proper. It may pay such compensation to these experts (Added by 635, § 1•) Stats.1949, c. 79, P. 153, § 1. Amended by Stats.1949, c. 354, p. xs Cd coos --0 681 V54 § 53060 CITIES, COUNTIES, ETC. Title 5 Article 4 was added by Stats.1951, c. 522, p. 1671, § 1. Another Article 4, consisting of §§ 58070, 53071, Com- pensation Of Elective And Appointive Officers During War, added by Stats.1951, c. 1370, p. 3282, § 1, was renumbered Article 4.5 and amended by Stats.1961, c. 84, P. 1086, § 35. Former Article 4, Compensation of Elective Officers During War, consisting of former §§ 53070, 53071, was add - ed by Stats.1951, c. 127, p. 383, § 1, effective April 27, 1951, and repealed by Stats.1951, c. 1370, p. 3282, § 2, effective July 9,1951. § 53060. Special services and advice The legislative body of any public or municipal corporation or district may contract with and employ any persons for the furnishing to the corporation or district special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters if such persons are specially trained and experienced and competent to perform . the special services required. The authority herein given to contract shall include the right of the legislative body of the corporation or district to contract for the issuance and preparation of payroll checks. The legislative body of the corporation or district may pay from any available funds such compensation to such persons as it deems proper for the services rendered. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 522, p. 1671, § 1. Amended by Stats.1968, c. 1384, p. 2719, § 1.) Historical Note The 1968 amendment inserted the sec- ond paragraph. Cross References Contracts for special services, see § 37103. Employment of special services by county board of supervisors, see ¢ 31000. Library References Counties 4-113(2). C.J.B. Counties §§ 175, 177. Municipal Corporations X226 et seq. C.J.B. Municipal Corporations § 976 et seq. Notes of Decisions In general 1 I. In general Evidence 3 This section authorised school district's Special services 2 contract with private corporation for ren- dition of research and development serv- ices, on findings that services were special 16 Citation 76 OPs. Cal. Atty. Gen. 86 1993 WL 141682 (Cal.A.G.) FOUND DOCUMENT Office of the Attorney General State of California Opinion No. 92 -805 MAY 5, 1993 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. BRADBURY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA PAGE 1 Database Mode CA -AG Page THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. BRADBURY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF VENTURA, has requested an opinion on the following question: May a general law county contract with persons to provide the same level of services, but at less expense, than presently performed by its civil service employees? CONCLUSION Without statutory authority, a general law county may not contract with persons to provide the same level of services, but at less expense, than presently performed by its civil service employees. ANALYSIS The present inquiry concerns the authority of a general law county to contract with persons to perform services currently provided by its civil service employees, on the sole basis that the services would be provided at less cost to-the county. The civil service employees would be replaced by those having the new contracts, with the goal being that the county would reduce its payroll expenses. In accordance with the nature of the inquiry, the analysis and conclusion herein are general, and do not consider special statutes which may relate to particular service classifications. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, s 25358 [contracts for maintenance personnel].) [FN1] The inquiry posits that the county is not chartered (Cal. Const., art. II, ss 3, 4) and has adopted a civil service system pursuant to the County Civil Service Enabling Law (ss 31100 - 31117). We conclude that the county.may not dispense with the services of available, qualified civil service employees in favor of contract services on the sole basis of cost savings. There are two principal statutes which, for our purposes, shall be considered together. We have no occasion here to determine which of these statutes would prevail in the event that they are deemed inconsistent in some respect. Section 31000 states: "The board of supervisors may contract for special services on behalf of the following public entities: 'the county, any county officer or department, or any district or court in the county. Such contracts shall be with persons specially trained, experienced, expert and competent to perform the special services. The special services shall consist of services, advice, education Copr. (C) West 1995 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 76 -Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 86 PAGE 2 or training for such public entities or the employees thereof. The special services shall be in financial, economic, accounting (including the preparation and issuance of payroll checks or warrants), engineering, legal, medical, therapeutic, administrative, architectural, airport or building security matters, laundry services or linen services. They may include maintenance or custodial matters if the board finds that the site is remote from available county employee resources and that the county's economic interests are served by such a contract rather than by paying additional travel and subsistence expenses to existing county employees. The board may pay from any available funds such compensation as it deems proper for these special services. The board of supervisors may, by ordinance, direct the purchasing agent to enter into contracts authorized by this section within the monetary limit specified in Section 25502.5 of the Government Code." [FN2] Section 53060 provides: "The legislative body of any public or municipal corporation or district may contract with and employ any persons for the furnishing to the corporation or district special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters if such persons are specially trained and experienced and competent to perform the special services required. "The authority herein given to contract shall include the right of the legislative body of the corporation or district to contract for the issuance and preparation of payroll checks. "The legislative body of the corporation or district may pay from any available funds such compensation to such persons as it deems proper for the services rendered." [FN3] In interpreting sections 31000 and 53060, we observe certain fundamental interpretive precepts. Specifically, statutes must be accorded a reasonable and common sense construction consistent with their apparent purpose and intent, practical rather than technical in nature, and which upon application will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity; such indicators should be considered as context, the object in view, the evils to be remedied, the history of the times and of legislation on the same subject, public policy, and contemporaneous construction. (San Diego Union v. City Council (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 947, 954; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 424, 425 (1990).) It is evident that the authority to contract as provided in both sections 31000 and 53060 is expressly limited to "special services" in specified areas, and is further limited to contractors who are specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform such services. The criteria for determining the nature of special services were set forth in Darley v. Ward (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 614, 627 -628: "Whether services are special requires a consideration of factors such as the nature of the services, the qualifications of the person furnishing them and their availability from public sources. (Jaynes v. Stockton (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 47, 51 -52.) Services may be special because of the outstanding skill or expertise of the person furnishing them. (Kennedy v. Ross (1946) 28 Cal.2d 569, 574; Jaynes v. Stockton, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p. 52.) Whether services are special is a question of fact. (California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46, 61; Jaynes v. Copr. (C)-West 1995 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 76 Ops: Cal. Atty. Gen. 86 PAGE 3 Stockton, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p. 53.)' As indicated in Darley, whether the services in question may be classified as "special services" is ultimately a question of fact. (See 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 266, 272 (1988).) It has been held, for example, that hospital management (Darley v. Ward, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d 614), research and development (California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46), and special counsel as prosecutor where the city attorney had not been vested with prosecutorial powers (Montgomery v. Superior Court (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 657; compare Jaynes v. Stockton (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 47), constitute special services. Nothing in the cited statutes suggests that a county may contract for services without regard to the "special services" limitation, solely on the basis of cost savings. We note in this regard that in the Legislature's grant of a particular power, '. "there is an implied negative; an implication that no other than the expressly granted power passes by the grant; that it is to be exercised only in the prescribed mode "'" (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering- (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 190, 196; see 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 266, 274 -275 (1988).) Moreover, when the Legislature has intended to grant authority to contract for the performance of services on the basis of cost savings, it has expressly so provided. In 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 95, 97 -100 (1990), we set forth at length the provisions of section 19130 pertaining to contracts for state services. Subdivision (a) of section 19 allows the contracting of 'personal services" to achieve cost savings but only if numerous specific conditions are followed. It is not to be reasonably contended, therefore, that a county may exercise such power in the absence of a grant of authority and in the absence of any specified conditions. Finally, we note that since the Legislature has already granted the contracting authority in question to state agencies (s 19130), it may easily so provide for counties and other.local governments. Even though, for example, the state's civil service system is constitutionally protected (Cal. Const., art. VII, s 1), the Court of Appeal in California State Employees' Assn. v. State of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 840, had little difficulty in upholding the. validity of section 19130's "cost savings" provisions against constitutional challenge. The court stated: "Decisional law interprets article VII as.a restriction on the .contracting out' of state activities or tasks to the private sector. [Citations.] The restriction does not arise from the express language of article VII. [Citation.] Rather, it emanates from an implicit necessity for protecting the policy of the organic civil service mandate against dissolution and destruction.' [Citation.] "The purposes of article VII as disclosed in the ballot argument of its predecessor, former'article XXIV, are not in conflict with subdivision (a) of section 19130. The constitutional provisions relating to the civil service were adopted in part .to.promote efficiency and economy in state government.' A statute dealing with the civil service which has cost savings as an object is hardly in conflict with notions of governmental efficiency and economy. "Moreover, as we have seen, an established exception to the mandate of civil service exists where the nature of the services in question is such Copr. (C) West.1995 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works • _ _ t t Y.,n � .�r. , � ...F�+kria,�,e _ pV +•� 'L a "'• � '. w 76.Op5. Cal. Atty. Gen. 86 ` _ PAGE 4 they cannot be performed .adequately or competently or-satisfacto'rily' by employees selected through civil service. [Citations.] Without attempting to endow the quoted words with definitive content,�under a.constitutional scheme which commends efficiency and economy it is reasonable'to postulate that at some point a service which is more costly when performed under civil service than when contracted out may on that account be one which cannot be performed satisfactorily, adequately or competently. "We are not at liberty to remove from the Legislature the very discretion vested in it when the voters adopted first article XXIV and later article VII. The history of those articles demonstrates-the voters wished to adopt a civil service system free from the whims of political partisanship and appointment. The voters did not intend, however, to impose upon the state a civil service system which eschews all considerations of fiscal responsibility and economy in favor of an infinitely expanding public payroll. Rather, the Legislature was entrusted to consider various alternatives with regard to civil service administration. In devising such alternatives, the Legislature may not ignore the purposes behind the constitutional civil service system; neither, however, must it abdicate fiscal responsibility and forego opportunities to realize substantial savings to the taxpayers. The goals of maintaining the civil service must be balanced with the goal of a fiscally responsible state government. In subdivision (a) of section 19130, the Legislature has harmonized a viable civil service as a central policy aim. [Citation.]" (Id., at pp. 844 -853; fn. omitted.) Here, we determine only that the Legislature has not acted to grant counties the same authority possessed by state agencies. Inasmuch as the present inquiry is predicated upon the assumption that the services in question are currently being performed by civil service employees, [FN4] we find that these are not "special services" under the express and limited terms of sections 31000 and 53060. It is concluded that without.statutory authority, a general law county may not enter into a contract with persons to provide the same level of services, but at less expense, than presently performed by its civil service employees. DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General ANTHONY S. Da VIGO Deputy Attorney General FN1 All undesignated statutory references hereafter are to the Government Code. FN2 The monetary limit specified in section 25502.5 is $100,000. FN3 The term "legislative body" as used in section 53060 includes a county board of supervisors. (s 53000.) FN4 In the absence of any suggestions to the contrary, we assume for purposes Copr. (C). West 1995 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 1, .. N,�. r _ _ .. ... .... r ......... •76,OF *.`Cal. Atty, Gen •86 i f 4 PAGE 5 of this analysis that such services are performed adequately,­competently, and satisfactorily. The sole concern presented is whether the.services may be contracted outside the civil service system on the basis of•,cost.,savings alone. 76 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 86, 1993 WL 141682 (Cal.A.G.) END OF DOCUMENT Copr. (C) West "1995 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works § 19102 PERSONNEL Repealed Title 2 § 19102. Repealed by Stats.1969, c. 122, p. 258, § 11 Historical and Statutory Notes The repealed section, added by Stats.1957, c. 2163, p. 3818, § 1, provided permanent status for certain intermittent employees. §§ 19120, 19120.5. Repealed by Stats.1981, c. 230, p. 1165, § 35 Historical and Statutory Notes Section 19120, added by Stats.1945, c. 123, - Section 19120.5, added by Stats.1978, c. 776, § 1, amended by Slats. 1951, c. 862, § 9; Slats. § 83, amended by Slats. 1980, c. 319, § 3, relat- 1953, c. 431, § 8; Stats.1957, c., 1078, § 2; ed to the requirements for emergency appoint- Slats. 1978, c. 776, § 82, related to service cred- ments. See, now, Government Code § 19888.1. its for emergency appointments. See, now, Government Code § 19888. Article 4 PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS Section 19130. Standards for use of personal service contracts. 19131. Proposed contract to achieve cost savings; notification of organizations repre- senting state employees for comment; review of contract. 19132. Other proposed contracts; review. 19133. Students; part -time; work related to field of study. The heading of Article 4, formerly Article 4.5, added by Stats.1982, c. 1057, p. 3822, § 1, was amended and renumbered as Article 4 by Stats.1985, c. 794, § 21. Forner Article 4, Emergency; added by Stats.1945, c. 123, § 1, com- prising §§ 19120, 19120.5, was repealed by Stats.1981, c. 230, p. 1165, § 35. § 19130. Standards for use of personal service contracts . The purpose of this article is to establish standards for the use of personal services contracts. (a) Personal services contracting is permissible to achieve cost savings when all the following conditions are met: (1) The contracting agency clearly demonstrates that the proposed contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the state, provided that: (A) In comparing costs, there shall be included the state's additional cost of providing the same service as proposed by a contractor. These additional costs shall include the salaries and benefits of additional staff that would be needed and the cost of additional space, equipment, and materials needed to perform the function. (B) In comparing costs, there shall not be included the state's indirect overhead costs unless these costs can be attributed solely to the function in 534 STATE CIVIL SERVICE § 19130 Div. 5 question and would not exist if that function was not performed in state service. Indirect overhead costs shall mean th4.1iro rata share of existing administrative salaries and benefits, rent, equipment costs, utilities, and materials. (C) In comparing costs, there shall be included in the cost of a contractor providing a service any continuing state costs that would be directly associated with the contracted function. These continuing state costs shall include, but not be limited to, those for inspection, supervision, and monitoring. (2) Proposals to contract out work shall not be approved solely on the basis that savings will result from lower contractor pay rates or benefits. Proposals to contract out work shall be eligible for approval if the contractor's wages are at the industry's level and do not significantly undercut .state pay rates. (3) The contract does not cause the displacement of civil service employees. The term "displacement" includes layoff, demotion, involuntary transfer to a new class, involuntary transfer to a new location requiring a change of residence, and time base reductions. Displacement does not include changes in shifts or days off, nor does it include reassignment to other positions within the same class and general location. (4) The contract does not adversely affect the state's affirmative action efforts. (5) The savings shall be large enough to ensure that they will not be eliminated by private sector and state cost fluctuations that could normally be expected during the contracting period. (6) The amount of savings clearly justify the size and duration of the con- tracting agreement. (7) The contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive bidding pro- cess. (8) The contract includes specific provisions pertaining to the qualifications of the staff that will perform the work under the contract, as well as assurance that the contractor's hiring practices meet applicable nondiscrimination, affir- mative action standards. (9) The potential for future economic risk to the state from potential contrac- tor rate increases is minimal. (10) The contract is with a firm. A "firm" means a corporation, partnership, nonprofit organization, or sole proprietorship. (11) The potential economic advantage of contracting is not outweighed by the public's interest in having a particular function performed directly by state government. (b) Personal services contracting also shall be permissible when any of the following conditions can be met: (1) The functions contracted are exempted from civil service by Section 4 of Article VII of the California Constitution, which describes exempt appoint- ments. 535 MA § 19130 PERSONNEL Title 2 (2) The contract is for a new state function and the Legislature has specifical- ly mandated or authorized the performance of the work by independent contractors. (3) The services contracted are not available within civil service, cannot be performed satisfactorily by civil service employees, or are of such a highly specialized or technical nature that the necessary expert knowledge, experi- ence, and ability are not available through the civil service system. (4) The services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or lease of real or personal property. Contracts under this criterion, known as "service agree- ments," shall include, but not be limited to, agreements to service or maintain office equipment or computers that are leased or rented. (5) The legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes cannot be accomplished through the utilization of persons selected pursuant to the regu- lar civil service system. Contracts are permis!ible under this criterion to protect against a conflict of interest or to insure independent and unbiased findings in cases where there is a clear need for a different, outside perspective. These contracts shall include, but not be limited to, obtaining expert witnesses in litigation. (6) The nature of the work is such that the Government Code standards for emergency appointments apply. These contracts shall conform with Article 8 (commencing with Section 19888 ) of Chapter 2.5 of Part 2.6. (7) State agencies need private counsel because a conflict of interest on the part of the Attorney General's office prevents it from representing the agency without compromising its position. These contracts shall require the written consent of the Attorney General, pursuant to Section 11040. (8) The contractor will provide equipment, materials, facilities, or support services that could not feasibly be provided by the state in the location where the services are to be performed. (9) The contractor will conduct training courses for which appropriately qualified civil service instructors are not available, provided that permanent instructor positions in academies or similar settings shall be filled through civil service appointment. (10) The services are of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional nature that . the delay incumbent in their implementation under civil service would frustrate their very purpose. (c) All persons who provide services to the state under conditions the board determines constitute an employment relationship shall, unless exempted from civil service by Section 4 of Article VII of the California Constitution, be retained under an appropriate civil service appointment. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 1057, p. 3822, § 1. Amended by Stats.1985, c. 794, § 22.) Library References Officers and Public Employees al 1. C.J.S. Officers and Public Employees §§ 49 to WESTLAW Topic No. 283. 55. 536 STATE CIVIL SERVICE Div. 5 WESTLAW Electronic Research See WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide following the Preface. Notes of Decisions Contracting out 4 Nature of services 6 New state functions 5 Pay rates 2 Public works 7 Undercutting state pay rates 3 validity i 1. Validity Statute specifying conditions under which State may contract with firms in private sector for performance of personal services in order to achieve cost savings does not facially conflict with State constitutional civil service article, a major purpose of which is to promote efficiency and economy; overruling Stockbrtrger v. Riley, 21 Cal.App.2d 165,-68 P.2d 741. California State Employees' Assn v. State (App. 3 Dist. 1988) 245 Cal.Rptr. 232, 199 Cal.App.3d 840. 2. Pay rates Term "wages" means same as term "pay rate" in statute which prohibits State from en- tering contract with private firm for perfor- mance of personal services if contractor's "wages" differ from industry's and if wages significantly undercut state "pay rates," and thus fringe benefits should not be considered to determine whether contractor's wages are un- dercutting state pay rates where statute refers disjunctively to "pay rates or benefits." Califor- nia State Employees' Ass'n (CSEA) v. California State Personnel Bd. (App. 3 Dist.1986) 223 Cal. Rptr. 826, 178 Cal.App.3d 372. 3. Undercutting state pay-rates Term "undercut" in statute which prohibits State from entering contract with private firm for performance of personal services if contrac- tor's wages differ from industry's and if wages significantly "undercut" state pay rates means "lower than" rather than: intentionally dropped to get state contract. California State Employ- ees' Assn (CSEA) v. California State Personnel Bd. (App. 3 Dist. 1986) 223 Cal.Rptr. 826, 178 Cal.App.3d 372. 4• Contracting out Assuming that statutes detailing standards for Permissible use of cost savings personal services contracts with government and requiring con- tracting agency notify State Personnel Board whenever it proposes to execute such contract aPPlied to government with private party for design and operation of toll roads, contacts 5 § 19130 Note 5 would nonetheless be permitted under Govern- ment Code section which permits personal -ser- vices contracting when contract is for new state function and legislature specifically mandated or authorized performance of work by indepen- dent contractors. Professional Engineers in California Government v. Department of Transp. (California Transp. Ventures, Inc.) (App. 1 Dist.1993) 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 599, 13 Cal. App.41h 585, review denied. Statute permitting Department of Transporta- tion to contract with private sector for construc- tion and operation of traveler service informa- tion facilities and maintenance of roadside rests is subject to constitutional restriction on con- tracting out state work to private sector, judicial decisions which follow establishment of civil service system, and statutes which codify those decisions. Department of Transp. v. Chavez (App. 3 Dist.1992) 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, 7 Cal. AppAth 407, review denied. California Community College Foundation may not, pursuant to its contract with Chancel- lor of Community Colleges, perform or contract with other private persons for the performance of the following services which the employees of the Chancellor are qualified to perform, without violating the laws regulating the state civil ser- vice: professional, technical, and related con- sultation and services in connection with the establishment of "hi- tech" educational centers for disabled students at the local campuses of the Community Colleges. West's Ann.Cal.Educ. Code § 70901. 73 Ops.Atty.Gen. 95 (1990). Riley /Burum exception, permitting contract- ing out of personal services which cannot be performed adequately, competently, or satisfac- torily by civil service employees, is implicit part of statute permitting personal service contracts to achieve cost savings under specified condi- tions. California State Employees' Assn v. State (App. 3 Dist.1988) 245 Cal.Rptr. 232, 199 Cal.App.3d 840. 5. New state functions Under the "new state function" test, courts will ask whether services contracted to private firms for provision of state services displace existing state civil service functions or, instead, embrace new state activity or function; consti- tutional policy of merit employment system did not prohibit legislative experimentation in new forms to fit new functions. Professional Engi- neers in California Government v. Department of Transp. (California Transp. Ventures, Inc.) 37 s IYIJU Note 5 (App. 1 Dist.1993) 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 599, 13 Cal. App.4th 585, review denied. Maintenance of roadside rest areas was not "new state function" within meaning of statute permitting state to contract for personal ser- vices, if contract is for new state function and Legislature has specifically mandated or autho- rized work by independent contractors; con- tracts were executed 20 years after authorizing statute, and designated state agency utilized state employees for most work on the program during intervening years. Department of Trapsp. v. Chavez (App. 3 Dist.1992) 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 176, 7 Cal.AppAth 407, review denied. Statute permitting state to contract with pri- vate firms for personal services, if contract is for new state function and Legislature has spe- cifically mandated or authorized work by inde- pendent contractors, permits contracts with pri- vate firms only if there is legislative authoriza- tion and work involves new state function at time contracts are executed. Department of Transp. v. Chavez (App. 3 Dist.1992) 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 176, 7 Cal.App.4th 407, review denied. Contracts violating constitutional restriction on contracting out state work to private sector and statute which permits state to contract with private firms for personal services, if contract is for new state function and Legislature has spe- cifically mandated to authorized work by inde- pendent contractors, are not "feasible" within meaning of statute stating legislative intent to encourage state organizations, whenever feasi- ble, to contract with nonprofit corporations serving the handicapped. Department of Transp. v. Chavez (App. 3 Dist.1992) 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 176, 7 Cal.App.4th 407, review denied. PERSONNF,L Title 2 6. Nature of services Under the "nature of the services test" court inquires as to whether nature of services con. tracted to private firms for provision of state services is such that they could have been per- formed by civil servant; if so, agency must proceed under civil service mandate. Profes sional Engineers in California Government v. Department of Transp. (California Transp. Ven. tures, Inc.) (App. 1 Dist.1993) 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 599, 13 Cal.App.4th 585, review denied. State agencies and departments are required to utilize services of State Compensation Insur. ance Fund for adjustment and disposition of claims for workers' compensation unless such services cannot be satisfactorily, adequately or competently performed by Fund. 74 Op.Atty. Gen. 132, 8 -7 -91. 7. Public works Contract between state and private firms for provision of financing, design, construction and operation of transportation facilities to solve state transportation needs that could not be met with available public revenue did not violate Government Code subsection detailing stan- dards for permissible use of cost savings person- al services contracts or section requiring that contracting agency notify state personnel board whenever it proposes to execute such contract; such provisions do not apply to franchise agree- ment but rather were restricted to public works. Professional Engineers in California Govern- ment v. Department of Transp. (California Transp. Ventures, Inc.) (App. 1 Dist.1993) 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 599, 13 Cal.App.4th 585, review denied. § 19131. Proposed contract to achieve cost savings; notification of organi- zations representing state employees for comment; review of contract Any state agency proposing to execute a contract pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 19130 shall notify the State Personnel Board of its intention. All organizations that represent state employees who perform the type of work to be contracted, and any person or organization which has filed with the board a request for notice, shall be contacted immediately by the State Personnel Board upon receipt of this notice so that they may be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed contract. Departments or agencies submitting proposed contracts shall retain and provide all data and other information relevant to the contracts and necessary for a specific application of the standards set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 19130. Any employee organi- zation may request, within 10 days of notification, the State Personnel Board to review any contract proposed or executed pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 19130. The review shall be _conducted in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 10337 of the Public Contract Code. Upon such a request, the State 538 STATE CIVIL SERVICE Div. 5 § 19133 Personnel Board shall review the contract for compliance with the standards specified in subdivision (a) of Section 19130. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 1057, p. 3825, § 1. Amended by Stats.1983, c. 142, § 53; r Stats.1992, c. 1302 (A.B.3107), § 13, eff. Sept. 30,1992.) § 19132. Other proposed contracts; review The State Personnel Board, at the request of an employee organization that represents state employees, shall review the adequacy of any proposed- or executed contract which is of a type enumerated in subdivision (b) of Section 19130. The review shall be conducted in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 10337 of the Public Contract Code. However, a contract that was reviewed at the request of an employee organization when it was proposed need not be reviewed again after its execution. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 1057, p. 3825, § 1. Amended by Stats.1983, c. 142, § 54; Stats.1992, c. 1302 (A.B.3107), § 14, eff. Sept. 30, 1992.) § 19133. Students; part -time; work related to field of study (a) Any state agency may enter into an agreement with any public or private institution of higher education in California, nonprofit campus foundation, or state higher education foundation to provide part-time employment to students attending a public or private institution of higher education that contracts with the state agency, or to students attending a public or private institution which is affiliated with a nonprofit campus foundation, or a state higher education foundation, that contracts with a state agency, in work related to the field of study of the student. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no student employed pursuant to this section shall do any of the following: (1) Accrue state civil service status. (2) Be employed for more than 194 days in the 365.days following the initial date of employment. (3) Cause the displacement of civil service employees. (c) "Displacement," for the purposes of this section, includes layoffs, demo- tions, involuntary transfers to a new class, involuntary transfers to a new location requiring a change of residence, and time -based reductions. "Displace- ment," for the purposes of this section, shall not include changes in shifts or days off nor shall it include reassignment to other positions within the same class and general location. (Added by Stats.1989, c. 168, § 2.) Historical and Statutory Notes Section I of Stats.1989, c. 168, provides: "The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is the policy of the State of California to do all of the following: "(a) To provide coordinated work -study expe- riences to the postsecondary education students of California. 539