Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-1985 City Council Agenda packet/.-/d9,171J— ACIENDA BILL NO. oty6 DATE: 12/9/85 (12/18/85) DEPT: Community Development Issue Summary 1. SDR -1578 is ready for Final Approval. 2. All bonds and agreement have been submitted to the City. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 1578 -02 attached, approving final map for SDR -1578. Authorize execution of building site agreement. Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA Final Map Approval, SDR -1578, Williams Lisac, Comer drive (Hot) 3. Requirement for City and other agencies have been met. None 1. Resolution No. 1578 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location' Map Approved. Initial: dtie Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 1578 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF WILLIAM LISAC The 2.722 acres parcel shown as Parcel "A" on the Final Map prepared by Kevin Fisher and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. CITY CLERK MAYOR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: SDR -1578 A -1003, William Lisac, 21045 Comer Drive LOCATION AND SETBACKS: The structure is located on the same portion of the site as originally proposed with the exception of the master bedroom /bath which, in effect, extends the westernmost wing of the building about 33' further southwest. This reduces the rear set- back from 94' to 75'. All other setbacks remain the same. HEIGHT: Structure height has been reduced from 28' to 24.5'. *Revised: %2Q%84 DATE :.Commission Meeting: 11/28/84 The commission reviewed these two items at its meeting of August 22, 1984. At that time staff recommended approval for SDR -1578 but not A -1003 since staff could not make the findings regarding privacy, perception of excessive bulk and compatible bulk and height. The major points of concern for the commission and nearby residents were privacy, preservation of the natural landscape, drainage, compati- bility and landscaping. The commission also reviewed the design of the structure at its study session of October 16, 1984. The applicant's architect out- lined some proposed changes to the plan to address the above concerns. Revised plans showing these changes have been submitted. The main changes have been the relocation of the two -story master bedroom to the northwestern side of the property and the elimination of the formerly proposed two -story decks. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Impervious surface was increased by the re- location of the master bedroom /bath, from 18,164 sq. ft. to 18,564 sq. ft. Both of these figures exceed the 15,000 sq. ft. limit, but are under the 25% coverage limit, of the NHR Ordinance. However, the smaller number must be used and staff was in error when it was reported that the project complied with impervious coverage require- ments although the project was conditioned not to exceed 15,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage. Report to Plann4 f' )mmission 11/20/84 21045 Comer Dri Page 2 The amount of impervious coverage can be reduced by eliminating the pool area, reducing the turnaround to a hammerhead, and reducing the size of the structure. If the applicant wishes to keep this impervious coverage a variance would be required. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 6,114 sq. ft. (same as previous proposal) ANALYSIS: By relocating the master bedroom /bath and eliminating the previously proposed second story decks the applicant has eliminated some of the privacy impacts associated with the project. Sub- stantial landscaping could probably mitigate the remaining privacy impacts. With the condition that substantial landscaping be in- stalled to provide screening (as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant), staff could make finding #1 which was not possible in the original proposal. A condition prohibiting conversion of the flat roof area adjacent tothe master bedroomindows to a deck also would be necessary. The applicant proposed no significant additional grading since the relocated master bedroom /bath would rest partly over the originally proposed family room area and on tiers which would not substantially distrub the existing grade. However, the structure could be further lowered on the site with increased grading which could reduce its bulky appearance. The master beedroom /bath area is setback 45' from the furthest north- eastern projection of the main floor and will not be as visible or massive as it appears in the eastern elevation submitted by the applicant. However, staff is of the opinion that the sturcture is still too large for the site especially considering the amount of impervious coverage proposed. The structure should be reduced to a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. to eliminate the perception of excessive bulk and to make the structure more compatible with the existing structures in the vicinity. It should be noted that a 5,000 sq. ft. structure was originally proposed by the applicant under design review application A -631. Without this reduction staff is of the opinion that findings 3 and 4 cannot be made. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would still recommend approval of SDR -1578 as conditioned and denial of A -1003 since all the necessary findings cannot be made. However, if the commission determines that this project should be approved the necessary findings must be made and approval granted for exhibits "B -1 "C -1 and "D -1" subject tothe conditions in the staff report dated August 15, 1984 and the following additional conditions: 4. 'Ply €1,a€- roo €-a.roa ad}a r t to- -t s stems_ ra i i ,untie eco- r -do- a --calf ems --maccd mss- sal}. --No t _tI .is.raQ ±_a a__ slrzrl- ],c g�o�3 cam=.. k 1- gl- -t Yee st-e� la t 4. The second story deck shall be reduced in size and recessed. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Permit Review Division prior to issuance of any permit. 5. The structural pad shall be lowered in elevation, but kept at the same location, to reduce its bulky appearance even though this solution increases grading. Report to Planning Comt _on William Lisac, 21045 Comer Dr. *6. The color shall be a deep, natural earthtone in the beige /brown spectrum. A color sample shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. Approved. Michael Flores Planner 11/20/84 Page 3 SUBJECT UTM' ©2 0 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SDR -1578 A -1003, William Lisac, 21045 Comer Drive DATE: 8/15/84 :,;.Commission Meeting: 8/22/84 ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of: 1) Tentative Building Site for a single family dwelling on a hillside lot. 2) Design Review for a two -story dwelling over 26' in height. 3) Grading permit for over 1,000 cubic yards of total grading. The .housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval and Building Permits. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN: Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family SITE DATA PARCEL SIZE: 2.78 Acres NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Site contains a moderately steep to steep sloping knoll with oak and eucalyptus trees along its western side. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 29.45% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 15.2% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 950 Cu. Yds. Fill: 280 Cu. Yds. (Includes 218 Cu. Yds. of Cut Depth: 9 Ft. Fill Depth: 2 Ft. Pool Cut) PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all re- quirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1578 A -1003, Lisac, Comer Dr. 8/15/84 Page 2 A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: 8/10/84 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1578 (Exhibit B filed 7/6/84) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and appli- cable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainge Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse. D. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Comer Drive to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% shall be surfaced using 22" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. Report to Planning Commissi,.- SDR -1578 A -1003, Lisac, Comer Dr. 1. Storm Drain Construction 2. Access Road Construction 8/15/84 Page 3 E. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. F. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. I. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. J. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: K. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. L. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. M. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site, pool, grading, drain- age and foundation plans for the site and provide a written statement to the City certifying he has done such a review, and that the plans in question are consis- tent with the recommendations of his report. Building permits will not be issued until this statement is received. B. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits. (It is suggested this plan be prepared by a licensed engineer or architect). This plan is to be accurate to within +0.5 foot and be of such scale and contain detail as to allow accurate determination of slopes, cut and fill quantities and limits of grading /excavation. Cross sections and calculations shall be submitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accordance with City Grading Ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report. C. All slopes either stripped during or created by construction shall be treated adequately for erosion control. The grading plan shall contain details of how this is to be accomplished. This work shall be completed prior to final in- spection /certificate of occupancy. D. All engineering structures /components, foundations and retaining walls over 3 ft. in face height shall be designed by a registered civil engineer. E. All structural fills shall be keyed into side slopes, placed on stable existing ground stripped of all organic /deleterious material, and compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction. Non structural fills shall be likewise placed except to a minimum 85% relative compaction. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1578 A -1003, Lisac, Comer Dr. G. Dust control shall be maintained during construction. 8/15/84 Page 4 F. A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved prior to final approval. This plan should address all potential runoff reaching, created by and leaving the site (including water from paved and roof areas). Plan shall show method of collecting, carrying and disposing of all such water. Water shall not be directed onto adjacent private property without proper authority (existing natural water course, private storm drain easement, etc.). IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided to this project. Contact Cupertino Sanitary District to determine hook up fees and procedures. B. Applicant shall obtain any required private easements for building sewers through adjacent parcels to provide service to the site. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope of driveway shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be surfaced using 22" of A.C. on 6" aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 ft. inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 ft. and an outside radius of 33 ft. E. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. F. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designated pursuant to Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any residential structure shall be further than five hundred feet from at least one hydrant and the fire protection system shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other avail- ability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the 1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two hours (Ord. No. 60.4) Report to Planning Commiss SDR -1578 A -1003, Lisac, Comer Dr. 8/15/84 Page 5 G. Provide 15 ft. clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. H. Developer to install one (1) hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's speci- fications. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. I. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed throughout the residence and connected to the Saratoga Fire Dept. central monitoring station. Location of detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPAR MENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Company. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Permit Review Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. D. Comply with the conditions of the City Geologist as described in his letter dated 7/26/84. E. No retaining walls over 5 ft. in height are permitted. All retaining walls must be screened by landscaping. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1578 A -1003, Lisac, Comer Dr. A -1003 DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE SETBACKS: Front: 62 Ft. Rear': 94 Ft. Left Side: 125 Ft. Right Side: 97 Ft. HEIGHT: 28 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 15 SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage): First Floor: Second Floor: Per Applicant 5,004 sq. ft. 1,110 sq. ft. 8/15/84 Page 6 TOTAL 6,114 sq. ft. COMPLIANCE: The proposed structure complies with ordinance setback, height and coverage requirements. The structure is also under the 6,200 sq. ft. floor area standard in the NHR district. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Stucco beige /gray ROOF MATERIALS: Clay tile earthtones PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS History: Tentative Building Site Approval was previously granted for this site in June, 1978 (SDR -1365) which expired December 1, 1979. The applicant had also requested Design Review Approval for a 5,000 sq. ft. home in late 1978 (A -631), which was denied by the Commission on February 14, 1979. The main reason for this denial was the ex- cessive grading (3,000 cu. yds. of cut and 2,650 cu. yds. of fill) which would have been necessary to accomodate the structure. FINDINGS *1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy Privacy impacts previously associated with the project have been eliminated by relocating the master bedroom /bath and reducing the previously proposed second story decks. The potential impacts to views or privacy be mitigated by the substantial landscaping proposed by the applicant. 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape Over 1,000 cu. yds. of grading is required to accomodate the structure, pool, and driveway. Considering the steepness of the site's topography and the applicant's effort to step the foundation in conformance with this topography, staff feels this amount is not excessive. Most of this grading will occur beneath the house and will not be visible. To a large extent, the site's existing topography will not be visually disturbed. No trees will be removed. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1578 A -1003, Lisac, Comer Dr. *3. Perception of Excessive Bulk The applicant has'endeavored to break up the mass of the structure by varying the setback of portions of the'residence including the second story portion of the structure. With the condition that substantial landscaping be installed, the perception of bulk of the residence will be minimized. *4. Compatible Bulk Height A two -story residence exists just to the east of the subject site. The proposed resi- dence is under the 6,200 sq. ft. floor area standard for.the zoning district and the site is larger than the minimum lot size. 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards The applicant will be in compliance with the grading standards of the NHR and Grading Ordinances due to the stepping of the foundation to reduce the grading necessary to accommodate the structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make Findings #1, 3 and 4. If the Commission wishes to approve the project, per Exhibits "B, C and D the necessary findings are required and staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit the following for staff review and approval: A. Any modifications to the elevations or site plan. B. Landscaping plans showing how the privacy of adjacent properties to the east and south will be protected within 3 years. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection /occupancy, Landscape plans shall be reviewed by the City Horticulturist. C. Detailed grading and drainage plans. 8/15/84 Page 7 2. Tile-seeeed-s.tery- deeps with- views -te the east- apd- seethy- 4meledieg- the deep- eti: -the- peek and d Rieg ream; sbal be del -A1•1- deers- that- I-ead -te- these deeps -spa}} alse- be- del.eted: 3. Impervious coverage on _the site shall_ not. exceed 15,000 sq. ft. Approved: oft Michael Flores Planner MF /dsc P.C. Agenda: 8/22/84 *Note: The Planning Commission made Findings #1, #3, and #4 at their 12/12/84 Meeting. William CoC.._i and Associates TO: Michael Flores, Assistant Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 SUBJECT: Geologic Review RE: Lands of Lisac, SDR -1578 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION GEOTFJ HNICAL •.,,�c�ANTS 314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354-5542 July 26, 1984 51154 JUL 2.. fn,�pailFIITY DEVELOPfsc'' At your request, we have completed a geologic review of the subject applica- tion using the Site and Grading Plans (2 sheets; 20 and 8- scales) prepared by Camargo and Layne Architects dated June 6, 1984. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps and reports from an earlier application for the subject property (SDR- 1365). DISCUSSION In our previous review letter (May 12, 1978), we concurred with the recom- mendation made by the applicant's soil engineer that the proposed development should be moved away from the steeply sloped northwestern portion of the subject property. Our review of the referenced plan indicates that the applicant has moved the proposed development away from the steeper slopes to follow the crest of the ridgeline. In addition, our previous review letter concluded that the Soil Investigation (report) prepared by William F. Jones dated March, 1977, adequately characterized the site conditions and made appropriate recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The proposed development does not appear to be constrained by any unusual soil or geologic conditions. Consequently, we recommend approval with the following conditions: 1) Geotechnical Plan Review The applicant's geotechnical consultant (soils engineer) should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the proposed development (i.e., site preparation and grading; site surface and subsurface drainage; and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, pool walls and the driveway) to ensure his recommendations have been incorporated. The results of the plan review should be described by the geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to issuance of site development and building permits. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Michael Flores, Assistant July 26, 1984 Planner 2) Geotechnical Field Inspection The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections should include, but not neces- sarily be restricted to: site preparation and grading (both residential and driveway); site surface and subsurface drainage improvements; and exca- vations for foundations, retaining walls, and the pool prior to the placement of steel, concrete and /or gunite. The results of these inspections and the as -built condions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to final project approval. WRC:PS:km -2- Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. it) teL William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 William Cotton and Associates ter argmNp 1"A 4 4 "410 1* 2-/578 A-1003 LI6AG ram 12/10/85 (12/18/85) AGENDA BILL NO. DERV T: Community Development S D Issue Summary There is evidence that autos turning north onto Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue violate the bicycle lane frequently. This can and has resulted in the bicyclist having to take evasive action. This office has reviewed this matter and recommends construction of a separated bike path in this area. TDA funds can be used to fund this work. Recommendation Approve concept of separated bike path. Approve use of TDA funds on this project. Fiscal Impacts None if TDA funds ($5000) are used Exhibits /Attachments Staff Report Council Action 12/18: Approved. q CITY OF SARATOGA OGA BIKE LANE AT FRUITVALE AVENUE AND SARATOGA AVENUE Initial: Dept. Bd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. OcrM7 ©0 0 l'CoDO MEMORANDUM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE:November 12, 1985 FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGR. TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: BIKE LANE AT FRUITVALE AVENEUE AND SARATOGA AVENUE The existing bicycle lane (Class II Bikeway) on northbound Fruitvale Avenue just southerly of Saratoga Avenue is properly delineated for its use. Bike lanes are one -way facilities flowing in the same direction as vehicular travel, delineated by a 6" white stripe with bike lane legends and signs. Raised barriers (e.g. raised traffic bars and asphalt concrete dikes) or raised pavement markers are not to be used to delineate bike lanes, because of the possibility of bicyclists falling over them into the road way. Upon reviewing this existing bike lane facility, I feel that by ending the "Bike Lane" at the Kerwin's driveway and constructing a six to eight foot asphalt concrete pathway, located within the existing right of way and adequately separated from vehicular traffic to provide a safe route for bicyclists and pedestrians needing to continue onto northeast bound Saratoga Avenue. There would be a need to provide a short pathway connecting the proposed pathway and the existing pedestrian crosswalk across the right turn lane. The cost of constructing this pathway would amount to less than $5,000.00. If we would be willing to wait a while for the pathway to be constructed, a project proposal to TDA could be put together (deadline for submitting proposals is 1/1/86). I will await further instruction on this matter, and will proceed accordingly as soon as a decision is reached. Erman Dorsey Sr. Engr. Technician ED /kah Attached: Sketch of proposed Pathway.Excerpts from "Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California SARAT 0 GA AY.E. iTa L C E 3 0 1 MI SC i .„,e;n 9 s' g lw e Paver Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways an California Pursuant to: Sections 2373, 2374, 2375, and 2376 of the Streets and Highways Code APPROVED: ("N s ADRIANA GIANTURCO Director of Transportation DATE: June 30, 1978 State of California Business and Transportaticn Agency Department of Transportation Criltrans DEFINITIONS "Bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. The following categories of bikeways are defined in Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code. (a) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path or Bike Trail) Provides a completely separated right -of -way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. (Note: Mopeds are prohibited from bike paths and trails unless specifically authorized by the agency having jurisdiction over the facility.) (b) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) Provides a restricted right -of -way designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. (Note: Mopeds are permitted to operate in bike lanes, per CVC 21209.) (c) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) Provides a right -of -way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. The following additional definitions apply to this publication: Highway a publicly maintained facility open to use by the general public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes road, roadway, or street. Shall depicts mandatory criteria (standards), and are shown in italics. Should depicts recommended or desirable criteria. May depicts permissive criteria. THE DECISION TO DEVELOP BIKEWAYS Development of bikeways should not be considered unless a full commitment can be made to design and construct the facilities to meet or exceed minimum design standards. Whether facilities are for recreation, utility purposes, or both; or whether they are to serve children or adults, or both, proper development is of prime importance. Properly designed facilities can accommodate bicyclists of all levels of skill (except, of course, those without basic skills). An improperly designed facility can be a problem to even the most skilled bicyclist. If reasonable standards cannot be met, bicyclists may be better served without the facility. As experience has shown, a poorly conceived and poorly designed facility will frequently not be used by bicyclists. A facility that is not used may be labeled a waste of public funds. The decision to develop bikeways should be made with the knowledge that bikeways are not the solution to all bicycle related problems. Many of the common problems are related to improper bicyclist and motorist behavior and can only be corrected through effective education and enforcement programs. The development of well- conceived bikeways can have a positive effect on bicyclist and motorist behavior. Conversely, poorly conceived bikeways can be counterproductive to education and enforcement programs. Once a bicycle facility is constructed, the responsibility does not end. Proper maintenance is as important as design. Improper maintenance will curtail the use and effectiveness of any bikeway. SELECTION OF THE TYPE OF FACILITY The type, of facility to select -in meeting the bicycle need is dependent on many factors, but the following applications are the most common for each type: Shared Roadway (no bikeway designation) Most bicycle travel in the State now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway designations. This will probably be true in the future as well. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel and signing and striping for bicycle use may be unnnecessary. In other cases, routes may be inherently unsafe for bicycle travel and it would be inappropriate to encourage additional bicycle travel by designating the routes as bikeways. Finally, routes may not be along high bicycle- demand corridors and it would be inappropriate to designate bikeways regardless of roadway conditions (e.g., on minor residential streets). Many rural highways are used by touring bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel. In most cases, it would be inappropriate to designate the highways as bikeways because of the limited use and the lack of continuity with other bike routes. However, the development and maintenance of four -foot paved roadway shoulders with a standard four -inch edge stripe can significantly improve the safety and convenience for bicyclists and motorists along such routes. Class I Bikeway (bike path) Generally, bike paths should be used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide rights -of -way exist, permitting such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a recreational opportunity or, in some instances, can serve as direct high -speed commute routes, if cross -flow by motor vehicles can be minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility rights -of -way, abandoned railroad rights -of -way, within college campuses, or within and between parks. There may also be situations where such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments. Another common application of Class I facilities is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by construction of freeways, or because of the existence of natural barriers (rivers, mountains, etc.) Class II Bikeway (bike lane) Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is signifi- cant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. The purpose should be to improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the rights -of -way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. But a more important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. This can be accom- plished by reducing the number of lanes, or prohibiting parking on given streets in order to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on bike lane streets to improve the situation for bicyclists, that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface; augmented sweeping programs, special signal facilities, etc.). Generally, stripes alone will not measurably enhance bicycling. If bicycle travel is to be controlled by delineation, special efforts should be made to assure that high levels of service are provided with these lanes. In selecting appropriate streets for bike lanes, location criteria discussed in the next section should.be considered. Class III Bikeway (bike route) Bike routes are shared facilities which serve either to: (1) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (usually Class II bikeways) or (2) to designate preferred routes through high- demand corridors. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suit- able as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Normally, bike routes are shared with motor vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class III bikeways is strongly discouraged. It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II and III should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways -that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application. In selecting the proper facility, an overriding concern is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require bicyclists or motorists to operate in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules of the road. An important consideration in selecting the type of facility is continuity. Alternating segments of Class I and Class II (or Class III) bikeways along a route are generally incompatible, as street crossings by bicyclists are required when the route changes character. Also, wrong -way bicycle travel will occur on the street beyond the ends of bike paths because of the inconvenience of having to cross the street. LOCATION CRITERIA When the decision is reached that a bicycle facility is needed, there are many factors to consider in determining its proper location. The factors of importance will vary, depending on the situation, and will usually include some of the following: Potential Use The facility should be located along a route where use can be maximized. or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize potential for conflict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path signs are visible to approaching auto traffic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion. In some cases, Bike Xing signs may be placed in of the crossing to alert motorists. Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to preserve the utility of the bike path. Separation Between Bike Paths and Highways A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways. Bike paths closer than 5 feet from the edge of a highway shall include a physical divider to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the highway. Suitable dividers could include chain link fences or dense shrubs. •Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are inappropriate because bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming auto- mobile traffic. In instances where there is danger of motorists encroaching into the bike path, a positive barrier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guard railing) should be provided. (Refer to Page 35 for criteria relative to bike paths carried over highway bridges.) Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be con sidered a substitute for the street, because many bicy- clists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips. Some problems with bike paths located P immediately adjacent to roadways are as follows: They require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against automobile traffic, contrary to normal rules of the road. When the bike path ends, bicyclists going against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street. Likewise, bicyclists approaching a bike path will often travel on the wrong side of the street in getting to the path. Wrong -way travel by bicyclists is a major cause of bicycle /auto accidents. At intersections, motorists entering or crossing the highway often will not notice bicyclists coming from their right, as they are not expecting contraflow vehicles. Even bicyclists coming from the left may go unnoticed. When constructed in narrow roadway rights -of- way, the paved shoulder is often sacrificed, thereby decreasing safety for motorists and bicyclists using the roadway. AGENDA BILL NO. 1 6 1, DATE: necemher 12, 1985 (Dec 18, 1985) DEPARTMENT: Community Development S Recommendation Fiscal Impacts None Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARAIOGA CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1571, RICHARD JAMES III SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD (2 LOTS) Exhibits /Attachments Memorandum to City Manager for construction acceptance. Memorandum to City Clerk's Office for Bond Release Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Accept the improvements at 20260 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and authorize release of the cash bond and Certificate of Deposit. INN Issue Su mnary Construction acceptance for the improvements on 20260 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and begin the one year maintenance period. MEMORANDUM OMY ©0 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1571 Name Location: Public Improvements required for 20260 Saratoqa -Los Gatos have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Address: 2. Improvement Security: Type: RSS /dsm Amount: Issuing Company: Address: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Richard James III Richard James III 1319 W. Campbell Avenue #1 Campbell, CA. 95008 Certificate of Deposit, Saving Acct and Passbook CASH $6300 and $700 CASH Los Gatos, CA. 95030 DATE: 12 -12 -85 American Savings Loan Assoc. 400 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 46 -04- 055103 -4 C.D. 3. Special Remarks: Release all of the cash bond (Receipt 6702) and one half of certificate of Deposit no. 46 -04- 055103 -4 Robert S. Shook MJEMOR AN DIM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (101.3) 867 -34313 TO: City Clerk's Office DATE: 12 -12 -85 FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Bond Release for: Richard James III, SDR -1571 The work guaranteed by the bond listed below has been satisfactorily completed. I am, therefore, requesting that bond be released as follows: 1. Bond Type: CASH 2. Amount: $700 3. Receipt, Bond or certificate no.: 6702 4. Date Posted: 12 -03 -84 5. Bond posted by: Richard James III 6. Work guaranteed: As per SDR -1571 Street Improvements 7. Account Number: 21 2110 Issue Bond release to: Name: Richard James III Address: 1319 West Campbell Ave. #1 Campbell, CA. 95008 Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development AGENDA BILL NO. cI q DATE: December 18, 1985 DEPARTMENT: City Attorney CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Irany, et al., vs. City of Saratoga Settlement Agreement INITIAL DEPT. HD. C. ATTORNEY F 1 C. MGR. fre, Issue Summary Pursuant to authorization from the City Council, settlement has been negotiated of the Measure A lawsuit commenced by Irany and Karr in 1983. Unlike the other settlements, this matter does not involve any increase in density beyond the number of lots permitted by the current NHR zoning regulations. The building site approval obtained for the Irany /Karr property was basically a lot line adjustment between two existing lots of record. Under the terms of the settlement, the lot line adjustment would be finalized and the NHR density formula would then be applied to the combined area of both lots (which is likely to preclude any further subdivision of the property). This restriction will be set forth in a document to be recorded with the final map. Because no further extensions of the tentative map approval are available under our Subdivision Ordinance, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution extending the life of the tentative map by reason of the pending litigation, under the authority of Section 66452.6(c) of the Government Code. The procedure is the same as followed in the case of the settlement with Lauren Hulse. Recommendation Adopt resolution staying the period of time for expiration of SDR -1370. Fiscal Impacts None. Adopt motion approving stipulation for settlement and authorizing the mayor and City Clerk to execute the same on behalf of the City. Exhibits /Attachments (a) Resolution staying period of time for expiration of SDR -1370; (b) Stipulation for settlement Council Action APPIOVED. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA STAYING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR EXPIRATION OF TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SDR -1370 WHEREAS, FRED IRANY, CHRIS IRANY, ROBERT KARR and JONLYN KARR "Owners applied to the City of Saratoga for tentative building site approval and lot line adjustment for that certain real property located on Mt. Eden Road identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 503 -13 -116, such application being identified as SDR -1370; and WHEREAS, tentative building site approval was granted by the City on or about September 13, 1978; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 1983, Owners commenced a lawsuit against the City in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 522040, pertaining to the application of the initiative ordinance known as Measure A to SDR -1370, and said lawsuit is still pending as of this date; and WHEREAS, a settlement of said lawsuit has been negotiated between the City and Owners as set forth in that certain Stipulation for Settlement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.6(c) of the California Government Code, Owners have applied to the City for a stay on the period of time otherwise provided for expiration of SDR -1370, NOW, THEREFORE, BE PT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AS FOLLOWS: 1. By reason of the pending litigation between the City and Owners involving SDR -1370 and pursuant to the authority granted under Section 66452.6(c) of the Government Code, a stay is hereby approved for a period of twelve (12) months, commencing as of the expiration date otherwise applicable to SDR -1370 and terminating October 21, 1986. 2. The stay is conditioned upon the execution by all parties of the Stipulation for Settlement, in the form of Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT This Stipulation for Settlement "Agreement by and between FRED IRANY, CHRIS IRANY, ROBERT KARR and JONLYN KARR, "Owners and the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "City is made with reference to the following facts: A. Owners are the fee owners of two lots of record comprising 16.8 acres of unimproved property located on Mt. Eden Road (the "Subject Property which property is within the Northwestern Hillside area of the City of Saratoga "Northwestern Hillside B. Owners filed an application with City for tentative building site approval and lot line adjustment for the Subject Property, such application being identified as SDR -1370, and on or about September 13, 1978, such application was approved by City, subject to various conditions to be satisfied by Owners prior to recordation of a. final map. C. On April 8, 1980, the citizens of Saratoga passed an initiative ordinance, commonly known as Measure A, which became effective on April 25, 1980, and which pertains to the Northwestern Hillside, including the Subject Property and others. D. Section 7 of Measure A states in pertinent part: "Pending final completion of the requirements of Section 3, no zoning changes, land divisions, subdivisions, building or grading permits for construction of a new residence, or other land development approvals of any kind shall be issued in the subject area, nor any applications accepted therefor; provided, that upon a showing of extreme hardship and in agreement with the provisions of this initiative, exceptions may be granted after two noticed public hearings by a 4 /5ths vote of the City Council." Section 3 of Measure A also states in pertinent part: "The City of Saratoga shall within one year from the effective date of this ordinance, or as soon thereafter as feasible, complete a comprehensive review of all development issues in the subject area and adopt a Specific Plan for the area pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65450 65553, incorporating the standards set forth in Section 4 below, and all policies and regulations required to implement said Plan." E. On June 7, 1981, pursuant to and consistent with Measure A and Sections 65450 -65553 of the Government Code, City adopted the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan "Specific Plan"), and on April 27, 1982, pursuant to and consistent with the Specific Plan, City enacted Ordinance NS -3.47 establishing zoning regulations for the Northwestern Hillside "NHR Zoning Regulations being the area covered by Measure A and the Specific Plan. F. City has contended and still contends that SDR -1370 is subject to all provisions of Measure A, the Specific Plan and Ordinance NS -3.47, whereas Owners have contended and still contend they are entitled to building site approval and the lot line adjustment for the Subject Property, upon compliance with all conditions for final map approval and that they are further entitled to building permits authorizing the construction of a single family residence upon Parcel A, as shown on SDR -1370. G. On April 12, 1983, Owners commenced an action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, entitled Irany vs. City of Saratoga, et al., Case Number 522040 "the Lawsuit Pursuant to stipulation between the parties, no responsive pleading to the Complaint has been filed on behalf of defendants. H. The City has denied and continues to deny each and every allegation of Owners in the Lawsuit as to all issues and in all respects. I. Without admitting the validity of any of the contentions which have, or might have been made by any of them, the parties to this Agreement desire and intend fully and finally to compromise and to settle all such contentions and other matters in controversy among them. J. Civil Code Section 1542 provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." K. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding concerning the subject matter between the parties to this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations and proposed agreements, written and oral. Each of the parties hereto acknowledges that no other party, nor the agents nor attorneys of any other party, has made any promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not contained herein to induce the execution of this Agreement, and acknowledges that this Agreement has not been executed in reliance upon any promise, representation, or warranty not contained herein. L. In addition to the settlement of all matters in controversy with respect to the Lawsuit set forth above, the parties hereto desire to settle all other claims, demands and causes of action which may exist between them whether known, unknown, or suspected, except as they may arise from this Agreement. M. All of the parties to this Agreement hereby acknowledge that they have been represented by independent counsel of their own choice throughout all negotiations which preceded the execution of this Agreement, and that they have executed this Agreement with the consent of, and upon the advice of, their own counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. Recitals &through M are incorporated herein by reference. 2. In consideration of the agreement to be executed by Owners, as described in Paragraph 5 below, and dismissal by Owners of the Lawsuit with prejudice, as to all claims and all defendants, and subject to compliance by Owners with the conditions set forth in SDR -1370, City agrees to grant final building site approval for the Subject Property, in accordance with the tentative building site approval as originally granted by City. City further agrees to process applications and issue building and grading permits and other approvals as may be necessary for the construction of a single family dwelling and accessory uses appurtenant thereto upon Parcel A as shown on SDR -1370, conditioned upon prior design review approval thereof and compliance with all applicable provisions of City's zoning and other ordinances, except for the setback provisions of the NHR Zoning Regulations and the Specific Plan. 3. From and after the effective date of this Agreement, neither City nor Owners shall prosecute the Lawsuit, nor shall Owners commence any new action concerning the subject matter of the Lawsuit and this Agreement. Owners may, within one (1) year from the date hereof, reactivate the Lawsuit in the event City fails to perform any material provision of this Agreement and such action has not previously been dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with Paragraph 4 hereof. 4. Concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, Owners shall execute a Stipulation "the Stipulation for unconditional dismissal of the Lawsuit, with prejudice, as to all claims and all defendants. The Stipulation shall be held in trust by counsel for City and shall not be filed until the time provided herein. Upon the expiration of one (1) year after the granting by City of final building site approval for SDR -1370, or upon issuance by City of a building permit for construction of a single family dwelling upon Lot A, whichever shall first occur, counsel for City shall be authorized to file the Stipulation with the Santa Clara County Superior Court and obtain an order thereon dismissing the Lawsuit, with prejudice. 5. In consideration for the granting by City of final building site approval pursuant to SDR -1370, Owners shall execute an agreement wherein Owners shall stipulate that for the purposes of any future subdivision or development of the Subject Property, Parcel A and Parcel B as shown on SDR -1370 shall be considered a single parcel of land and the slope /density formula, as contained in the NHR Zoning Regulations, shall be applied to all of the Subject Property in the same manner as if such property was a single site. Said agreement shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the final map, and shall constitute a covenant running with the land and binding upon the successors and assigns of Owners. 6. As a further consideration for City's approval of said final building site approval, Owners hereby agree that Lots A and B shall be subject to a Development Impact Fee to be payable at the time a building permit is issued for the construction of a new dwelling thereon, in accordance with the ordinance as adopted by City requiring the payment of such fee. 7. Owners hereby stipulate that Measure A is a valid and enforceable initiative approved by the citizens of the City of Saratoga and that the Specific Plan -4.- and the NHR Zoning Regulations are valid and enforceable. This stipulation shall be of no force or effect in the event of City's breach of this Agreement. 8. Owners and City shall bear his, her or its own attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of the Lawsuit and the negotiation and preparation of this Stipulation for Settlement. 9. Conditioned upon full performance of this Agreement by all parties: (a) Owners, on behalf of themselves and their respective agents, representatives, attorneys, employees, successors and assigns, do hereby release City, the former and present members of the City Council, their officials, officers, agents, representatives, employees, attorneys and their insurance carriers, from any and all claims, demands and /or causes of action which may exist between them, whether known, unknown, or suspected, and Owners hereby waive the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542 set forth in Recital J above. The release of unknown claims contained in this Paragraph 9(a) is a separate consideration for the release contained in Paragraph 9(b) hereof and Owners would not have executed this Agreement or agreed to this Paragraph 9(a) but for the release contained in Paragraph 9(b). (b) City, on behalf of itself and its officials, officers, agents, representatives, employees, attorneys and insurance carriers, does hereby release Owners from all claims, demands and /or causes of action which may exist between them, whether known or unknown or suspected and City hereby waives the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542 set forth in Recital J above. The release of unknown claims contained in this Paragraph 9(b) is a separate consideration for the release contained in Paragraph 9(a) hereof and City would not have executed this Agreement or agreed to this Paragraph 9(b) but for the release contained in Paragraph 9(a). 10. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in writing referring hereto, signed by the parties. Such amendment must specifically state that it is an amendment to this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended orally or otherwise than as set forth in this Paragraph 10. 11. Owners shall have the right to assign all or any part of their rights or obligations under this Agreement, subject to prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 12. Owners hereby represent and warrant to City that they collectively hold the entire legal and equitable ownership interest in the Subject Property, with full -5- power and authority to enter into this Agreement, and that no other party has any right, title or interest in the Subject Property or the right to develop the same pursuant to SDR -1370 and this Agreement. 13. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. Other than the parties hereto and their heirs, successors and assigns, and the attorneys now of record in the Lawsuit, no third person shall be entitled, directly or indirectly, to base any claim or have any right arising from or related to this Agreement. 14. If it becomes necessary to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement or to declare rights hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation in addition to any other relief to which he, she or it may be entitled. 15.- The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which it is last signed by all parties. It may be signed in one or more counterparts and, when all parties have signed the original or counterpart, such counterparts together shall constitute one original document. When so signed, this Agreement shall be filed with the Court in the Lawsuit as a Stipulation for Settlement, but the effectiveness of this Agreement does not depend upon Court approval or any Court order or orders. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: r- 2 9 D ANY CHRIS IRANY /A% ROBERT KARR THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation Dated: By MAYOR Ap 4 as to form a ce. AROLD S. TO ity Attorney, BERNARD J OG Attorney for' Owners Attest: CITY CLERK AGENDA BILL NO. 9 q° DATE: 12/10/85 (12/18/85) DEPARTMENT Community Development C. Mgr. RECOMMENDATION' Initial Dept. Hd. C. Atty. SUBJECT: EP -24, Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell Ave., Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of an Encroachment Permit. ISSUE SUMMARY The applicant had begun construction of the subject fence unaware that i encroached into the Farwell Ave. right -of -way. The owner was replacing a wood fence that had been there previously. The building division placed a Stop Work Order on the fence after they noticed it was in the right -of -way. Only 40 ft. of the fence encroaches into the right- of- way, it encloses an existing basketball court that also encroaches into the right -of -way. The City has traditionally restricted fences within rights -of -way because of: 1. The possibility of future wi°denings^ of the roadway or other improvements. 2. Impacts onb pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety. 3. Loss of open space and scenic quality considerations. Additional concerns with this fence include 1) adequate width for parking and opening of car doors within the right -of -way, and 2) City liability. 1. Determine the merits of the appeal and Uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision. 2. Staff recommended denial of EP -24. FISCAL IMPACTS EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Report to Mayor and City Council 3.- Appeal letter 2 Staff report dated 11/8/85 4.. Minutes dated 11/13/85 5. Exhibits: 6. Correspondence received COUNCIL ACTION None Referred to Planning Commission. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/10/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/18/85 SUBJECT: EP -24, Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell Ave., Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of an Encroachment Permit The applicant is requesting encroachment permit approval to locate a 6 ft. concrete fence in a portion of the City's right -of -way along Farwell Avenue. The applicant indicated that the subject fence is replacing a wood fence that had been there previously and was unaware that it encroached into the right -of- way. Subsequently, construction of the subject fence began until a Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Division. The fence encloses an existing basketball court that also encroaches into the right-of-way. The City has traditionally restricted fences within the right -of -way because of: 1. The possibility of future widenings of the roadway or other improvements. 2. Impacts on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety. 3. Loss of open space and scenic quality considerations. Additional concerns with this fence include 1) adequate width for parking and opening of car doors within the right -of -way, and 2) City liability. The applicant has stated that he is willing to enter into an Indemnity Agreement with the City and that the neighbors support the project. In its meeting of 11 /13/85, the Planning Commission made three motions before the request was denied. The first motion was to approve a modified encroachment, permitting moving the fence back to the edge of the court. This motion failed 2 -4. The second motion was to deny the encroachment permit, which failed 2 -4. The third motion was to allow the fence to encroach as proposed, which resulted in a split vote, which is deemed to be a denial. Robert Shook Director of Community Development APN: 397 -18 -45 ZONING: R- 1- 40,000 STAFF ANALYSIS REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Date: 11/8/85 Commission Meeting: 11/13/85 SUBJECT: EP -24, Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell Avenue ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of an encroachment permit to allow a 6 ft. fence to be located within the City's right -of -way. The applicant is requesting encroachment permit approval to locate a 6 ft. concrete fence in a portion of the City's right -of -way. The applicant indicated that there had previously been a fence located in front of the proposed fence and did not know it encroached into the right -of -way. Subsequently, construction of the proposed fence began until a stop work order was issued by the building department. It appears that some work has continued on the fence. Only 40 ft. of the proposed fence will encroach into the right -of -way. The remainder of the fence will be located behind the front property line. There is an existing 900 sq. ft. basketball court on the site that .also encroaches approximately 2 ft. into the City's right -of -way. The proposed fence will enclose the basketball court to include it as part of the property. The fence will be finished with cedar shingles to match the existing residence. The city has traditionally restricted fences within rights-of -way because of: 1. The possibilty of future widenings of the roadway or other improvements. 2. Impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety. 3. Loss of open space and scenic quality considerations. Additional concerns are 1) adequate width for parking and opening of car doors within the right -of -way, and 2) City liability. With respect to future widenings of the roadway, although there are no current plans to widen Farwell Ave., improvement of the right -of -way may be necessary in the future. As for impacts on safety, there are no existing street improvements (Curbs and gutters) on this side of the.street and a drainage ditch is located between the proposed fence and Farwell Ave. The fence is approximately 1 ft. away from the ditch. There would not be enough room for a pedestrian to walk in this area. The area currently Report to Planning Commission EP -24, Cohen 11/8/85 Page 2 appears open and rustic. The fence, particularly because of its closeness to the street, will impact on the ruralness of the area. There is not adequate width for parking and opening of car doors within the right -of -way because of the drainage ditch and the closeness of the wall. Any structure within the right of way creates liability impacts for the City. If the Commission approves the application, the staff reports recommends that the applicant be required to obtain insurance to cover the City's liability. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the encroachment.permit per the staff report dated 11/8/85. If the Planning Commission wishes to deny the encroachment permit, that portion of the fence that has been consructed as. well as the portion of the basketball court that encroaches into the right- of-way must be removed. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the Encroachment Permit, it will include encroachment of the basketball court as well as the fence into the right -of -way, and staff has recommended the following conditions: 1. The City retains the right to revoke the encroachment permit if it interferes with future improvements or if it is determined that the fence creates a safety hazard. 2. The applicant shall enter into an indemnity agreement with the City releasing the City of any liability caused by the fence. 3. The fence shall not exceed 6 ft. measured from the natural grade to, the highest point on either side of the fence. 4. The applicant shall landscape the unimproved areas of the right -of -way to screen the wall. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement prior to issuance of the Encroachment Permit. 5. The applicant shall insure the fence for $2 million with the City. Proof of the insurance must be provided to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the Encroachment Permit. 6. The applicant shall rent that portion of the right -of -way on which the fence encroaches on at current market value of the land adjusted annually. APPROVED: CL pc agenda 11/13/85 Cindy Lashbrook, Planner 50 6 Retwoop riof EP- iq ethiem WE.ST RECEIVER NOV 22 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT in City's right -of -way. See attached letter. RECEIVED !Inv 19 198S fi f I t,, f j U APPEAL APPLICATION Appellant's Signature Date Received:// Hearing Date: /f Fee D CITY USE ONLY Name of Appellant: SAMUEL J. COHEN Address: 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 286 -5800 Name of Applicant: SAMUEL J. COHEN Project File No.: EP -24 Project Address: 14700 Farwell Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 Project Description:6 ft. stucco and shingle fence to be located Decision Being Appealed: Planning Commission's Denial of Appellant's Application for an Encroachment Permit, per Staff Report dated 11/8/85. Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLIC, \TION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 111 PINE ST.. SUITE 1317 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111 TELEPHONE: (415) 362 -3114 TELECOPIER: (415) 791 -2635 OF COUNSEL THEODORE J. BIAGINI MARY SIMON HAND DELIVERED BERLINER, COHEN BIAGINI ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS UNION BANK BUILDING 99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD, SUITE 400 SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95113 TELEPHONE (408) 286 -5800 TELECOPIER (408) 998 -5388 City Council CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 November 22, 1985 RECEIVED NOV 22 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SANFORD A. BERLINER' SAMUEL J. COHEN' CLARENCE A. KELLOGG. JR. HUGH L. ISOLA' ANDREW L. FABER WILLIAM J. GOINES• ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS JOHN N. LEUTZA MICHAEL H. KALKSTEIN MYRON L. BRODV RALPH J. SWANSON PEGGY L. SPRINGGAV JEFFREY M. FORSTER JOSEPH E. OWORAK CORINNE A. TOMEO RONALD 5. MECKLER SAMUEL L. FARB LINDA A. CALLON NORMAN D. THOMAS ALAN J. PINNER JOHN M. DALEY GARY J. COHAN ROBERTA S. HAYASHI RUSSELL J HANLON TIMOTHY T. HUBER JOHN E. RUMEL MARY BETH LONG NANCY J. JOHNSON BRIAN J. HANNON ANNE L. NEETER LUCY G. ALBERTS KEVIN F. KELLEY ROBERT V. HAWN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION 11/13/85 DENYING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR FENCE UPON APPLICATION OF SAMUEL J. COHEN, 14700 FARWELL AVENUE, EP -24 Honorable City Council: I respectfully request that you reverse the Planning Commission's decision of November 13, 1985 denying my application for an en- croachment permit which would allow a portion of the fence which I am presently constructing at my residence to encroach on the City's right -of -way. I understand that you have received from the Planning Commission a map showing the encroachment area, as well as a letter from my neighbors in support of my application, plus other materials forwarded to you in connection with my application before the Planning Commission. For your convenience, I have enclosed the above mentioned map and letter. As a threshold matter, I believe it important that you have some understanding regarding the history of the use of the property at the location for which the encroachment permit is sought. Even before I bought my home in 1970, a fence existed in the encroachment area. A dilapidated wire fence surrounded my property and I presumed that it denoted the property boundary. (You can still see the wire fence along most of the property.) I converted the wire fence along the encroachment area some years back to a wood fence, and am now improving the fence surrounding the entire property to a more decorative shingle and stucco fence. This upgraded fence will match and complement the two -story shingle residence on the prop- erty. As is shown on the enclosed map, the fence will encroach only a short distance (approximately eight feet) on to the City's right of -way and will be not higher than six feet at any point. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission denied my application for an encroachment permit based on the Planning Staff recommendation, dated November 8, 1985. The Planning Staff appar- ently recommends that any encroaching use be denied and that my basketball court, which encroaches two feet on to the City's right of -way, also be modified so as to no longer encroach on the City right -of -way. The Planning Staff analysis recommends denial of the encroachment permit for three reasons: 1. Possibility of future widenings of the roadway or other improve- ments. 2. Impact on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety. 3. Loss of open space and scenic quality considerations. In addition, the following concerns are noted in the Planning Staff's analysis: 4. Lack of adequate width for parking and opening car doors within the right -of -way. 5. City liability. I would like to address each of these considerations in turn. 1. The possibility of future widening of the roadway or other improvements: This should not be of major concern to the City. First of all, the Staff analysis itself (in the last paragraph on the first page of the analysis) indicates that there are no current plans to widen Farwell Avenue. The neighborhood has essentially been "built out," thus making it highly unlikely that any widening or other public improvements need occur. Finally, in the event that the City were to need the encroached portion of the right -of -way for public improvements, I would agree to take all necessary steps to remove the encroaching portion at that time. 2. Impact on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety: As noted in the enclosed letter from my neighbors, the encroaching portion of my fence does not now have, and has never had, an adverse impact on bicycle, pedestrian, or vehicular traffic safety. As I mentioned above, the other, less attractive fence was situated in the en- croachment area for a number of years and had little to no effect on traffic safety. Moreover, the encroachment area abuts a quiet, residential portion of Farwell Avenue which has little vehicular or pedestrian traffic. In addition, people simply do not park in the encroached area. First of all, the neighborhood consists of relatively large residential lots with ample on -site parking. As such, neither residents nor their guests need to park on the street. In addition, you will note on the map submitted in support of this application, that a utility pole located just outside the encroachment area makes it virtually impossible for anyone to park in that area. Finally, the slope of the ground and the existence of a drainage ditch in the encroachment area would also discourage any parking at that location. For these reasons, there would be little to no impact on parking or traffic safety at the encroachment location. 3. Loss of open space and scenic quality: Preliminarily, I would note that while the staff analysis suggests that I reside in a "rural" neighborhood, I believe the area would be more accurately described as a "country" neighborhood. Regarding the aesthetic effects of the proposed fence, the enclosed letter from my neighbors clearly supports my efforts to upgrade my property. My neighbors have long suffered with my dilapidated wire fence and are actually cheering me on in my efforts to upgrade my property. As I mentioned, the fence would not be at odds with the "country" nature of the neighborhood and, in fact, the fence will match the design of my residence. 4. Effect on parking and opening of car doors within the right -of- way: I believe I have addressed this problem in my discussion of point number 2, above. 5. City liability: This should not be a concern of the City as I would be willing to indemnify the City as against any liability caused by the existence of the fence in the encroachment area. Assuming the City is willing to grant the encroachment permit, I would be willing to agree to each of the first three conditions set forth on the second page of the Planning Staff analysis. As to condition number 4, requiring me to execute a landscape and main- tenance agreement, I would suggest that the City reserve judgment on this condition until such time as the fence is actually completed. At that time, I would be willing to have the City inspect the property so that it might ascertain whether or not any landscaping would be needed to maximize the aesthetic qualities of the encroachment area. In closing, there are ample reasons why the encroachment permit should be granted. In addition to the reasons set forth above, I would point out that the Planning Commission denied the encroachment permit on a three -to -three vote, and then only after denying, by a two -to -four vote, a motion which would have denied me any encroach- ment rights whatsoever. In addition, I would point out that my building of the upgraded fence was at all times in good faith. My construction crew contacted the City staff prior to the commencement of the construction and was informed by the staff that no permit would be needed. Relying on this information, we commenced con- struction of the upgraded fence. If the City denies my application for an encroachment permit, I estimate that it will cost me between $4,000.00 and $5,000.00 to remove the partially constructed fence and locate the fence closer to, or inside of, my property boundary. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, I respectfully request that you reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and grant me the requested encroachment permit. SJC:pac Enclosures Very/ ruly ours, SAMUEL J. COHEN Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 11/13/85 16. C -229 City of Saratoga, Consider the .adoption of new toning: Ordinance constituting Chapter 15 of proposed City Code; continued from October 23, 1985 No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on November 19, 1985 and the regular meeting of December 11, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS Page 9 Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell, Encroachment Permit to allow a 6 ft. fence to be located in the City's right -of -way Staff described the application, recommending denial. They indicated that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Staff Report should be deleted "It appears that some work has continued on the fence They explained that some work had been continued on the fence; however, apparently not that portion which encroaches into the street. John Rumel, representing Mr. Cohen, discussed the history of the fence. He addressed the Staff Report, pointing out that there is no planned improvement to the road. He referenced the letter from the applicant, which indicates that he would be willing to remove the encroaching portion of the fence in the event that the City in the fuure decides it needs it for public improvement. He also referenced the letter from the residents in support. He indicated that there is no hindrance to parking from the encroachment because people do not park in that area and there is ample parking and very little traffic. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the fence could be pulled in closer to the court. Mr. Rumel stated that that could be done; however, the concrete base fence would have to be taken out.. He noted that the neighbors are appreciative of the fact that the applicant has put in a more aesthetically pleasing fence. He indicated that the applicant would enter into an indemnity agreement with the City. Mr. Rumel questioned conditions 5 and 6 of the'Staff Report, stating that other encroachment permits had been issued without those conditions. Relative to condition 4, he indicated that Mr. Cohen suggests that the fence be built, and then have the staff review it to decide whether it really needs some kind of covering. Commissioner Burger commented that the applicant had indicated that there was a large gap between the two sections of fence which would be a gateway for the children to enter the sport court area. She added that, therefore, the fence could be moved back from the encroachment and still provide a gate wide enough for the children. Mr. Rumel pointed out that the applicant had built the fence in good faith. He commented that the applicant had estimated that it would cost between $4,000 and $5,000 to rip out the existing work. He noted that, relative to the 2 feet of the basketball court being eliminated, the court has been there for a long time and has never been a problem. He added that it would also be damaging to the court area. Commissioner J. Harris commented that this is a big piece of property and she does not see why there should be any encroachment, even for the court itself, but certainly not for the fence. She added that, when driving down Farwell, it is very obtrusive the way it juts out. She indicated that the other homes along that area have big front yards and no fences out on the street. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he had no strong feelings one way or the other. He stated that he does not see any particular reason why it needs to encroach. On the other hand, he does not see any reason to make the applicant remove the basketball court that has been there for several years. He added that if he could move the fence back to the court or within a very significant area close to the court, it would be a small encroachment but it would not be anywhere near as significant as what is suggested. Commissioner Pines concurred. He added that he would be more concerned if it was at the corner where it would really Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 11/13/85 EP -24 affect the view around the street. Staff pointed out that conditions 5 and 6 have not been on previous applications; however, the new City Manager has suggested these two conditions. Discussion followed on these conditions. Commissioner Burger moved to approve a modified encroachment, permitting moving the fence back to the edge of the court, retaining conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Staff Report and deleting conditions 5 and 6. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which failed 2 -4, with Commissioners B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson and Pines dissenting. Commissioner Pines stated that he had voted no because he does not see any point that is served by moving the fence that already exists, and still allowing it to encroach. Commissioner Peterson agreed. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny EP -24, per the Staff Report dated November 8, 1985. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which failed 2 -4, with Commissioners Burger, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried dissenting. Commissioner Pines moved to allow the fence to. encroach as proposed, per the conditions in the Staff Report, deleting conditions 5 and 6. Commissioner Peterson seconded 'the motion, which resulted in a split vote 3 -3, which is deemed to be a denial. Commissioners Burger, B. Harris and J. Harris dissented. The appeal period was noted. COMMUNICATIONS Written None Oral by Commission 1. Staff stated that the City Manager had requested that e Commission make a policy decision on the Village Beautification A. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend to the City Council that this be established as the current City policy on what would happen with projects in the Village. It was noted that the intent would be to add on to this policy. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 2. It was noted that the Planning Commission Christmas party will be December 14, 1985. 3. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee." ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. RSS:cd Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary Page 10 9 Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Meeting of November 13, Item 17, EP -24 Partial Fence Encroachment at 14700 Farwell (Sam Cohen) Honorable Commissioners: We are the neighbors residing along Farwell Avenue in the area where the Cohens are requesting an encroachment permit for a portion of their new fence. We want you to know that we have no objection to the fence or its encroachment, and are in fact pleased that the fence is being upgraded to an attractive one. We also want you to know that there is no parking in the area encroachment, nor pedestrian use. This particular short stretch Farwell is just around the curve and is therefore not conducive either parking or pedestrian use. The Cohens have had a fence in this location for years, as did the previous property owners. We appreciate their improving the fence, and hope that you will issue the requested encroachment permit. z /6,s j November 11, 1985 Sincerely, CJ S:. RECZ VEND NOV l3 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT z!›47.5,2 of of to DONALD S. CARLSON 15951 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD, SUITE ONE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030 (408) 358-4211 The Planning Commission Site Review Committee City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Gentlemen: December 11, 1985 This letter is in regard to your notice of hearing referred to as "Appeal of denial of en- croachment permit to allow a 6' fence to be located in the City's right -of -way at 14700 Farwell Avenue Unfortunately, due to a prior business commitment, I will be out -of -town on the day of the hearing which is scheduled for December 18, 1985. I received your notice and due to the importance, I feel compelled to respond in writting. The location of my home, 19795 Farwell. Avenue, is directly across the street from the home of Mr. Mrs. S. Cohen and thus, I will be the party most affected by the construction of the 6' fence. I want to clearly state that I find no objection to the structure. Additionally, I feel the fence will decrease a nuisance by preventing younger people from trespassing on the Cohen property which I have witnessed in the past. Aesthetically, it is my opinion that the .expensively designed and constructed fence will blend in and add to the beauty of the neighborhood. In regard to the matter of encroachment, I do not feel that it will adversely affect me, my neighbors, nor the City of Saratoga. I hope this letter will assist you in rendering a favorable decision to allow the construction of the fence as planned by Mr. Cohen. DSC /mm cc: Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Counsel, State of California DEC 11 1985 Since ely, Donald S. Carlson 19795 Farwell Avenue P.O. Box 2951 Saratoga, CA 95070 AG 2' DA BILL NO. DATE 12/9/85 (12/18/85) DEP Issue Summary Fiscal Impacts Community Development Final Map Approval, SDR -1598, Nancy Cole /Flick Construction, Quito Road (2 lots) None q'7 3. Location Map Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA 1. SDR -1598 is ready for Final Approval 2. All bonds and agreements have been submitted to the City 3. Requirements for City and other agencies have been met. Exhibits/Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1598 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission Approved. Initial: Dept. Bd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Recommendation Adopt resolution No. 1598 -02 attached, approving final map for SDR -1598 and authorize execution of contracts for improvements agreement. 04> The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 1598 02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Nancy Cole /Flick Construction The 40,001 square foot and 40,056 square foot parcels shown as parcel "A" and "B" on the final map prepared by Kier and Wright civil engineer and submitted to the City engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two individual building sites. CITY CLERK MAYOR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APN: 397 -5 -16 D A' E APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1598, 14401 Quito Road APPLICANT: Flick Enterprises OWNER: Nancy Cole ACTION REQUESTED: Grant Tentative Building Site Approval for a two -lot subdivision. OTHER APPROVALS RIgREQ Final Building Site Approval, Design Review Approval and Building Permits. ENVIRONMENTAL. _.nSSESSMENj: this project. City of Scrct? n a AFFROVED EXISTING LAND USE: Residential Date: 6/4/85 Gomm-i sst ii Meeting:' 6/12/85 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential PFRCFL SIZE: 1.9723 acres (85,913.388 sq. ft.) AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE: 13.37% Parcel A: Gross .9183 (40,001.148 sq. ft.) Net .914 (39,813.84 sq. ft.) Parcel 8: Gross 1.054 (45,912.24 sq. ft.) Net .926 (40,336.56 sq. ft.) Average Site Slope: Parcel A 14.8% Parcel B 11.9% A Negative Declaration has been prepared for ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Very Low Density N FFAT11RF__ AF(FTATTON: The site slopes to the east. San Tomas Aquino Creek for a portion of the eastern boundary of the site. Mature, dense vegetation is located along the creek, including large redwoods and a large oal. A lame oak i5 also located on the southwestern portion of the site. APN: 397 -5 -16 APPLICANT: Flick Enterprises OTHER ftfPPQVAI_S RULITEE 10)127 ©2 0 LE' REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Scrat9 APPROVED BY: Date 6/4/85 Gommi551 Meeting: 6/12/85 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1598, 14401 Quito Road OWNER: Nancy Cole ACTION REQUESTED: Grant Tentative Building Site Approval for a two -lot subdivision. Final Building Site Approval, Design Review Approval and Building Permits. ENVIRONMNTAL. ASSES END A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN Single Family Residential Very Low Density EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LANE USES: Residential EARCFL_SIZE: 1.9723 acres (85,913.388 sq. ft.) AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE: 13.37% Parcel A: Gross .9183 (40,001.148 sq. ft.) Net .914 (39,813.84 sq. ft.) Parcel B: Gross 1.054 (45,912.24 sq. ft.) Net .926 (40,336.56 sq. ft.) Average Site Slope: Parcel A 14.8% Parcel B 11.9% NATURAL �FEATURE S_..R-__VEGETATION: The site slopes to the east. San Tomas Aquino Creel: forms a portion of the eastern boundary of the site. Mature, dense vegetation is located along the creek, including large redwoods and a large oak. A large oak is also located on the southwestern nnrtion of the site. Report to Planning Commission 6/4/85 SDR -1598, Cole(Flick Ent.), Quito Rd. Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has indicated that the site size based on a boundary survey is 1.9723 acres rather than the 1.976 acres indicated on the assessor's parcel book. A similar subdivision of the site Was tentatively approved by the Planning Commission in February, 1980. Three (3) extensions were granted after the original approval. The project was never granted final approval and the tentative approval expired on Febrary 7, 1985. The net area of the parcels is the site minus the ingress /egress easement. The net area of Parcel A is below the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum. Either the portion of the easement could be remov_?4 from Parcel A or the line could be adjusted slightly to provide the m.in1 um required lot size. Access to the site is from Quito Road across the adjacent property to the north. Access to Parcel A will be across the parcel to the north and then along the northern portion of Parcel B. No bridge will need to be constructed across the street with the access as proposed. A one -story residence is currently located on Parcel B. The existing residence is to remain. Design Review of the new residence to be constructed on Parcel A will be required. The orientation and layout of the two lots makes the lot interpretations unusual. Staff would prefer to interpret the front of Parcel B to be the northern property line. However, this interpretation would create a residence with a nonconforming rear yard setback. Therefore, staff would interpret the front of Parcel B to be the eastern property line. The rear would then be the western property line which would also be the front property line of Parcel A. If the Commission would interpret the lots in another manner, that should be indicated to the applicant. The City Geologist has reviewed the project and recommends conditional approval. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: 5/21/85. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map For SDR -1598 (Exhibit "8" filed April 18, 1985) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and Report to Planning Commission SDR -1598, Cole(Flick Ent), Quito Road 6/4/85 Page 3 recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu- lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any. other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which. hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking recordation fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Quito Road to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling on Parcel A. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 12 -1/2% and 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Access roads having slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not permitted. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be de- signed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. D. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling on Parcel A. Report to Planning Commission 6/4/8S SDR -1598, Cole(Flick. Ent.), Quito Rd. Page 4 E. Construct Driveway Approach 18 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or Netter on 6 in. Aggregate Base. F. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of Community Development. G. Provide adequate sight distance and removobstructions of view as required at access road intersections. H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. I. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Access Road Construction 2. Improvements required on Quito Rd. J. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve- ment Plans. K. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. L. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. M. Additional conditions as to the improvement of Quito Road shall be as required by the Town of Los Gatos per letters dated January 28, 1980 and May 13, 1980. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for: 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross- sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork. quantities) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 4. Erosion control measures. Report to Planning Commission 6/4/85 SDR -1595, Cole(Flick Ent.), Quito Rd. Page 5 5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. 6. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be re- moved. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided for Parcel A and B and fees paid in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4. Fees and bond requirements will be indicated at the time the improvement plans are submitted. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoul- ders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without ad- hering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 12 -1 /2X to 15% shall be sur- faced using 2 -1/2 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. B. Provide an improved access road for fire protection vehicles to a width of 18 ft., plus one foot shoulders on each side. C. Inside turn radius shall be 42 ft. or more. D. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. E. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. F. Developer to install one (1) hydrant on Quito Road that meets Central Fire District's specifications and deposit $10.00 fee per hydrant. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. G. All roads and bridges must sustain 35,000 pounds loading. H. Parking and turnaround areasshall be shown on the improvement, plans. VI. SPECIFY CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1598, Cole(Flick:. Ent.), Quito Rd. 6/4/85 Page 6 B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. All grading adjacent to the SCVWD right -of -way to be done in accordance with sheets 20 -20B of said agency. Details of grading to include the cross sectional view at tt right -of -way and are to •be shown on the Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit issuance prior to construction. B. A portion of the existing house on parcel B may be subject to sheet flooding in the event of the 1% flood. A levee shall be constructed along the District's easement to prevent flooding. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the District and a permi -t obtained. Levee shall be constructed or bonded for or residence removed from flooding area prior to final map approval. C. Site drainage shall be incorporated into an existing storm drainage system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, the outfall shall be designed to serve the general area to minimize the number of future outfalls needed in accord with SCVWD regulations. 0. The well on Parcel B is located about 70 feet from the septic tank. The well does not meet current health standards and shall be sealed prior to final map approval. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION A. Minimum lot size of both parcels shall be 40,000 sq. ft. B. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall pro- vide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /build- ing site. C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. D. Applicant shall comply with the conditions outlined in the City Geologist's letter dated 5 /6/85, incorporated herein by re- ference. E. Design Review required for residence to be located on Parcel A. If a new residence is constructed on Parcel B, Design Review will be required. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1598, Cole(Flick Ent.), Quito Rd. APPROVED: LH /dsc P.C. Agenda: 6/12/85 6/4/85 Page 7 F. House location and driveway design for residence to be located on Parcel A to be reviewed and approved by Central Fire District prior to issuance of a building permit. Lucille Hise Planner I I 6 "44104111 j= ∎lidm il 1 1■ VV Mill w itt ti. OM flu; 70 4sts are:. MIN NCI ..r: a is riliq 1 R viirfl!rtupiui■ ��//��b 1f��. '�F'1... =r 4.1.117.".t...1 Ire 01 I OW kill I 5 NAcy CAL SR -/5 8 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: December 18, 1985 SUBJECT: SUPPORT OF THE "BOTTLE BILL" Issue Summary: Recommendation: Support AB 2020. Fiscal Impacts: The City- owned, Kiwanis out the deposit refunds if the Bill became law. on the organization. Council Action: App roved. 919 CITY OF SARATOGA Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Report to Council 2. AB 2020 3. Fact sheet 4. Bottle Bill Updates (April, May, June) 5. Californians Against Waste press release 6, Correspondence received. Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Services C. Mgr. A non profit organization called "Californians Against Waste" has approached the City Council requesting that the City of Saratoga go on record in support of State Assembly Bill (AB) 2020, more popularly known as the "Bottle Bill The measure would require a 5 cent refundable deposit on beverage containers. The objective of the Bill is to discourage littering and encourage recycling. The Bottle Bill is consistent with existing Council policy supporting recycling efforts. -run recycle center would be authorized to give and would receive a handling fee for doing so, The Bill would have no other fiscal impacts REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: oguiw ©2 'an))C� Support of "Bottle Bill" DATE: 12/13/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/18/85 PURPOSE A non profit organization called "Californians Against Waste" has approached the City Council requesting that the City of Saratoga go on record in support of State Assembly Bill (AB) 2020, more popularly known as the "Bottle Bill ANALYSIS If approved by the State Legislature, AB 2020 would do the following: 1. Place a five cent refundable deposit on beer, wine and soft drink cans and bottles (glass, metal, and plastic) beginning June 1, 1986. Aluminum cans were exempted by an amendment to the Bill. 2. Most bottles of beer or soft drinks would be refillable by January 1, 1987, to insure the lowest costs to consumers and the greatest energy savings. 3. Allow retailers to accept returns automatically, by means of reverse vendors and to refuse containers which are broken or soiled. 4. Allow recycling centers to serve as alternative redemption centers, where consumers could return empty,containers for a refund. 5. Iriclude a handling fee of 1.5 cents per container, to be paid by the beverage distributor to the retailer or recycler to reimburse them for handling costs. The objective of the Bill would be to reduce litter, increase re- cycling, and reduce the costs to consumers for beverage containers by an estimated $228 million per year. It is also anticipated that the Bill would create jobs and result in energy savings. Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2 Subject: Support of "Bottle Bill" It is currently estimated that cans and bottles make up 35% of all California litter. Other states which have approved similar legis- lation include Oregon, Vermont, Maine, Michigan,:_Iowa, and New York. Each has reported an 80% reduction in can and bottle litter as a result of the legislation. Other nearby cities which have already indicated their support for the Bill include San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno. Historically, the community of Saratoga has supported the concept of a bottle bill. Proposition 11, which was similar in some respects to AB 2020, was defeated statewide with 56% opposed and 44% in favor. In Santa Clara County, however, 55% of the voters favored the measure, and only 45% opposed it. The vote in Saratoga was even more supportive, with 60% of Saratoga residents favoring the Proposition and only 40% opposing it. AB 2020 was approved by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee in May, and will go before the Assembly floor in January of 1986. CONCLUSION AB 2020 would reduce litter and encourage recycling. The concept of charging a deposit on beverage containers has proved to be a popular one with the majority of Saratoga voters, and is consistent with the Council's policy to support recycling. Saratoga would join the other cities in its immediate area if it showed support for AB 2020. PREPARED BY: jm Todd Argo Community Services Director AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 21, 1985 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE- 1985 -86 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2020 Introduced by Assembly Member Margolin (Principal coauthor: Senator Morgan) March 8, 1985 An act to add Division 12.1 (commencing with Section 14500) to the Public Resources Code, relating to beverage containers. LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST AB 2020, as amended, Margolin. Beverage containers: refund value. Existing law does not establish a refund value for beverage containers. This bill would enact the Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act, which would, with specified exceptions, establish, and require the payment of, a refund value of not less than 5¢ for beverage containers, as defined, used for beer wine, and other malt or alcoholic beverages, carbonated mineral and soda \eaters, and similar carbonated soft drinks sold or offered for sale in this state on and after June 1, 1986. The bill would prohibit dealers, as defined, from refusing to pay the refund value on specified empty beverage containers and from refusing to accept the containers from consumers, as defined. The bill would prohibit distributors, as defined, from refusing to pay the refund value on empty beverage containers and from refusing to accept the containers from dealers and redemption centers, as defined. The bill would require a distributor to pay 1 to the dealer or redemption center for each container which the distributor accepts. The bill would require a manufacturer, as defined, to 98 40 AB 2020 2 emboss or permanently affix the refund value upon beverage C containers sold or offered for sale by the manufacturer on and after June 1, 1986, in this state, and would also require a manufacturer to make available by January 1, 1987, for purchase, by its distributors, each brand, and each size or similar size of packaged beverages, it produces and sells in refillable beverage bottles, as defined. r With specified exceptions, the bill would prohibit the adoption or enforcement of ordinances, resolutions, rules, or regulations of •i city, county, or other public agency relating to matters covered by the bill. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State- mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Division 12.1 (commencing with Section 2 14500) is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 3 4 DIVISION 12.1. BEVERAGE CONTAINER REUSE 5 AND RECYCLING 6 7 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 8 9 14500. This division shall be known and may be cited (Q_ 10 as the Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act. 11 14501. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: 12 (a) Littered beverage containers impose a high and 13 unnecessary financial and environmental burden on the 14 people of California. 15 (b) Littered beverage containers constitute an 16 aesthetic blight, public nuisance, and safety hazard to the 17 people of California. 18 (c) The disposal of beverage containers after a single 19 use represents a significant, costly, and unnecessary 20 waste of important energy and material resources. 21 (d) The increasing use of disposable beverage 22 containers imposes enormous and unjustified costs on 23 local governments for municipal solid waste handling and 24 litter control. u 98 70 3 AB 2020 1 (e) Several states have significantly reduced the costs 2 associated with disposable beverage containers by 3 requiring that beverage containers carry a refund value 4 as an incentive for their return. 5 (f) Refund values on beverage containers sold in 6 California would significantly increase reuse and 7 recycling of these containers. 8 (g) Refund values on beverage containers sold in 9 California would result in greater overall employment 10 while coliserving expensive energy and material 11 resources. 12 (h) Refund values on beverage containers sold in 13 California would result in immediate and dramatic 14 reductions in litter. 15 (i) Refund values on beverage containers sold. in 16 California would encourage the use of low -cost refillable 17 containers and would be anti- inflationary. 18 (j) Refund values on beverage containers sold in 19 California would impose few, if any, administrative 20 burdens because of their self enforcing nature. 21 (k) Overall, costs to local and state governments 22 would be reduced under a system of refund values, due 23 to reduction in litter and solid waste expenditures. 24 14502. Unless the context otherwise requires, the 25 definitions in this chapter govern the construction of this 26 division 27 14503. "Beverage" means beer wine, and other malt 28 or alcoholic beverages, carbonated mineral and soda 29 waters, and similar carbonated soft drinks in liquid form 30 and intended for human consumption. 31 14504. "Beverage container" means the individual, 32 separate bottle, eat jar, carton, or other receptacle, 33 however denominated, in which a beverage is sold, and 34 which is constructed of metal, guess glass or plastic, or any 35 combination of these materials. "Beverage container" 36 does not include ettps either of the following: 37 (a) Cups and other similar open or loosely sealed 38 receptacles that are filled at the premises of the seller and 39 intended primarily for use on the premises of the seller. 40 (b) Aluminum cans. 98 80 AB 2020 4 1 14506. "Glass beverage container" means a beverage 2 container consisting primarily of glass. 3 14507. "Plastic beverage container" means a 4 beverage container consisting primarily of plastic. 5 44588- "1lictal beverage containcr" mess a heverage 6 eefttiaifter eeftsist-iftg fifftftafilyef eftee mere mctal3. 7 44509, 8 14508. "Beverage bottle" means a beverage container 9 consisting primarily of either glass or plastic. 10 145-1-07 11 14509. Consumer" means every person who 12 purchases a beverage in a beverage container for use or 13 consumption, and every person not a distributor who 14 lawfully comes into possession of a beverage container, 15 whether or not filled with a beverage, including, but not 16 limited to, lodging, eating, or drinking establishments. 17 1454 -1- 18 14510. "Dealer" means every person in this state who 19 engages in the sale of beverages in beverage containers 20 to a consumer, excepting a person who sells beverages 21 through a vending, machine to the extent of those 22 beverages actually sold through the machine. 23 44 24 14511. "Distributor" means every person who 25 engages in the sale of beverages in beverage containers 26 to a dealer in this state, including any manufacturer who 27 engages in these sales. 28 4454.6, 29 14515. "Empty beverage container" means a 30 beverage container which is all of the following: 31 (a) Has the seal or closure installed by the 32 manufacturer broken or removed. 33 (b) Does not contain foreign materials other than the 34 residue of the beverage originally packaged in the 35 beverage container by the manufacturer. 36 (c) Either bears the refund value embossing required 37 pursuant to Section 14531, or is a glass refillable beverage 38 container. 39 (d) If made of glass or plastic, is unbroken. 40 X45'•- 98 100 E -5— AB 2020 1 14516. "Manufacturer" means any person who 2 bottles, cans, or otherwise fills beverage containers for 3 sale to distributors or dealers. 4 44 5 14517. "Refillable beverage container" means a 6 container which would ordinarily be returned to the 7 manufacturer to be refilled and resold. 8 44519: 9 14518. "Nonrefillable beverage container" means a 10 container which would not ordinarily be returned to the 11 manufacturer to be refilled and resold. 12 4-4520 13 14519. "Place of busineli of the dealer" means the 14 location at which a dealer sells, or offers for sale, 15 beverages in beverage containers to consumers. "Place of 16 business of the dealer" does not mean the location of a 17 vending machine which dispenses beverages in beverage 18 containers. 19 44521. 20 14520. "Redemption center" means an operation 21 which accepts from consumers, and pays a refund value 22 for, beverage containers. 23 44522: 24 14521. "Use or consumption" includes the exercise of 25 any right or power over a beverage incidental to the Re 26 ownership thereof, other than the sale, or the keeping or 27 retention, of a beverage for purposes of sale. 28 445-25: The pisiees e€ this diyiiei3e 29 14522. This division is a matter of statewide interest 30 and concern and fife is applicable uniformly throughout 31 the state, and it is the intent of the Legislature, in 32 enacting this division, to occupy the whole field of 33 regulation of refund value of beverage containers as an 34 provided in this division. Therefore, no city or county, or 35 other public agency, may adopt or enforce any 36 ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule relating to the 37 refund value of beverage containers unless expressly 38 authorized by this division. 98 110 AB 2020 CHAPTER 2. REFUND VALUE 1 2 3 14530. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), 4 every beverage container sold or offered for sale, on and 5 after June 1, 1986, in this state shall have a refund value 6 established by the distributor of not less than five cents 7 ($0.05) 8 (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any container 9 which is sold and delivered to a railroad, sleeping car, or 10 steamship company, or common carrier operating 11 vessels, as defined in Section 238 of the Public Utilities 12 Code, opera'ting under a certificate of public 13 convenience and necessity, or an air common carrier, for 14 use and consumption on trains, vessels, or airplanes. 15 14531. On and after June 1, 1986, a manufacturer shall 16 clearly indicate on every beverage container sold or 17 offered for sale by the manufacturer in this state the 18 refund value of the container established pursuant to 19 Section 14530 by either embossing the beverage 20 container or, if the container is a glass refillable beverage 21 container, by either embossing the beverage container or 22 the seal or closure of the beverage container, or by 23 securely affixing a clear and prominent stamp, label, or 24 other device to the beverage container. 25 14532. (a) Except as provided by Section 14539, a 26 dealer shall not refuse to accept from any consumer, at 27 the place of business of the dealer or at a parking facility 28 specifically provided by the dealer for its customers, an 29 empty beverage container which is of the same kind, size, 30 and brand sold by the dealer. The dealer shall not refuse 31 to pay to the consumer the refund value of the beverage 32 container. 33 (b) A dealer may issue refunds for empty beverage 34 containers mechanically by means of any device which 35 accepts certain containers and issues a cash refund or 36 redeemable credit slip of not less than the refund value 37 of the containers. 38 14533. Except as provided by Section 14539, a 39 distributor shall not refuse to accept from any dealer any 40 empty beverage container which is of the same kind, size, 98 130 -7— AB 2020 1 and brand sold by the distributor. The distributor shall 2 not refuse to pay to the dealer the refund value of the 3 beverage container established pursuant to Section 4 14530. A distributor shall also pay one and one -half cents 5 ($0.015) to the dealer for each empty beverage container 6 which the distributor accepts. 7 14534. A redemption center may be established by 8 any person, subject to appropriate state laws and local 9 ordinances, at which location the kinds, sizes, and brands 10 of beverage containers actpted for refund shall be 11 clearly pasted. 12 14535. Except as provided by Section 14539, a 13 distributor shall not refuse to accept from any 14 redemption center, other than a dealer, at the location of 15 the center, a quantity in excess of 2,000 beverage 16 containers of the kinds, sizes, and brands sold by the 17 distributor. 18 The distributor shall not refuse to pay to the 19 redemption center an amount equal to the refund value 20 of the beverage container established pursuant to Section 21 14530. A distributor shall also pay one and one -half cents 22 ($0.015) to the redemption center for each empty 23 beverage container which the distributor accepts. 24 14536. A distributor shall not be required to pay a 25 manufacturer a deposit on a nonrefillable beverage 26 container. 27 14537. A distributor shall not purchase from a 28 manufacturer, and shall not offer for sale, a beverage in 29 a nonrefillable beverage bottle when a beverage of the 30 same brand and type is available from the manufacturer 31 in a refillable beverage bottle of the same size, or a similar 32 size within five ounces. 33 14538. (a) A manufacturer shall make available by 34 January 1, 1987, for purchase by all its distributors each 35 brand, and each size or a similar size within five ounces, 36 of packaged beverages it produces and sells in refillable 37 beverage bottles. 38 (b) Subdivision (a) deer not apply= to manufacturers 39 wheae production facilitic3 a44 cxi3t entirely out3idc the 40 beiaffelafies e€ the continental wed Statc3. 98 150 AB 2020 8 1 14539. (a) A dealer or redemption center may refuse( 2 to accept from any consumer, or a distributor may refuse 3 to accept from any dealer or redemption center, any of 4 the following: 5 (1) An empty nonrefillable beverage container which 6 is not embossed as required by Section 14531. 7 (2) An empty beverage container which is soiled, C 8 stained, or contaminated with any foreign matter, other 9 than the residue of the beverage originally packaged 10 therein, which, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer, 11 redemption center, or distributor, might present a health 12 or sanitation problem. 13 (3) An empty glass or plastic beverage container 14 which is broken. 15 (b) A dealer may establish reasonable hours when a 16 quantity of beverage containers in excess of 48 will be 17 accepted from any one consumer, and may then refuse to 18 accept that quantity during other hours. 19 14540. A distributor who has redeemed an empty 20 beverage container shall not then redeem the same C 21 empty beverage container at the location of a dealer, 22 redemption center, or another distributor. 23 24 CHAPTER 3. OPERATIVE DATES 25 26 14550. This division applies only to beverage 27 containers sold or offered for_sale in this state on and after 28 June 1, 1986. 29 30 CHAPTER 4. SEVERABILITY 31 32 14560. If any provision of this division or the 33 application thereof to any person or circumstance is held 34 invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or C 35 applications of this division, and to this end, the 36 provisions of this division are severable and independent. 0 98 160 FACT SHEET ON AB 2020, THE RETURNABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINER BILL WHAT THE BOTTLE BILL SAYS 1. Places a five cent refundable deposit on all beer and soft drink cans and bottles (glass, aluminum, and plastic). beginning June 1, 1986. 2. Most bottles of beer or soft drinks would be refillable by January 1, 1987, to insure the lowest costs to consumers and the greatest energy savings. 3. Allows retailers to accept returns automatically, by means of reverse vendors and to refuse containers which are broken or soiled. 4. Allows recycling centers to serve as alternative redemption centers, where consumers could return empty, containers for a refund. 5. Includes a handling fee of 1.5 cents per container, to be paid by the beverage distributor to the retailer or recycler, to reimburse them for handling costs. WHAT THE BOTTLE BILL WOULD D0 1. Ll WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED Can and bottle litter would be reduced by 802 —Total litter volume would be cut one —third or more Source: California Public Interest Research Group, based on state litter surveys in the bottle bill states. 1981 study. 2. RECYCLING WOULD NEARLY TRIPLE —Glass bottle recycling would increase from 6% to over 90Z. Plastic bottle recycling would increase from 1% to over 80Z. Aluminum can recycling would increase from under 50Z to over 90Z. Source: Industry sources in each bottle bill state. Estimates of current glass and plastic recycling from the U.S. EPA. Estimates of aluminum recycling here range from 28% to 61%. litter 3. AVERAGE PRICES WOULD BE REDUCED —Due to increased use of low —cost refillable bottles, consumers will save up to $228 million per year. These savings will be over and above added labor, storage and conversion costs under the Bottle Bill. Source: Solares, Speers and Stampler, UC Scholl of Public Policy, 1982. 4. EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE INCREASED AND JOBS PROTECTED There would be a gain of 4,781 jobs 'among recyclers, bottlers, retail clerks, and truckers. The trend toward beverage plant closures would be slowed or reversed, because a returnable system makes local production plants more cost effective. Source: California Public Interest Research Group (Ca1PIRG) 1981 5. ENERGY AND RESOURCES WOULD BE SAVED —Due to increased recycling and refilling, the Bottle Bill would save the equivilant of 7,000 barrels of oil a day in California. —Most of the energy saved would be oil and natural gas. —These savings are over and above increased fuel use for transportation. —At least 7.6 billion gallons of water would be saved every year. Source: California Public Interest Research Group, 1981, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Energy Administration ARE CANS AND BM US A BIG PART OF Ll'1ThR? 1. According to the Waste Management Board (1982 Study by Bechtol and William, Chico State), cans and bottles now make up 30-392 of all items littered in California. 2. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Annual Reports to Congress), cans and bottles make up 40-60% of litter volume in the U.S. DO BOTTLE BILLS REALLY CLEAN UP L111E10 1. In every state which has studied the litter impacts, there has been a major reduction: State Cans and Bottles Total Volume Oregon Down 822 Down 45Z Vermont Down 80% Down 35% Maine Down 862 Down 35% Michigan Down 80Z Down 40% Iowa Down 77Z Down 382 New York Down 80Z Down 33Z Source: State Parks, highways and environmental departments. New York figures from the department of Sanitation. 4. EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE INCREASED, AND JOBS PROTECTED —There would be a gain of 4,781 jobs'among recyclers, bottlers, retail clerks, and truckers. —The trend toward beverage plant closures would be slowed or reversed, because a returnable system makes local production plants more cost effective. Source: California Public Interest Research Group (Ca1PIRG) 1981 5. ENERGY AND RESOURCES WOULD BE SAVED Due to increased recycling and.refilling, the Bottle Bill would save the equivilant of 7,000:tarrels of oil a day in California. —Most of the energy saved would be oil and natural gas. —These savings are over and above increased fuel use for transportation. At least 7.6 billion gallons of water would be saved every year. Source: California Public Interest Research Group, 1981, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Energy Administration ARE CANS AND BOTTLES A BIG PART OF Ll 1. According to the Waste Management Board (1982 Study by Bechtol and William, Chico State), cans and bottles now make up 30-392 of all items littered in California. 2. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Annual Reports to Congress), cans and bottles make up 40 -60% of litter volume in the U.S. DO BOTTLE BILLS REALLY CLEAN UP LIiiEK? 1. In every state which has studied the litter impacts, there has been a major reduction: State Cans and Bottles Total Volume Oregon Down 822 Down 45% Vermont Down 80% Down 35% Maine Down 86% Down 35Z Michigan Down 80% Down 40% Iowa Down 77% Down 38% New York Down 80% Down 33% Source: State Parks, highways and environmental departments. New York figures from the department of Sanitation. HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE CURRENT RECYCLING PROGRAMS 1. In 1960, more than two thirds of all beverage containers were recycled directly, through the extensive use of refillable bottles. 95% of all soft drinks and 50% of all beers came in refillables. 2. Today, less than one -third of all containers are being recycled. Can recycling in California is estimated to be under 50%, bottle recycling 6% and plastic recycling under 12. 3. There has been no significant increase in overall recycling since 1982, despite industry promises. Fluctuating prices have prevented the development of a sustained market. 4. Bottle Bills are "the best recycling device invented," according to the U.S. EPA, because they create a steady volume of materials and cause the development of new markets. In every bottle bill state, overall recycling rates for containers are over 90%. Source: U.S. Brewers Association, National Soft Drink Association, California Public Interest Research Group, U.S. EPA Solid Waste Division, Resource Recovery Magazine. SPENDING FOR AND. AGAINST PROPOSITION 11:(1982) YES ON 11 NO ON 11 Total $920,000 $5.8 million Ratio 6-1 Against Average Contribution $16 $7,000 out -of -state 29 67% Final Vote 449 56% POPULAR OPINION ON BOTTLE BILLS YES NO West Coast (Opinion Research '76) 83Z 8Z California (Dept of Consumer Affairs '79) 84% 16Z California (Wa ^te Management Board '80) 83% 17Z California (University of Southern Cal /Common Cause '84) 80% 199 Charge by the industry Prop. 11 "doesn't even mention refillable bot- tles," and could cost $100 million a year if producers don't switch Prop. 11 would cause "ant and roach" infes- tations in stores. Prop. 11 would force consumers to wait in line. Prop. 11 would "destroy California's recycling industry" by diverting empties into grocery stores. THE NEW BOTTLE BILL BORROWS THE BEST PROVISIONS FROM THE NINE EXISTING STATEWIDE LAWS Response in New Bottle Bill The new Bottle Bill re- quires that nearly all glass bottles be refill- able by 1987. (From the Vermont Law) The new Bottle Bill allows grocers to refuse soiled, unsanitary empties. (From Michig- an's law and others) The new Bottle Bill allows grocers to in- stall automatic "reverse vendors" to refund de- posits more quickly and efficiently. (New York recommendation) The new Bottle Bill allows recyclers to serve as container re- demption centers, and receive a 1.5 cent handling fee. (From New York law) Impact of New Bottle Bill LOWER PRICES: Refillable soft drinks are 40% cheaper and beer 20 than in throwaways. MORE ENERGY SAVED: A refillable bottle uses one third as much energy as a recycled one. Long lines aren't a problem in bottle bill states. This provision would ensure that they don't become a problem here. MORE JOBS: For clerks, truckers, bottle line workers, and recyclers, this provision means thousands of new jobs. Only one bottle Bill state, Michigan, has had an increase in sanitation complaints since the bottle bill. The leg- islature responded by amending their bill with this provision. Bottle Bills have always boosted the recycling industry by vastly increasing volume. This provision gives existing recyclers new opportunities profit. THE NEW BOTTLE BILL BORROWS THE BEST PROVISIONS FROM THE NINE EXISTING STATEWIDE LAWS Charge by the Response in industry New Bottle Bill Prop. 11 "doesn't even mention refillable bot- tles," and could cost $100 million a year if producers don't switch Prop. 11 would cause ant and roach" infes- tations in stores. Prop. 11 would force consumers to wait in line. Prop. 11 would "destroy California's recycling industry" by diverting empties into grocery stores. The new Bottle Bill re- quires that nearly all glass bottles be refill- able by 1987. (From the Vermont Law) The new Bottle Bill allows grocers to refuse soiled, unsanitary empties. (From an's law and others) The new Bottle Bill allows grocers to in- stall automatic "reverse vendors" to refund de- posits more quickly and efficiently. (New York recommendation) The new Bottle Bill allows recyclers to serve as container re- demption centers, and receive a 1.5 cent handling fee. (From New York law) Impact of New Bottle Bill LOWER PRICES: Refillable soft drinks are 40% cheaper and beer 207, than in throwaways. MORE ENERGY SAVED: A refillable bottle uses one third as much energy as a recycled one. Long lines aren't a problem in bottle bill states. This provision would ensure that they don't become a problem here. MORE JOBS: For clerks, truckers, bottle line workers, and recyclers, this provision means thousands of new jobs. Only one bottle Bill state, Michigan, has had an increase in sanitation complaints since the bottle bill. The leg- islature responded by amending their bill with this provision. Bottle Bills have always boosted the recycling industry by vastly increasing volume. This provision gives existing recyclers new opportunities profit. Bottle Bill es; Ma 20 985 k_lpdate Mike Roos In a major step forward for advocates of litter clean -up and recycling, the pro- posed California Bottle Bill passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee Tuesday by a seven to five vote. The measure, Assembly Bill 2020 by Assemblyman Burt Margolin, would reduce litter and increase recycling by requiring a five -cent deposit on beverage bottles. Assembly members Mike Roos, Jim Costa, Byron Sher, Jack O'Connell, Dan Hauser, Tom Bates and Sam Farr voted for the measure. "This is a major victory," said Bill Shireman, Executive Director of Califor- nians Against Waste, a 35,000 member citizen lobby advocating the bill. "The committee members heard all the evi- dence, and a majority were convinced that the bottle bill is the best way to com- bat California's costly litter problem." The bill passed with amendments including: Aluminum cans were exempted from Jim Costa Sam Fan e minimum deposit law; and Deposits were also applied to wine and liquor bottles. "The measure that emerged from the committee is a dramatic step forward," Shireman said. "It would expand glass recycling rates more than ten -fold, it would conserve energy and resources, and it would clean up 80% of the glass and plastic containers littering our parks, beaches, and roadways." The Committee heard key testimony from J. Henry Neale, a New York attorney who was appointed by Govemor Mario Cuomo to that state's Temporary State Commission on Returnable Containers. He told members that his industry dominated committee unanimously declared the bottle bill a success in a report to the New York legislature. Joining CAW in working for the bill was the Califomia Farm Bureau Federation, the California Medical Association, the Califomia Public Interest Research Group (CaIPIRG), the California Resource Recov Jack O'Connell Bottle Bill Passes Assembly Committee Byron Sher ery Association, the Northern California Recyclers' Association and many others. Nine states now have returnable bever- age container laws. The measure passed by the committee closely resembles de- posit systems in Iowa, where wine and liquor bottles are included, and Delaware, where aluminum cans are exempt. "The question is no longer whether a bottle bill will pass," said Shireman, "but when it will pass, and what type of bottle bill it will be." Californians Against Waste 909 12th Street 8201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443 -5422 ottle Bi!I ...(P) cJ�te Legislators Challenge Industry to Fulfill Promises by January State legislators on both sides of the campaign for a returnable bottle bill have challenged the measure's opponents to institute a successful glass recycling pro- gram by January or face passage of the measure. In response to the pressure, officials of Owens Illinois, the nation's largest bottle manufacturer, announced that the com- pany will increase the price it pays selected California recycling centers for scrap glass if those centers pay con- sumers one cent for every bottle returned. Bottle bill supporters said they were skeptical about the new plan, claiming that many of the industry's past promises still remain unfulfilled. The Owens Illinois announcement came after bottle bill opponents pledged to lawmakers that they would boost glass recycling levels from less than 10 percent to at least 85 percent, close to the level achieved in states that have enacted the returnable container laws. The California proposal, Assembly Bill 2020 by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D— Los Angeles) and Rebecca Morgan (R— Los Altos Hills), would require that beverage bottles be returnable for a min- imum five -cent deposit The measure passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, 7 -5, on May 14 despite the industry pledge. Some legislators who voted against the measure said they could change their vote if the industry did not make good on its promises. "I commit to you that if the industry does not succeed in developing an aggressive program [to recycle bottles) by next January, my vote will be available to support a proposal such as AB 2020," said Assemblyman Bill Jones,. a "no" vote in committee, in letters to supporters of the bill after the hearing. During the hearing, Coca -Cola Vice President Steve Tobia pledged that bottle bill opponents would institute a glass recy- cling program that "will be reaching the same numbers that we have with alumi- num cans," which he claimed are cur- rently recycled at a 61% level. Pressed by Assemblyman Mike Roos (D —Los Angeles) to match the 90 percent recycling levels achieved with bottle bills, opponents insisted that those levels were within reach. "Those rates of 85 -90 percent are pos- sible, there is no question about it," testi- fied David Little of CR &R, Inc., a large Los Angeles recycling firm. "The way the recy- cling industry is moving ahead in the state of California, I believe that those goals are realistic." Bottle bill supporters, however, pointed out that this was not the first time the industry has made promises to boost recy- cling and clean up container litter. On August 30, 1983, the California Grocers Association pledged to place aluminum can recycling machines at 2,000 grocery stores. These machines, called "reverse vendors because they take back empties and issue refund slips automatically, were to have been placed throughout the state by March 1984, with 2,000 more to come later, according to the Los Angeles Times. Machines have been placed at only a handful of California stores. The grocers also said they would follow up the aluminum machines with reverse vendors for glass. But after more than two years, no glass vendors have yet been placed, and only a few non payback glass drop -off boxes have been set up, accord- ing to Californians Against Waste, a 36,000- member citizen lobby which sup- ports the bottle bill. "Long before the latest promises were made, the industry developed program alternatives to the bottle bill like Pitch in for Positive Litter Reduction, the Industry Environmental Council and the Clean Community System," said Amy Lethbridge of Californians Against Waste. "These programs have had little effect on the litter problem." Though skeptical that the latest prom- ises to expand glass recycling will be ful- filled, bottle bill supporters challenged the industry to meet the January deadline. "We're adopting a wait- and -see atti- tude," said Amy Lethbridge of Californians Against Waste. "If they can approach the glass recycling levels in the bottle bill states, that will be a tremendous accom- plishment. But if they fail, they take the chance that it will be the last failure the legislature will tolerate." Califomlans Against Waste 009 12th Street 8201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-5422 July 8, 1985 ottle Bill Legislators Challenge Industry to Fulfill Promises by January State legislators on both sides of the campaign for a returnable bottle bill have challenged the measure's opponents to institute a successful glass recycling pro- gram by January or face passage of the measure. In response to the pressure, officials of Owens Illinois, the nation's largest bottle manufacturer, announced that the com- pany will increase the price it pays selected California recycling centers for scrap glass if those centers pay. con- sumers one cent for every bottle returned. Bottle bill supporters said they were skeptical about the new plan, claiming that many of the industry's past promises still remain unfulfilled. The Owens Illinois announcement came after bottle bill opponents pledged to lawmakers that they would boost glass recycling levels from less than 10 percent to at least 85 percent, close to the level achieved in states that have enacted the returnable container laws. The California proposal, Assembly Bill 2020 by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D— Los Angeles) and Rebecca Morgan (R— Los Altos Hills), would require that beverage bottles be returnable for a min- imum five -cent deposit. The measure passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, 7 -5, on 14 despite the industry pledge. Some i who voted against the measure said they could change their vote if the industry did not make good on its promises. "I commit to you that if the industry dces not succeed in developing an aggressive program [to recycle bottles] by next January, my vote will be available to suaport a proposal such as AB 2020," sai1 Assemblyman Bill Jones, a "no" vote in committee, in letters to supporters of the bill after the hearing. During the hearing, Coca -Cola Vice President Steve Tobia pledged that bottle bill opponents would institute a glass recy- cling program that "will be reaching the same numbers that we have with alumi- num cans," which he claimed are cur- rently recycled at a 61% level. Pressed by Assemblyman Mike Roos (D —Los Angeles) to match the 90 percent recycling levels achieved with bottle bills, opponents insisted that those levels were within reach. "Those rates of 85 -90 percent are pos- sible, there is no question about it," testi- fied David Little of CR&R, Inc., a large Los Angeles recycling firm. "The way the recy- cling industry is moving ahead in the state of California, I believe that those goals are realistic." Bottle bill supporters, however, pointed out that this was not the first time the industry has made promises to boost recy- cling and clean up container litter. On August 30, 1983, the California Grocers Association pledged to place aluminum can recycling machines at 2,000 grocery stores. These machines, called "reverse vendors because they take back empties and issue refund slips automatically, were to have been placed throughout the state by March 1984, with 2,000 more to come later, according to the Los Angeles Times. Machines have been placed at oniy a handful of California stores. The grocers also said they would follow up the aluminum machines with reverse vendors for glass. But after more than two years, no glass vendors have yet been placed, and only a few non payback glass drop -off boxes have been set up, accord- ing to Californians Against Waste, a 36,000- member citizen lobby which sup- ports the bottle bill. "Long before the latest promises were made, the industry developed program alternatives to the bottle bill like Pitch in for Positive Litter Reduction, the Industry Environmental Council and the Clean Community System," said Amy Lethbridge of Californians Against Waste. "These programs have had little effect on the litter problem." Though skeptical that the latest prom- ises to expand glass recycling will be ful- filled, bottle bill supporters challenged the industry to meet the January deadline. "We're adopting a wait- and -see atti- tude," said Amy Lethbridge of Californians Against Waste. "If they can approach the glass recycling levels in the bottle bill states, that will be a tremendous accom- plishment. But if they fail, they take the chance that it will be the last failure the legislature will tolerate." Californians Against Waste 909 12th Street 1201 Sacramento. CA 95814 (916) 443 -S422 July 8, 1985 Recyclers statewide have pledged sup- port to Assembly Bill 2020, the "bottle bill," because it will increase the supply of materials to be recycled and reduce litter. California's two major recycling groups, the California Resource Recovery Associ- ation (CRRA) and the Northern California Recycling Association (NCRA), have both endorsed the bill. Kate Krebs, a member of both the CRRA, the NCRA and director of the Arcata Community Recycling Center, one of the oldest community -based recyclers in California, said, "Like many recyclers at the local level, we have worked to ensure an ever- increasing flow of materials through our plant. We currently handle about 135 tons per month. As impressive as that figure seems in our small town, we have become increasingly aware that we are tapping just a tiny fraction of the waste Glass 1 7% Plastic <1% Bottle Bill States Glass Plastic ottle Bill is; date California Recyclers Want Boost That Bottle Bill Will Bring Recycling Rates for Glass Plastic California Sources: Industry surveys in bottle bill states, Beverage Industry Magazine. 190% stream, particularly when it comes to glass bottles. The bottle bill will change that." Under AB 2020 recycling centers could also serve as redemption centers where consumers could return empty bottles for a deposit refund. CRRA board member Richard Gertman testified before the State Assembly Natural Resources Committee in favor of the bot- tle bill, "The goal of our organization is to promote recycling and the reuse of mate- rials. As such, we support the bottle bill because of the beneficial effect it will have on recycling and recyclers. Currently less than ten percent of beverage bottles are recycled. AB 2020 will bring about an 800 percent increase in the glass recycling rate. It will also reduce the amount of material going to landfill by at least five percent and as a waste management organization, we are concerned with that as well." Krebs, director of the Arcata recycling center, said that in addition to an increase in the number of beverage containers handled "we expect a spinoff effect that will boost our tonnage in other recyclable items such as newsprint, cardboard, motor oil and non deposit glass. The redemption center concept will draw peo- ple in who have never heard of the Arcata Community Recycling Center." Another recycler, George Crane of the Ecology Center of San Luis Obispo, echoed similar ideas, "The facts are indisputable— container deposit laws create significant increases in recycling. They also pave the way for increasing public awareness of the need for recy- cling other materials. There are no other proven methods to bring up the recycling rates of beverage containers to levels guaranteed by the bottle bill." Oregon Recyclers Stand Behind Their Bottle Bill Since the bottle bill passed in Oregon 14 years ago, recyclers there have enjoyed the steady business brought about by_the- increased recycling rates of beverage containers —a business boost that California recyclers anticipate once the bill is passed here. The Association of Oregon Recyclers (AOR) has consistently supported con- tainer deposit laws as a way to "increase the rate of recycling. Recycling and reus- ing containers uses Tess energy and resources than the manufacture of new containers." Mark Bowers, an Oregon recycler who formerly operated a recycling center in California, and who is a board member of the AOR, testified for Assembly Bill 2020 before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee: "With this modest nickel incentive, well over 90 percent of the roughly one billion bottles and cans sold in Oregon are recycled. This results in significant savings of energy, water and landfill space." Responding to claims that the bottle bill is economically unsound, Bowers said, "For a state that has been 'devastated' by deposit legislation for 14 years, Oregon looks pretty good. We have cleaned up 87 percent of the can and bottle litter, we have a strong, growing recycling industry and the people are behind the system by an overwhelming margin." Californians Against Waste 909 12th Street 0201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 449 5422 June 6, 1985 Bottle Bill Updcite The California Medical Asso- ciation (CMA) has endorsed the California beverage container deposit law, known popularly as the bottle bill. The CMA joins a growing coalition pledged to the passage of Assembly Bill 2020, introduced by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D -Los Angeles). The bill would place a five -cent returnable deposit on all beer and soft drink containers. Other organizations that have endorsed the bill are the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Teamsters Union, the Cali- fornia Public Interest Research Group Most Californians support the Bottle Bill as a way of cleaning up litter and saving resources. But Janice B. Chainey of Bel- mont has another reason. "Our son Tom jumped two feet off a rock in a park and cut his foot so badly through his shoe that he was hospi- talized," says Chainey. "His tendons were cut, so he wore a cast for weeks. Meanwhile, he was unemployed and the state picked up his hospital bill over $3,700, plus they paid him unemployment disability for a few months. "And, of course, he is still suffering from a bad foot that will never be the same." Tom is not alone. More than 250,000 Californians were injured by littered bev- erage containers in 1976, the last year sta- tistics were reported. Of those, over 102,000 required hospitalization, at a cost of millions of dollars to the victims and their employers. Despite a twenty -year anti -litter cam- paign waged by beverage container manufacturers, beer and soft drink emp- ties still represent almost 40% of the items littered in California, according to a 1982 report by the California Waste Manage- ment Board. California Medical Association Endorses The Bottle Bill (CaIPIRG), the Sierra Club and major recy- cling firms. The CMA's endorsement came after their Commission on State Legislation unanimously recommended to the CMA council that the bill be endorsed. David Woods, associate director of government relations for the CMA, said his organization endorsed the bottle bill because, "It's a public health issue in which physicians are interested espe- cially pediatricians. A bill such as this would protect Californians." Woods stressed that the CMA would Broken Glass and Littered Cans Injure Thousands of Californians Every Year Nine states have now passed the law: Oregon, Vermont, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware and New York. Accident reports are down 75 and lacerations caused by broken glass have been practically eliminated, says William Stark, a Michigan Parks and Recreation official. "If 'fantastic' were a valid word in statis- tics, it would best desribe the reduction in litter," according to Edwin E. Mika, another parkofficial irtthe state. In fact, beverage container litter is down an average of 80% in all nine bottle bill states, according to litter counts by state highway and environmental departments. And that translates into lower hospital bills for state residents. "It is time Califomia took seriously the dangers posed by millions of broken glass bottles and twisted cans," according to Bill Shireman, Executive Director of Cali- fornians Against Waste (CAW), a 35,000 member citizen lobby working to pass the Bottle Bill. "The hazards to children, to motorists and bicyclists, to vacationers at the beach are absolutely unwarranted, especially when a cleaner and safer state is just a nickel away." Californians Against Waste 909 12th Street #201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443 -5422 actively support the bottle bill. "We approve of the concept of this legislation. We like the idea; we will write to legisla- tors; and we will testify at committee hearings." Executive Director Bill Shireman of Cali- fornians Against Waste, a 35,000- member citizen lobby working for passage of the bill, said, "Thousands of Californians receive cuts and lacerations every year as a result of broken bottles and twisted cans on California roads, parks and beaches." Shireman continued, "The CMA's support also dispels the scare tactics used by opponents of the bill, who have tried to frighten Californians with stories of ants, roaches and other insects that sup- posedly invade container storage areas. In fact, not a single report of any such health hazard has been reported in the nine states with deposit laws. Opponents of the bill have tried to mask a real problem littered containers with a bogus one." (�,WM r`��yi This update is the first of a weekly se- ries designed to offer the latest news on AB 2020, the bottle bill. Any ques- tions concerning the bottle bill or the information found in this update may be directed to Bill Shireman, Execu- tive Director of Californians Against Waste, at (916) 443 -5422. Bottle Bi Updcite The California Medical Asso- ciation (CMA) has endorsed the California beverage container deposit law, known popularly as the bottle bill. The CMA joins a growing coalition pledged to the passage of Assembly Bill 2020, introduced by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D -Los Angeles). The bill would place a five -cent returnable deposit on all beer and soft drink containers. Other organizations that have endorsed the bill are the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Teamsters Union, the Cali- fornia Public Interest Research Group Broken Glass and Littered Cans Injure Thousands of Californians Every Year Most Californians support the Bottle Bill as a way of cleaning up litter and saving resources. But Janice B. Chainey of Bel- mont has another reason. "Our son Tom jumped two feet off a rock in a park and cut his foot so badly through his shoe that he was hospi- talized," says Chainey. "His tendons were cut, so he wore a cast for weeks. Meanwhile, he was unemployed and the state picked up his hospital bill over $3,700, plus they paid him unemployment disability for a few months. "And, of course, he is still suffering from a bad foot that will never be the same." Tom is not alone. More than 250,000 Californians were injured by littered bev- erage containers in 1976, the last year sta- tistics were reported. Of those, over 102,000 required hospitalization, at a cost of millions of dollars to the victims and their employers. Despite a twenty-year anti -litter cam- paign waged by beverage container manufacturers, beer and soft drink emp- ties still represent almost 40% of the items littered in California, according to a 1982 report by the California Waste Manage- ment Board. California Medical Association Endorses The Bottle Bill (CaIPIRG), the Sierra Club and major recy- cling firms. The CMA's endorsement came after their Commission on State Legislation unanimously recommended to the CMA council that the bill be endorsed. David Woods, associate director of government relations for the CMA, said his organization endorsed the bottle bill because, "It's a public health issue in which physicians are interested espe- cially pediatricians. A bill such as this would protect Californians." Woods stressed that the CMA would Nine states have now passed the law: Oregon, Vermont, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware and New York. Accident reports are down 75%, and lacerations caused by broken glass have been practically eliminated, says William Stark, a Michigan Parks and Recreation official. if 'fantastic' were a valid word in statis- tics, it would best desribe the reduction in litter," according to Edwin E. Mika, another park official in the state. In fact, beverage container litter is down an average of 80% in all nine bottle bill states, according to litter counts by state highway and environmental departments. And that translates into lower hospital bills for state residents. "It is time California took seriously the dangers posed by millions of broken glass bottles and twisted cans," according to Bill Shireman, Executive Director of Cali- fornians Against Waste (CAW), a 35,000 member citizen lobby working to pass the Bottle Bill. "The hazards to children, to motorists and bicyclists, to vacationers at the beach are absolutely unwarranted, especially when a cleaner and safer state is just a nickel away." Californians Against Waste 909 12tH Street #201 Sacramento. CA 95814 (916) 443 -5422 actively support the bottle bill. "We approve of the concept of this legislation. We like the idea; we will write to legisla- tors; and we will testify at committee hearings." Executive Director Bill Shireman of Cali- fornians Against Waste, a 35,000- member citizen lobby working for passage of the bill, said, "Thousands of Californians receive cuts and lacerations every year as a result of broken bottles and twisted cans on California roads, parks and beaches." Shireman continued, "The CMA's support also dispels the scare tactics used by opponents of the bill, who have tried to frighten Californians with stories of ants, roaches and other insects that sup- posedly invade container storage areas. In fact, not a single report of any such health hazard has been reported in the nine states with deposit laws. Opponents of the bill have tried to mask a real problem littered containers with a bogus one." WELCOAM CalTORILk This update is the first of a weekly se- ries designed to offer the latest news on AB 2020, the bottle bill. Any ques- tions concerning the bottle bill or the information found in this update may be directed to Bill Shireman, Execu- tive Director of Californians Against Waste, at (916) 443 -5422. ottle Bill Vic! te April zs 98 The California Farm Bureau Federation has re- endorsed the 1985 bottle bill, stat- ing that farmers' continual battle with problems due to littered containers must come to an end. The Farm Bureau's official endorsement reads, "Any beverage sold and not required to be consumed on the premises where sold, should be in a biodegradable container or in containers for which a substantial refund is offered for the return thereof. Existing laws pertaining to littering should be enforced with greater vigor." This statement is especially strong because in the absence of a bottle bill, the endorsement calls for biodegradable con- tainers. Because none of the standard beverage containers (metal, glass and California Farm Bureau Lends Support to the Bottle Bill 4vc,rrlO)v rr,✓ SAle. dn/ sUV.1fRt4rt Californians Against Waste 909 12th Street #201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443 5422 plastic) are biodegradable, the bottle bill is the alternative that infringes least on the market. "$1.4 million is a conser- vative estimate of farmers' expenses in Fresno." The bureau's director of natural re- sources, William DuBois, listed some of the hazards that litter creates for farmers: glass containers are injurious to pastured animals; broken glass is a major cause of tire damage to farm vehicles; containers contaminate food supply when harvested Eight out of ten Californians support a law requiring beer and soft drink containers to be returnable for a five -cent deposit, according to a statewide poll released today. The new proposal, Assembly Bill 2020, introduced March 8 by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D -Los Angeles), is similar to Proposition 11, the 1982 ballot initiative. "The bottle bill has been proven far more effective than any taxpayer financed litter control programs." Margolin said. "It makes use of a simple market incentive to encourage the return and recycling of cans and bottles." If AB 2020 is passed by the legislature, California would join nine other states with similar measures. Oregon was the first state to adopt retumable containers in 1972. New York was the most recent, in 1983. The nine states with bottle bills have with forage crop, causing metal poisoning or internal bleeding. "Farmers who operate near well traveled roads are tired of picking up dis- carded soft drink and beer containers from their fields," said DuBois. "So many problems result from this type of litter. Farmers are proud of their farms, and they want them to look sightly." Bill Allison of the Fresno County Farm Bureau said that a 1982 study revealed that litter related injuries to livestock and farmers plus litter related damage to machinery cost farmers $1.4 million. "In 1985," he added, 11.4 million is a con- servative estimate of farmers' expense." Eight out of Ten Californians Want Deposit recycling levels of above 90 and bever- age container litter has been reduced 80% in each, according to state clean -up agencies. By contrast, only about 6% of California's glass bottles and less than 1% of its plastic containers are being recycled. "The evidence that bottle bills work effi- ciently, have strong public support and help improve the environment is now overwhelming," Margolin said. The results of the Public Interest Poll, a statewide survey operated jointly by the University of Southern California and Common Cause, a citizen group, showed that support for deposits was high among all groups surveyed. Republicans back the measure by an 82% margin, while democrats show 78% support. Support among women stands at 84 among men, 75 Bottle Bill !!pdote California's Largest Labor Unions Support the Bottle Bill The 200,000- member United Food and Commercial Workers Union Southwestern States Council has joined with the Team- sters Union to endorse the California bev- erage container deposit law, popularly known as the Bottle Bill. Together these two unions represent half of the organized union members in the state of California. Michael Straeter, President of UFCW Local 1442, says that the measure, Assembly Bill 2020 by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D -Los Angeles), "has been proven to work in nine states and is an unqualified success, not just in cleaning up litter and boosting recycling, but in creating jobs, preventing litter related injuries, and saving money." Teamsters Business Representative Bob Windsor added, "Throwaway con- tainers throw away jobs. The Bottle Bill ANN Californians Against Waste 909 12th Street #201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443 -5422 creates jobs —that has been the expe- rience in'all existing Bottle Bill states and that is what will happen in California." Increased production of throwaway containers has caused a number of soft drink plant closures and subsequently, a significant job loss. Refillable containers require two -way shipping —from the plant to the store and back again. There is a greater need for local plants to handle returned bottles. Throwaway bottles has enabled the beverage industry to central- ize manufacturing, causing local plants to be closed. This centralization has hit inner -city plants especially hard. In the past 20 years, nearly 100 soft drink plants have closed in Califomia. (see table) If passed, California would join nine other states which have minimum five cent deposits on beer and soft drink cans and bottles. The nine states that have passed Bottle Bills are Oregon, New York, Maine, Michi- gan, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa. In every one of those states there has been a net increase in employment, along with major reduc- tions in litter and increases in recycling. A congressional study concluded that the Michigan Bottle Bill created a net increase of more than 4,800 new jobs in the beverage, retail, transportation and recycling industries. Similar studies indi- cate that over 5,000 new jobs would be created in California because of a Bottle Bill. SOFT DRINK PLANT CLOSURES IN CALIFORNIA 1966 TO 1980 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Source: National Sot Drink Association TOTAL PLANTS 177 170 159 147 141 137 133 132 129 125 117 113 115 108 95 CLOSURES THAT YEAR (NET) 6 7 11 12 4 4 1_ 3 4 8 4 7 13 Total 88 BottIeBiII J$pdcite California's Largest Labor Unions Support theSottle Bill The 200,000- member United Food and Commercial Workers Union Southwestern States Council has joined with the Team- sters Union to endorse the California bev- erage container deposit law, popularly known as the Bottle Bill. Together these two unions represent half of the organized union members in the state of California. Michael Straeter, President of UFCW Local 1442, says that the measure, Assembly Bill 2020 by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D -Los Angeles), has been proven to work in nine states and is an unqualified success, not just in cleaning up litter and boosting recycling, but in creating jobs, preventing litter related injuries, and saving money." Teamsters Business Representative Bob Windsor added, "Throwaway con- tainers throw away jobs. The Bottle Bill gitE Californians Against Waste 909 12th Street #201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443 -5422 creates jobs —that has been the expe- rience in all existing Bottle Bill states and that is what will happen in California." Increased production of throwaway containers has caused a number of soft drink plant closures and subsequently, a significant job loss. Refillable containers require two -way shipping —from the plant to the store and back again. There is a greater need for local plants to handle returned bottles. Throwaway bottles has enabled the beverage industry to central- ize manufacturing, causing local plants to be closed. This centralization has hit inner -city plants especially hard. In the past 20 years, nearly 100 soft drink plants have closed in California. (see table) If passed, California would join nine SOFT DRINK PLANT CLOSURES IN CALIFORNIA 1966 TO 1980 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Source: National Soft Drink Association TOTAL PLANTS 177 170 159 147 141 137 133 132 129 125 117 113 115 108 95 other states which have minimum five cent deposits on beer and soft drink cans and bottles. The nine states that have passed Bottle Bills are Oregon, New York, Maine, Michi- gan, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa. In every one of those states there has been a net increase in employment, along with major reduc- tions in litter and increases in recycling. A congressional study concluded that the Michigan Bottle Bill created a net increase of more than 4,800 new jobs in the beverage, retail, transportation and recycling industries. Similar studies indi- cate that over 5,000 new jobs would be created in California because of a Bottle Bill. CLOSURES THAT YEAR (NET) 6 7 11 12 6 4 4 1 3 4 8 4 (2) 7 13 Total 88 Resource Conservation and Recovery ADE .NEWS Califomians A gainst Waste Date: October 9, 1985 Contact: Tom Padi a RECYCLERS ORGANIZE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Santa Clara County Citizens for Recycling is a newly organized local advocacy group that supports proven solutions to the solid waste disposal crisis. The group is an affiliate of Californians Against Waste, the 36,000 member citizen lobby pushing for a.: statewide returnable beverage container law, or "bottle bill." We know that a huge amount of the 4000 tons of garbage buried every day in Santa County is recyclable," said Tom Padia, coordinator of the local chapter. Padia continued, "Filling up scarce landfill space with recyclable materials is both expensive and wasteful, and we are going to do something about it. We already have over three thousand members in Santa County and we intend.to mobilize them and new recruits to push for Assembly Bill 2020, the current beverage container deposit bill in Sacramento, and for expanded recycling programs at the local level." Assembly Bill 2020, introduced by Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D -Los Angeles) and co- authored by Senator Becky Morgan (R -Los Altos Hills), would place a refundable five cent deposit on certain beverage containers. The bill will be coming up for a vote before the Assembly in January. Of the. nine: states that have adopted returnable container Laws. Oregon was the first (1972) and New York was the most recent (1983). The nine P.O.Box 26855, San Jose, CA 95159 (408)292 -4201 states with bottle bi11s'boast beverage container recycling levels of more than 90% and beverage container litter reductions of 80% in each, according tostate clean -up agencies. By contrast, only about 6% of California's glass bottles and less than 1% of its plastic containers are being recycled. A statewide poll taken earlier this year by the University of Southern California and Common Cause showed that eight out of ten Californians support a law requiring refundable five cent deposits on beer and soft drink containers. AB2020 has been endorsed by the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Teamsters Union, the California Medical Association, the Northern California Recycling Association, the California Public Interest Research Group, the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the California -(-c. Gla --ra_ pa, State PTA and the city councils of San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View,n Los f}(fn Gatos, Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno, among others. Santa Clara County Citizens for Recycling will be focusing on local recycling issues in addition to container deposit legislation. "We are very encouraged by the direction that the San Jose City Council appears to be taking in regard to recycling and waste reduction," Padia commented. He explained, "They have adopted a goal of 25% reduction of the waste stream by 1990, and are now in the process of funding the expansion of the pilot curbside and other recycling programs to help them reach that goal." The local advocacy group will be supporting the San Jose Council as they follow through with their own recommended programs and encouraging those cities that currently don't provide convenient recycling services to follow San Jose's example. Santa Clara County Citizens for Recycling will be holding their official gala kickoff in early Aker-. They are planning a trash clean- up and recycling event for later that same month. Their office is at 441 Park Ave. #1 in San Jose. You may reach them at P.O. Box 26855, San Jose, CA 95159, or at (408)292 -4201. /40..„ trA-4.-"e 4 C: 1(( CV e.....e Mr. Mrs. I.N. Smith I I 20283 Argonaut Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 e---fre-elt- 121 M E M O R A N D U M 44 -1()_:, 4- 1 t e- r e-t- TO: City Council Members INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL C• NCIL FROM: Andrew J. Mikashus, Chairman Industry Environmental Council (IEC) RE: ASSEMBLY BILL 2020 (Margolin) BOTTLE BILL November 21, 1985 The supporters of AB 2020 have asked a number City Councils throughout the state to pass resolutions of endorsement. Specifically, the bill, introduced into the California Legislature by Assemblyman Burt Margolin, would require California consumers to pay a 5 -cent deposit on all soft drink, beer, wine and liquor bottles purchased in the state as of June 1, 1986. On behalf of the Industry Environmental Council, a coalition of California's leading labor, business and industry groups, we would appreciate receiving advance notification about any resolution being considered by your City Council on AB 2020 so we can present materials and testimony to your council on this issue. We think it is critical that local government officials know that voluntary recycling is working in California and that a "forced deposit" law would seriously jeopardize the state's voluntary recycling industry, eliminate thousands of skilled labor jobs, substantially raise consumer prices on beverages and reduce state tax revenues all without significantly reducing California's total litter problem. For your information, we have enclosed a fact sheet on mandatory deposits. If your City Council is considering a resolution on AB 2020, please let us know by calling or sending an agenda to Susan Thurman, c/o The PBN Company, Two Embarcardero Center, Suite 2700, San Francisco, CA 94111, (415) 989 -0536. Ms. Thurman would also be happy to provide you other written information on mandatory deposits. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. 2286 Stone Blvd. West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 372 0600 49-I5 CONTACT: SUSAN THURMAN c/o The PBN Company 2 Embarcadero Cte., Ste. 2700 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 959 -0536 MANDATORY DEPOSITS: A COSTLY IDEA THAT CALIFORNIA DOES NOT FEED! Since 1965, California lawmakers have considered and rejected 14 separate proposals requiring a five -cent deposit on all soft drink and beer containers sold in our state. California voters also rejected a similar mandatory deposit proposal in 1982 by a margin of 56 to 44 percent. California lawmakers and voters realize that mandatory deposits are costly proposals that will drive up beverage prices, destroy highly skilled jobs, adversely affect California's voluntary recycling industry, and not significantly rid our state of litter. This fact sheet summarizes the findings of'`��ttudies recently conducted on the effectiveness of the State of New York's two-year -old mandatory deposit law as well as other factual information which conclusively proves that mandatory deposits would have a devastating impact on California. Mandatory Deposits do NOT Significantly Reduce Litter! ?act: According to a study conducted in New York, "the net effect (of the mandatory deposit law) on total litter in New York is interpreted as being very slight." In fact, New York's total litter problem may have increased by 3.4 percent during the first year of the law. (1) Fact: On a national basis, container related litter accounts for no more than 20 percent of rural litter and 10 percent of litter in urban areas. (2) Mandatory Deposits do NOT Reduce Solid Waste Management Costs! Tact: A study conducted in the State of New York after enactment of its "Bottle Bill" reports, "The law has not resulted in substantive solid waste management cost savings, particularly in the areas of waste pick -up and transportation." (1) Tact: The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that beverage containers make up only about 5 percent of solid waste. (3) Mandatory Deposits HURT Voluntary Recycling! Fact: Community and private recyclers are feeling the effects of New York's mandatory deposit law. For example, the Reynolds Aluminum Recycling Company closed all of its public buyback recycling centers, because recycling was no longer economically feasible under the deposit law. (4) Fact: The Knickerbocker News, Albany, New York's newspaper reported in October 1983, "the deposit law has created a glut of recyclable aluminum, glass and plastics...as a result, scrap prices have plummeted to a level that makes recycling far less attractive economically than it was prior to the law." (5) Fact: The Syracuse, New York, Post Standard also reported, "New Yorkers who dutifully return plastic bottles to the grocery store may think they are doing their bit for the environment as well as reclaiming a nickel deposit. So far a nickel is all they are realizing...far from getting recycled, the vast majority of the plastic bottles are shredded in grocery stores and then dumped in the l;:ndfills not recycled as bottle bill proponents envisioned." (6) Fact: More than 100 leading California recyclers are opposed to mandatory deposits because such a law would hurt voluntary recycling. (7) Mandatory Deposits INCREASE the Cost of Beverage Containers! Fact: In New York, retailers spend 2.6 cents per container to comply with New York's "bottle bill" law. However, they only receive a handling fee of 1.5 cents per container, making their net cost of handling each container approximately 1.1 cents. (1) Fact: According to The Economist, an internationally respected publication, New Yorkers are paying 25 percent more on some brands of beer...they will be paying over S300 million a year in deposits alone. Price increases will add roughly the same amount." (8) Fact: Canned sodas in upstate New York it1.%:reased by as much as 10 percent and beer prices increased an average of 20 percent after the enactment of that state's mandatory deposit law. (9),(10) Mandatory Deposits DESTROY Jobs! Fact: The New York Times reported that 471 skilled workers at the Owens- Illinois glass bottle manufacturing plant in Brockport, New York, would lose their jobs in 1985. (11) Fact: In Elmira, New York, Thatcher Glass Company laid off 250 skilled workers. (12) Fact: The California Labor Federation (AFL -CI0) strongly opposes mandatory deposit proposals because of the negative impact they would have on working Californians. (13) Mandatory Deposits would DECREASE Tax Revenues! Fact: According to a study conducted for New York's soft drink industry, the State of New York will forfeit approximately $6 million to $8 million in tax revenues per year because of lost sales. (9) Fact: In California. a minimum of $5.7 million per year in tax revenues would be lost with the enactment of a mandatory deposit law. (14) Voluntary Recycling and Litter Control is WORKING in California! Fact: California already leads the nation in voluntary recycling. Last year, Californians recycled 61 percent of all aluminum containers purchased in our state. Additionally, glass, paper and plastics recycling are also on the rise. (15) Fact: California's beverage, packaging and retail industries are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to conduct innovative and effective litter prevention, cleanup and education campaigns which are adding up to a cleaner California! (16) INFORMATION SOURCES FOR MANDATORY DEPOSITS: A COSTLY IDEA THAT CALIFORNIA DOES NOT NEED! 1. The New York Returnable Beverage Law: The °irst Year, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government to the Temporary State Commission on Returnable Beverage Containers, William M. Ferretti and David P. McCaffrey, March 15, 1985. 2. A Nationwide Estimate of the Percentage of Beer and Soft Drink Containers in Litter, Institute for Applied Research, December 1983'•, 3. Resources and Environmental Profile Analysis of Ni< ^e Beverage Container Alternatives, United States Environmental Protection Ageny, 1974. 4. Hamilton County News, New York, Octol:er 12, 1983. 5. "Deposit Law 15, 1984. Creates a Plastic Bottle Glut," The Knickerbocker News, October 6. "Bottle Law Recycled...If It's Plastic, It Goes Straight t� the Dump," Post Standard (Syracuse, New York), January 3, 1985. 7. Testimony by Gary Petersen, president of EcoloHaul Recycling Services, before the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, March 1984. 8. "The Price of Cleanliness," The Economist, September 24, 1983. 9. Economic Effects of the New York Returnable Container Law on Soft Drink Bottlers, Temple, Barker Sloane, Inc., January 29, 1985. 10. New York Department of Consumer Affairs Market Basket Surveys, 1983. 11. "Plan to Shut Factory Stuns Upstate Village," The New York Times, November 14, 1984. 12. "Bottle Bill Smashing the Glass Industry," Evening Press (Binghampton, New York), January 9, 1985. 13. Testimony by Jack Henning, Secretary/Treasurer of the California Labor Federation (AFL —CIO), before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, May 14, 1985. 14. Conservative estimates of member companies of the California Industry Environmental Council based on California beverage industries' sales information and Soft Drink Industry of the United States' Statistical Profile, 1913.3 ;Glass Packaging Institute —Can Manufacturers Institute Price Survey; and-; he United States Brewers Association Special Information Book, Janua -ry 1983. 15. The Aluminum Association, Inc., GlassPackag"ing g Institute, American Paper Institute, and Society of Plastic Ind�ie s. 16. Information compiled fpm.--the RecyCAL Litter Control /Recycling Program and its member companies and.,t -ride associations. Kam 21DA BILL NO. DATE: 12 -10 -85 (12 -18 -85) DEPARDENT: Community Development a Issue Summary Residents of Elva Avenue have expressed a concern for the volume and speed of traffic on that street. Staff has reviewed the area and finds that, while there is not a major traffic volume, Elva Avenue gets the majority of it. Five options appear to be available: 1 No change 2 Cul-de -sac northerly end of Elva Avenue 3 Right turns only, no entrance at northerly end of Elva Avenue 4 Traffic circle 5 Better alignment of intersecting streets Recommendation Staff recommends implementation of Option. #5 without the undulations. These can be installed later if merited. Fiscal Impacts $15,000 ELVA AVENUE TRAFFIC REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA Exhibits /Attachm3nts 1. Staff Reports dated December 10, 1985 and December 6, 1985 2. Petition Council Action Option 5 with undulations for 3 -mo. trial. Initial: Dept. Bd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. ORM ofd 0 S REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ELVA AVENUE TRAFFIC REPORT DATE:. 12 -10 -85 COUNCIL MEETING: 12 -18 -85 Attached is a Staff Report generated as a result of receipt of a petition from some Elva Avenue residents. For some time this office has been concerned with the configuration of the Elva /Canyon View /Reid /Michaels intersection. It is a large paved area without definition as to how traffic should traverse it. In studying the area's traffic concern I believe we have developed a solution to our prior concern which will mitigate some of the area concern and will keep circulation open in this area. That solution is Option No. 5 Better Alignment of Intersecting Streets. This option eliminates the straight through Reid to Elva aspect of this intersection such that at least some of that traffic will use Canyon View Drive. Placing stop signs on both ends of Elva will also encourage more use of Canyon View Drive. I think that the traffic undulations should not be installed at this time. I am concerned about beginning to install such devices without a showing of absolute need. They can be installed later if such a need arises. RSS :cd Attachment Rober S. Shook Director of Community Development TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGINEER TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: ELVA AVENUE TRAFFIC DATE: 12/6/85 In response to the petition from the residents living on Elva Avenue concerned with their street being used as a shortcut and with speeding traffic, I have conducted a field review along with vehicle movement counts at the five legged intersection at the northerly end of Elva Avenue. The results of these counts and field observation shows that there is definitely a north -south through vehicular movement on Elva Avenue and Reid Lane along with noticeably higher rate of speed. In most cases vehicles entering the intersection from Canyon View Drive (both intersections), and Michaels Drive are traveling much slower and usually stop before proceeding. Approximately 75% of the vehicles are using either Reid Ln. or Elva Ave. with the remaining 25% divided up between the other three streets. (Intersection Volume study sheets are attached). I have developed some possible options to be considered for this intersection, which would directly affect Elva Avenue traffic. The discussion of those options are as follows: 1. Retain the street as its present use for circulation Presently Elva Avenue is inadequate for the purpose it is being used, because of its narrow width, with numerous vehicles parked along both sides. In the recent past, there was an attempt to develop an improvement project to widen this street, but due to the physical constraints, design was virtually impossible. With this being the case, I would like to address the options of reducing or eliminating the through use of the road. 2. Cul -De -Sac the northerly end of Elva Avenue It is possible to construct a standard cul de sac at the northerly end of the street, because of the unusually large intersection area (five legged intersection). By constructing this cul -de -sac it would certainly improve the intersection for the orderly movement of traffic. As far as circulation, Canyon View Drive (between the five legged intersection and Fourth Street) would be more suitable as it is of sufficient width, in good condition with no more than a half dozen homes fronting. The cost of constructing the cul de sac would probably be around $15,000 including landscaping. There is a good possibility that this construction could be funded by HCD. See the attached Exhibit "A" for the layout of this option. 3. Right turns only, no entrance at northerly end of Elva Avenue This option would reduce the number of vehicles using the street as a short cut by only allowing the through movement to proceed northbound. The southbound through traffic would be forced to use upper Canyon View Drive to Fourth Street. this option would increase the traffic on lower Canyon View Drive and Elvira Street, as well as upper Canyon View Drive. The construction cost for this option would be approximately the same as option 2 (Cul -De -Sac) $15,000 and also possibly be funded by HCD. See the attached Exhibit "B" for the layout of this option. 4. Landscaped traffic circle at large intersection The construction of landscaped traffic circle in the middle of the large five legged intersection with one way traffic along with stop signs at all intersection would provide the orderly movement of traffic at this somewhat confusing intersection. Although a very good engineering_ solution, this would probably not alter the existing circulation to any degree. This proposal along with the installation of pavement undulations (speed humps) installed at 300 foot intervals along Elva Avenue would possibly discourage through traffic as well slowing vehicles that use Elva Avenue. Speed humps are asphalt concrete humps twelve feet wide and four inches high running perpendicular to the flow of traffic. Speed humps are being used in a number of cities with encouraging results, but at this time they are only experimental and are not recognized by the National Advisory Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. One major consideration when contemplating installing pavement undulations is that a precendent may be established and every residential street in the City would be demanding them, which could be a very major financial burden. The cost of the landscaped traffic circle would be about the same as options 2 and 3 $15,000. The cost of placing the pavement undulations would amount to about $1,000 each or $3,000 for three required for Elva Avenue. See the attached Exhibit "C" for the layout of this option. 2 5. Provide better alignment of intersecting streets The elimination of the "wide open" large intersection by extending Elva Avenue at its present width and adding a stop sign would provide better alignment and clearification for vehicles entering this intersection. along with this option, a stop sign would be proposed for the southerly end of Elva Avenue at its intersection with Fourth Street. An added proposal for this option would be installation of pavement undulations as described in paragraph two of the above option 4, which wouold further discourage the the through use of Elva Avenue as well decreasing the speed of vehicles. The cost of this option would also be approximately the same as the previous options plus the amount for the pavement undulations as discussed on the above option. See the attached Exhibit "D" for the layout of this option. Very careful consideration should be exercised when reviewing the above options, as they all, with the exception of option 1, would have a definite impact on traffic circulation and the surrounding area. An important note to keep in mind,while reviewing this report and in making any recommendations, is that there is no reported accident history at this five legged intersection or on Elva Avenue. Erman Dorsey Senior Engineering Technician 3 C/TY OF SARA TO GA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E X I-1 i3 irs--- EL V4 AVE/CANYON II/E14/ DR /M /G'HAELS DR, RE/D Z/V. ExA; 61'is VI II 1 1 I /1, .1 /1 ori arvennee1. Remo v.e "'a eri 1/1 1' Re/.co/e EX/4/8/T "A" viEY tilt* t, Do•iim way Re nvat/ e c4 SCALE: li /"...347 erhi,61.1 Remov Pezveme Re loc C. ...s, 41 'ck? N.... 0 AO C r 0 (171... 4.C. 7 5CA LE: J 30' "(7 exhibit 8 41zz "Cr MICHAEL* OR s t 111 17 o ti vie 1011 mue. /2 Remove Awermen 2",73/a// a/ 300'17/ervals Il I?e /cca/e c.8. EXHI517 "C" id og. 4.C. Pal-A.7,774'01i /1 -30' Ai SCA LE: Er4161Y "C ,Rerno✓e .P eni nt i! Lariefscd Qr�G7::ne .r ,;1 �1 C /TY OF S4R/1 T06,4 DEP,4/? T/►N'EN T OF COMMUNI T Y DEVELOP/14 ENT INTERSECT /ON VOLUME 5'TL/DY EL V.4 AVE./CANYON V /EW RJR /C//AEL S DR. RE/D L N. INDEX: 77 /14 6 s 14 E E r MORN //V6 07/5 TO 0745 l 0 74 5 TO o 8/ 5 2 08/5 TO 0845 3 0845 TO 09/5 4 0 7/ 5 TO 0 9/ 5 _TOTAL 2 NDU`z 5 M/D -IYA Y 30 To /2 00 6 12 00 TO /230 7 /230 To 300 8 0300 TO /330 9 //30 TO /330 _TO7-AL 2 ,SOUR 10 VOLUME STUD 1'we' CITY of ,5'ARA7OGA INTERSEC T/ON VO` ,U 1 /IE ,5 TV 0 DATE': 12/5/85 DAY: ,.,/r sdj y TIME: FROM: 07/5 To 0745 WFA THEE C /ouc/y /Wef �E.`ar/ RECORDED 13Y: E. Oorse y REMA RKS: Pe cles tr /on s 11 Qicyc /es 2 AM Cougf C/ T Y OF SAI-eA 7 OGA INTERSEC TION VOL 1/411E 5TUDY DATE: X2,/5/85 DAY: 7kc,r.Sc7' 2 y T/ME: FROM: O 0815 1/1//17 C loudy, /We R EC o RDEO CY: E. Dorsey R' 'MARKS: Pedes .7 4 Bicyc /es: 1 .4M Counts cirY OF S'/akATOGA INTERSECT /ON VC /trE 5TUDY DATE /2/ DAY: 7iir's1 TIME: FROM.- 08/57-o 0 845 WEA Tf -/FJZ C /ear7 ng /Orymq RECORDED DY• E..Doi'sey REMARKS: Pe des 1r /a s 3 CITY OF 5A eA7QG'A INTER Se 77 ON VG' 4U/tie 5TU0Y DA rE: 12,75185 DAY: 7 /.-.5da c/ MME: PRO/y 0845 0 9/ 5 W EA 77-/E R C /earl /99/Mry'n9 RECORDED DY: E. Dorsey REM Rfrs 4.14 Counts, CITY OF ,3'/-l/-eA7Q 7 IN TERSe C T VC L11 AIS S TLI SO Y DA TE': /2 /67 DAY: 77/(w-so/ay T /ME: FROM: O7 /Sro: 0 9/ WEATHER C /oeidy /o C/eoi -/;p R EC o R,DEO DY. E .0or.sey REMARk5: Two //our A Conn C/7 OF SAuA7OG/1 INTERSECT ON VC L U/ME STUD Y DATE: I2,¢ X85 DAY: Wcdnespa` TIME: FRO/= -f.• /130 TO; /200 WEATHER C /oudy /0 /Y FE MA RA'S: RECO ROEO DY: E. Dorsey c\"' Mid Day L,Es CITY OF 5941-1l- eATOGA IN TERSEC T/ON VOL U/4?5 5 TU 0 Y DATE': /2/4/8.5 D4Y Wedr7esdr TIME: FROM: /200 TO; /230 WEATHER: C /oudy /Ory R EC O ROEO DY: E. Dorsey REMARKS: C/ T Y OF S'Afe.4 I OG•/1 IN TERSECT /OIL✓ VaL UAiE STUDY DATE: 12 /4/ 8 5 DAY: kfie. i7 cola v T /ME: FRO/ -r.• /230 To: /300 WEATHER: C /oci /y/D RECORDED 5Y: E. Dorsey REMA RKS: n Ad Day Coui C /TY OE .5 INTE7:?S6*CT /ON VOLU,1'E STLSOY 24 TE: 12/4/85 DAY: i1eAesda T /ME: FROIy /300 TO: X330 WEATiYER C /oucy /z7 y R EC o RDEO DY: E. .Qor,sey f?EMA RKS: Mid Day Cauisfs CITY OF ,574I-e,47 ZNTERS rtoN VoLUN1E STUDY DATE: /2/4/85 DAY: fl c46-Sa y TIME FROM.• //30 To: /330 WEA7WER: Clac/dy!Ory RECORDED DY: Oorsey /QEMA RKS: Tv✓O hour M,d Day Cour7L NO SCALE L O CA T/ ON M,4P EL !iA CANYON view OR./N/CHAFES ,pR./RE /O W TRAFF C R E f// W �,.'oo. c,'r■ /i 1 I I e"/ I I /fi r Ci r op SARA To GA DEPARTMENT OF COMMCIN /TY DEVELOPMENT =.0 ee Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Council Members, July 3, 1985 Citizens of Elva Avenue have strong concerns regarding traffic problems on our street. Among our concerns are: 1. Elva Avenue being used as a shortcut around or into the village. 2. speeding traffic. Because of the number of joggers, bicyclists and pedestrians that travel Elva, our fear is that, in time, someone will be injured or killed because of the heavy congestion and speeding traffic that plague our street. A new concern now faces us regarding Elva Avenue. We feel that with the completion of the Inn at Saratoga, our already overburdoned street will become an even busier thoroughfare for cars and commercial vehicles, finding Elva a convenient shortcut to the new hotel, the downtown area and beyond. The undersigned residents of Elva Avenue, numbering in excess of twenty families, request a meeting with you or your designees to seek solutions to the traffic problems facing Elva Avenue. Sincerely, S ohn 0. Poutre 14360 Elva Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 867 -5602 NAME 5 C 1 9 77/ 6 3„hrza, CONCERNED ELVA AVENUE RESIDENTS ADDRESS 3 /O 4-38 E tim a oe /L`S 7/ J 7 L /1J, 4 3 o 1 35 41/ SW-ro6A AGENDA BILL NO. 3 DATE: 12/12 85 DEPT.: City Manager SUBJECT: Liability Insurance Program under New Coverage Arrangements Issue Summary New general liability insurance coverage involves a $100,000 self- insured retention and does not include claims administration or legal defense services which must be performed by the City. A contract to provide claims administration service must be secured and budget adjustments must be made to set up the financial administration of the new coverage program. Recommendation 1. Authorize execution of contract with George Hills Company for annual claims administration services covering the period ending December 7, 1986. 2. Adopt the appropriate budget amendment resolution. Fiscal Impacts $1,800 for general claims administration services 1,200 for case administration 5,000 for litigation defense costs 100,000 for claims payments contingency The first $8,000 is covered by a transfer from the current budget appropriation for general liability premiums (only the first $1,800 is assured of being expended because the rest of the appropriations will be claims driven). Potential liability claims payments in excess of $50,000 have not been reserved. Exhibits /Attachments Memo from City Manager Proposed Contract Budget Amendment Resolution Council Action Approved. 1 DEPT. HD. ATTY. MGR BACKGROUND ANALYSIS INIT 04 0 °'2V o C� REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Liability Insurance Program under New Coverage Arrangements DATE: 12 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/18/85 At its last meeting, Council approved insurance coverage secured through Saratoga Insurance Service with the Alliance Insurance Company of Kansas. Subsequent to your meeting, I was informed by Mr. Abbey of Saratoga Insurance Service that the company had reached its underwriting limit and could cover the City only for the next three months at a cost of $29,490.50, instead of $95,000 for the year. No letter of credit will be necessary for the three month coverage, nor will there be the minimum 25% cancellation premium. So the City is insured until March 8, 1986, for $500,000 with a $100,000 self- insured retention and must provide its own claims administration and legal defense costs. In order to establish the remaining portions of the program, several steps must be taken. First, we need to set up a claims administra- tion process. Under our prior coverage, claims administration was assigned locally to the George Hills Company by our insurance carrier, Chicago Insurance Company. Their service to the City has been excel- lent. I am proposing we continue to use this company since they al- ready know Saratoga and the staff, and because they represent numer- ous cities in northern California and, therefore, are very experienced in handling claims against public agencies. Accordingly, the company has proposed that we enter into a one -year agreement for their ser- vices under the terms and conditions set forth in the attached pro- posed agreement. The estimated cost for the contract is $3,000 on an annualized basis. Funding can be provided through an intra program transfer of funds in the Liability and Casualty Insurance Program (Account No. 21 -140) from Supplies and Other Costs to Outside Services. Report to Mayor and City Council Subject: Liability Insurance Program under New Coverage Arrangements Secondly, we need to provide for added Litigation and Settlement costs in the event a claim goes to litigation. While the current program in the budget anticipates some of these costs, it would be prudent to transfer $5,000 from Program Account 21 -140, Supplies and Other costs, to Program Account 21 -151, Outside Services, thus increas- ing the appropriation from $15,000 to $20,000. Finally, since we are in a $100,000 self- insured retention situation, it would be prudent to establish an SIR reserve in the Liability and Casualty Insurance program. This will require transfer of $100,000 from the general fund reserve to appropriate that amount to a new object account. The reason I have suggested this course of action rather than an intra program.transfer is that we will probably need the balance of the existing appropriation for future premiums later this year. RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize execution of a Liability Claims Adjusting and Adminis- tration Service Contract by the City Manager with George Hills Company, Inc., a California corporation. 2. Adopt the necessary appropriations resolution amending the approved budget as outlined in the City Manager's report of December 13, 1985. PREPARED BY: ir:';) Harry Peacock City nager jm Attachment Page 2 WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2241 be amended as follows: Transfer: $3,000 from Liability and Casualty Insurance Supplies and Other Costs (21- 4470 140 -10) to Outside Services (21- 4190 140 -10). $5,000 from Liability and Casualty Insurance Supplies and Other Costs (21- 4470 140 -to) to Litigation and Settlements Outside Services (21- 4110 151 -10). Transfer $100,000 from general ledger account 21 -2900 unreserved fund balance to general ledger account 21 -2906 reserve for contingencies. Subsidiary: Fund 21 General Fund Program 140 Liability and Casualty. Insurance Account 21- 4471 140 -10 Liability Claims Purpose: To establish appropriations for changes in general liability insurance program coverage. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18th day of December, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: A'i"1'EST RESOLUTION NO. 2241.11 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1985 -86 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET Deputy City Clerk 1 +$100,000 Mayor MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4096 REPLY TO: Walnut Creek nn inc. eor e i Co 11 Jnaurance ddjuateri and laim didminiatratori Established 1954 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ATTN: Harry Peacock, City Manager RE: Liability Claims Administration Services 12/7/85 to 12/6/86 Dear Mr. Peacock: WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 (415) 935 -3060 December 9, 1985 Home Office: OAKLAND 300 27th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 465 -1313 RECEIVED DEC 11 1985 CITY MANAGER This follows our telephone conversation, Friday, December 6, 1985, regarding your new self insured retention liability program. In accordance with our discussion, we now attach liability claims service agreement for the current policy year program. Our service agreement provides for our annual administration fee of $1,800.00, as well as time and expense charges to handle the City's claims. Based upon the few number of claims we have seen in the past year, we do not expect that our total cost for services in the first year would exceed $3,000.00. Our administration fee provides for the service to administer your self insured program and you will be receiving monthly computer printouts regarding losses. We will also be furnishing the City with an extensive written claims procedural manual and providing training for your City personnel to install procedures for the new program. After you have had an opportunity to review the attached proposed contract, we will be happy to discuss further any of its provisions, if you so desire. Upon approval and execution of same, we ask that you return a copy for our file and we will thereafter desire to set up a date for our installation meeting to include City department heads, your broker and George Hills Company personnel. Branch Offices: SANTA ROSA: 1400 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 576 -7599 SACRAMENTO: 2011 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 927 -3171 STOCKTON: 4410 N. Pershing Avenue, Stockton, CA 95207 (209) 474 -0414 SAN FRANCISCO: 605 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94107 (415) 781 -1172 VALLEJO: 344 Virginia Street, Vallejo, CA 94590 (707) 643 -1522 SAN JOSE: 2444 Moorpark Avenue, San Jose, CA 95128 (408) 294 -3901 WALNUT CREEK: 315 Lennon Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 (415) 935 -3060 Mr. Harry Peacock Liability Claims Administration Services December 9, 1985 Page two In the meantime, and prior to execution of the attached contract, be assured that George Hills Company, Inc. will provide professional services for the City of Saratoga as the need arises. We look forward to continuing our service to the City and being a part of the team involving your new self- insured retention liability program. Sincerely, GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. lSe.org- Bud" Hills, President GBH:mec cc: Saratoga Insurance Service, Inc., Attn: Dan Abbey. George Hills Company, Inc., San Jose, Attn: Roger Hayton, Manager. George Hills Company, Inc., San Jose, Attn: Jerry Larsen, Adjuster. Enclosure LIABILITY CLAIMS ADJUSTING.'& ADMINISTRATION SERVICE CONTRACT This contract is made and entered into atdais day of 1985 by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter called the "CITY" and GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC., hereinafter referred to "CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR." GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC., is 0:California Corporation doing business as licensed, Independent Insurance Adjusters arid: Administrators, with George C. Hills, President and Chief Executive Officer, in charge of daily operations. Their principal place of business is located at 300 27th Street, Oakland, California 94612, telephone (415) 465 -1313. It is hereby agreed by and between the parties signing this agreement as follows: I. GENERAL The CITY is desirous of availing itself of liability claims adjusting and administra- tive services. GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC pis a claims administrative firm experi- enced in the handling of public entity claims and is ready and capable of performing such services for the CITY. II. SERVICES It is absolutely imperative that the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR examine ALL claim and incident reports made against the CITY -involving personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage. The CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR shall determine from the claim or incident report whether an investigation filershall be set up. If no file is set up, no charge will be incurred for its review and determination. CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR agrees to initiate prompt investigation. The CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR will NOT accept any responsib'ity arising out of incidents not reported to it for examination and review. •c III. REPORTS PROCEDURES 7t Within thirty (30) days of assignment or sooner if practicable, the CLAIM ADMINIS- TRATOR will provide the CITY with a full factual report, showing name(s) of claim ant(s), type of claim, date of loss, comments on liability, reserve recommendations, settlement recommendations, and other pertinent information. Subsequent to the initial thirty day report, CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR will report at least every thirty (30) days until claim closes unless extended diary is is appropriate. All original reports, documents, and claim data of every kind or description that are prepared in whole or in part by or for CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR in connection with this agreement shall be CITY'S property and constitute CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR'S work product for which compensation is paid.. A copy of all reports, documents and claim data of every kind or description, that is in whole or in part by or for CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR is the property of the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR and must be main- tained by CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR in accordance with Title 10, Article 6, Section 2691.14, of the California Administrative Code. Additional copies of original reports, documents, and data requested by the CITY will be at the CITY'S expense in accor- dance with this agreement. IV. DENIAL, COMPROMISE OR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS It is agreed that the CITY has designated $1,000.00 authority to the CLAIM AD- MINISTRATOR for the purpose of compromising and /or settling any claims against the CITY being handled by the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR. Prior approval to compro- mise or settle any claim will be obtained from the designated CITY officer or emplo- yee on matters exceeding $1,000.00. V. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Annual Claims Administration fee is $1,800.00. Time and expense charges will be incurred only when necessarily required in the form of adjuster's fees. Time and expense fees at the inception of the contract will be as follows: (a) Adjuster's Fee: $32.00 per hour (b) Mileage: 400 per mile, with probable increase during contract based upon cost to operate a compact vehicle (c) Stenographic and Office Overhead: 30% of hourly rate (Minimum -2- $22.50) (d) Telephone Expense: 996 of hourly rate (e) Photographic Expense: $2.00 per colored print (f) Photocopy Expense: 300 per page (g) Insurance: 2i% of hourly rate (h) Video Taping Service: $45.00 per hour (includes all expenses except $10.00 Video Tape Charge) The above time and expense services apply to work billed during the term of this contract. IT IS AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD that whenever practical, any attorney fees, court costs, cost of outside experts, and other costs related to services to be performed by persons other than the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR should be billed directly to the CITY. CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR will submit its bills and payment by the CITY shall be within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed thirty (30) d CLAIM ADMINIS- RATOR bills incurred when self insured retention limit is penetrated will be paid by the CITY unless it chooses to cancel representation by CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR prior thereto. In the event a claim is open six months or exceeds 10 hours time, the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR shall submit an interim bill for payment. VI. TERM The term of this contract shall be from DECEMBER 7, 1985 to and including DECEMBER 6, 1986. This contract shall be terminated by either party, for any reason, upon sixty (60) days written notice. This contract may be renewed on a yearly basis subject to the same terms and conditions, except that Paragraph V, PAYMENT FOR SERVICES, herein may be renegoti- ated by the parties hereto. VII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST In the event the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR receives a claim from the CITY in which there arises a "conflict of interest" the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR shall immedia- tely notify the CITY. The CITY may hire another well qualified claims firm to handle -3- Date CITY OF SARATOGA BY -4- that particular claim to a conclusion. VIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR In performing claims administrative services herein agreed upon, the CLAIM AD- MINISTRATOR shall have the status of an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an officer, employee or agent of the CITY. IX. INDEMNIFICATION The CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR will indemnify and hold harmless the CITY from and against all claims, demands, actions, or causes of action which may arise from the action, conduct or failure to act by GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC., personnel. The CITY will defend, at no cost to the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR, in those cases wherein the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR is named in a filed or verified complaint simply by virtue of the fact they are the claims administration firm on a given claim. X. INSURANCE The CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR shall provide the CITY with a Certificate of Insurance duly executed by the insurance company or companies authorized to transact business in the State of California and said Certificate shall certify that the CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR has in full force and effect $1,000,000.00 coverage applying to bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR shall maintain errors and omissions coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and shall also maintain employee fidelity bond coverage in the sum of $500,000.00. 'Date City Attorn APPROVED AS TO FORM: GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. BY George C. Hills; President AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: December 18, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Community Services SUBJECT: Revisions to Existing Blaney Plaza Banner Policy Issue Summary: The current policy regulating the hanging of a banner at Blaney Plaza was adopted by Council on June 1, 1983. Since then, the need to make some minor changes has developed. The recommended changes include the addition of a liability disclaimer and a clarification that the City is responsible for the administration of the policy since it sets the policy. The Fire Department will continue to be responsible for actually hanging the banner. Recommendation: Adopt revised policy. Fiscal Impacts: none Exhibits /Attachments: 994 Council Action: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Report from Community Center Manager 2. Revised Policy Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. MEMORANDUM TO: Community Services Director FROM: Community Center Manager SUBJECT: Banner at Blaney Plaza Attached you will find the rules and regulations for hanging a banner at Blaney Plaza. On November 27, 1985, I met with Ron Vega and Buzz Strothers from the Saratoga Fire Department to discuss their concerns regarding the policy. After our discussion, I agreed to make a recommendation to the City Council to revise the rules and regulations to include their requests. The changes are outlined on the attached policy. The only change of significance is the administering of the program. The Fire Department does not want to handle the problems, but just be responsible for the scheduling and hanging of the banner. If the City Council approves the revisions, I will take over the admministration of the policy. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. JP:pe 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 DATE: 12/11/85 CITY OF SARATOGA Rules and Regulations for Hanging of Banners in Blaney Plaza 1. Reservations for hanging a banner at Blaney Plaza must be made in person at the Saratoga Fire District Office. All reservations will be handed on a first come, first served basis. 2. The Reservation Form must be completed at the time the reserva- tion is made at the Sartoga Fire District Station, 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA. Phone: 867 -9001. The Reservation Form will be forwarded by District Personnel to tFCity for apprT)TiT of the request. 3. Reservations may not be made more than twelve (12) months in advance of the date requested. 4. Non profit organizations advertising Saratoga -based community events, or organizations advertising Saratoga -based non profit events may hang banners in Blaney Plaza. Groups may be asked to show proof of non profit status. 5. Groups will be allowed use of the Plaza for the banner no more than two (2) times each twelve month period. 6. A banner may be hung a minimum of 10 days to a maximum of 14 days per usage event. 7. Banners will be reviewed by Saratoga Fire BepaFtmeat District personnel to assure banners meet the following standards: a) Banners must be four (4) feet by at least twenty -five (25) feet long. If properly prepared, banners up to forty -five (45) feet in length may be allowed. b) Banners must be made from a heavy -duty, awning -type material. c) One -half inch inside diameter metal grommets are to be placed at all four corners of the banner. Each of the four corner grommets should have attached fifty (50) feet of heavy (between 1/4 inch 1/2 inch) line or rope. d) One -half inch inside diameter metal grommets must be placed at least every thirty -two (32) inches along the top edge of the banner. e) Half moon air holes must be cut into the banner every five feet of length in order to avoid tearing or ripping from the wind. Depending on type and weight of banner fabric, it is recommended the half moon cuts be sewn to avoid tearing or ripping. 8. All banners must be hung by Saratoga Fire DepaFtment District personnel. Banners must be submitted to the Fire DepaFtmeat District Office at least one full week (seven days) in advance of scheduled usage date. 9. This policy has been approved and will be administered by the City of Saratoga. The Saratoga Fire District will be and will be administeved by the SaEatega FiFe DepaFtment as a serviee to the eemmunity responsible for the task of scheduling and hanging the banner. 10. Changes to the above rules and regulations must be approved by the City of Saratoga. 11. Banners must be net claimed within ten (10) days from the date of their removal. Those not claimed may be disposed of at the discretion of the Saratoga Fire Depaetfent District. 12. Neither the City of Saratoga nor the Saratoga Fire District assumes responsibility of liability for banners, nor the theft, damage or injury that may result from the placement of banners at Blaney Plaza. Note: Proposed additions are underlined, while proposed deletions are crossed out. AGENDA BILL NO. q q a, Dm: 12/11/85 (12/18/85) C. Atty. DE Community Development S Issue Summary TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT HERRIMAN AVENUE, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Cooperative agreement for construction of traffic control signal system at Herriman Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road has been written by State and reviewed by City Attorney. Recommendation Authorize execution of Agreement Fiscal Impacts Not to exceed $46,000 Exhibits /Attachments 1. Staff Report 2. Cooperative Agreement Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Bd. C. Mgr. RSS:cd OEUW' ©2 0 tuna] REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL It contains the following provisions: DATE:. 12 -11 -8 5 COUNCIL MEETING: 12 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT HERRIMAN AVENUE, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Caltrans has produced and the City Attorney has reviewed the Cooperative Agreement between Caltrans and Saratoga for the installation of a traffic control signal system at Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Herriman Avenue. Saratoga to pay 33% of construction costs plus 13% of con- struction costs for plans and specifications plus 16% of construction costs for inspection (estimate is $42,000, not to exceed $46,000 without prior approval). Saratoga to pay 33% of maintenance and operation of com- pleted system. State will award contract if bids are no more than 10% of estimate; otherwise award will be made only on further agreement of Caltrans and Saratoga. Ownership of system shall be vested to Caltrans. Usual hold harmless clauses one to another. Termination of agreement if award of contract not made by 12/31/86. Recommend Council authorize execution of agreement. Robe Shook Director of Community Development 1CD802 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 23 24 25 04- SCL -85 -11.0 04332 115341 Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C Document No. SCL -43- AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON 1985 is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and CITY OF SARATOGA a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY. RECITALS (1) STATE and CITY contemplate installing a traffic control signal system and wheelchair ramps on State Highway Route 85 (Saratoga Sunnyvale Road) at the Herriman Avenue intersection, referred to herein as "PROJECT STATE and CITY desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT will be engineered, constructed, financed and maintained. SECTION I STATE AGREES: (1) To provide plans and specifications and all necessary construction engineering services for the PROJECT and to bear STATE's share of the expense thereof. (2) To construct the PROJECT by contract in accordanc with the plans and specifications of STATE. (3) To pay an amount equal to 67 percent of the construction costs for installing the traffic control signal -1- 4CD802 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 23 24 25 Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C -2- system and 100 percent of the costs for wheelchair ramps and other road work, but in no event shall STATE's total obligation for construction costs under this agreement, excluding costs referred to in Section III, Article (9), exceed the amount of $92,000; provided that STATE may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. (4) Upon completion of the aforesaid construction contract, to furnish CITY with a detailed statement of the engineering and construction costs to be borne by CITY and to refund to CITY any amount of CITY's deposit(s) remaining after actual costs to be borne by CITY have been deducted. (5) To maintain and operate the traffic control signal system as installed and pay an amount equal to 67 percent of said costs, and to maintain the remainder of the completed PROJECT, and pay an amount equal to, 100 percent of the total costs. SECTION II CITY AGREES: (1) To deposit with STATE within 25 days of receipt of billing therefor (which billing will be forwarded immediately following STATE's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT), the amount of $42,000 which figure represents CITY's estimated share of construction costs, preparation of plans and specifications and construction engineering required to complete the PROJECT. In no event shall CITY's total obligation for said costs under this agreement, excluding costs referred to 4cD8O2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 23 24 25 Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C in Section III, Article (9), exceed the amount of $46,000; provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing authorize a greater amount. (2) CITY's share of the construction costs (estimated to be $32,600) shall be an amount equal to 33 percent of the construction cost, including cost of STATE furnished materials, if any, as determined after completion of work and upon final accounting of costs. (3) CITY's share of the expense of preparing plans and specifications (estimated to be $4,200) shall be an amount equal to 13 percent of CITY's share of the actual final construction cost. Said 13 percent includes payment for all applicable overhead charges. (4) CITY's share of the expense of construction engineering (estimated to be $5,200) shall be an amount equal to 16 percent of CITY's share of the actual final construction cost. Said 16 percent includes payment for all applicable overhead charges. (5) To pay STATE promptly upon completion of all work and within 20 days upon receipt of a detailed statement made upon final accounting of costs therefor, any amount over and above the advance deposit(s) required to complete CITY's financial obligation pursuant to this agreement. (6) To reimburse STATE for CITY's proportionate share of the cost of maintenance and operation of said traffic control -3- 4cD8o2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 23 24 2 5 the total cost. Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C signal system, such share to be an amount equal to 33 percent of SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission. (2) STATE shall not award a contract for the work until after receipt of CITY's deposit required in Section II, Article (1). (3) Should any portion of the PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or State gas tax funds all applicable procedures and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply notwithstanding other provisions of this agreement. (4) After opening of bids, CITY's estimate of cost will be revised based on actual bid prices. CITY's required deposit under Section II, Article (1) will be increased or decreased to match said revised estimate. If deposit increase or decrease is less than $1,000, no refund or demand for additional deposit will be made until final accounting. (5) After opening of bids for the PROJECT and if bids indicate a cost overrun of no more than 10 percent of the estimate will occur, STATE may award the contract. (6) If, upon opening of bids, it is found that a cost -4- 4CD802 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -5- Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C overrun exceeding 10 percent of the estimate will occur, STATE and CITY shall endeavor to agree upon an alternative course of action. If, after 30 days, an alternative course of action is not agreed upon, this agreement shall be deemed to be terminated by mutual consent pursuant to Article (8) of this Section III. (7) Prior to award of the construction contract for the PROJECT, CITY may terminate this agreement in writing, provided that CITY pays STATE for all project related costs incurred by STATE. (8) If termination of this agreement is by mutual consent, STATE will bear 67 percent and CITY will bear 33 percent of all project related costs incurred by STATE. (9) If existing public and private utilities conflict with the construction of the PROJECT, STATE will make all necessary arrangements with owners of such utilities for their protection, relocation or removal. STATE will inspect the protection, relocation or removal of such utilities. If there are costs of such protection, relocation or removal which STATE and /or CITY must legally pay, STATE will bear 67 percent and CITY will bear 33 percent of the cost of said protection, relocation or removal. CITY will deposit with STATE within 20 days of receipt of billing, CITY's estimated share of the cost of said protection, relocation or removal. (10) In the construction of said work, STATE will furnish a representative to perform the usual functions of a 4CD802 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1k 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C Resident Engineer, and CITY may at no cost to STATE, furnish a representative, if it so desires; said representative and Resident Engineer will cooperate and consult with each other, but the decisions of STATE's engineer shall prevail. (11) Upon completion of all work under this agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances installed will automatically be vested in the STATE and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the STATE. (12) The cost of any engineering and maintenance referred to herein shall include all direct and indirect costs (functional and administrative overhead assessment) attributable to such work, applied in accordance with STATE's standard accounting procedures. However, STATE's share is accounted for in a statewide account and `is not shown separately on each project's cost breakdown. (13) Neither STATE nor any officer of employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and hold STATE harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in -6- 4CD802 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 1 �4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this agreement. (14) Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 8.10.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this agreement. (15) The execution of this agreement by CITY grants to STATE the right to enter upon CITY -owned lands to construct the PROJECT referred to herein. (16) The terms of this agreement concerning the construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of PROJECT by STATE and upon final accounting of costs, or on December 31, 1986, if a contract to construct PROJECT has not been awarded by then. If CITY deposits any funds with the STATE prior to said December 31, 1986, but no contract is awarded prior to said date, STATE shall promptly thereafter refund to CITY all such deposited funds, less any PROJECT related costs CITY is obligated to pay per the terms of this agreement: Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C 4CD802 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 23 24 25 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE Attorney Department of Transportation bist. Agmt. No. 4- 0986 -C a The terms of this agreement concerning ownership and maintenance and any other terms not referable to the construction of PROJECT, shall remain in effect until terminated or revised in writing by mutual agreement if the PROJECT has been constructed. STATE OF CALIFORNIA t: CITY OF SARATOGA Department of Transportation Transportation District 4 BURCH C. BACHTOLD District Director By Mayor By Attest: Deputy District Director City Clerk -8-