Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-20-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 0 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Sept. 20, 1995 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. Community Development 1* SUBJECT: Modification of Nuisance Abatement Ordinance RECOMMENDED MOTION: Introduce ordinance by title only waiving reading in full. REPORT SUMMARY: At the April 11, 1995 Council study session, the City Manager briefed the Council on the problem and limitations of the existing nuisance abatement ordinance regarding graffiti. He indicated that the staff and City Attorney had met to discuss a better way to handle graffiti and also to improve the existing lengthy and cumbersome administrative nuisance abatement process. Council directed staff to move forward with a proposal to modify the existing ordinance and to prepare a graffiti procedure. Subsequently, staff drafted two separate proposals for Council consideration; 1) modifications to the existing nuisance abatement ordinance and 2) a new ordinance entitled "Graffiti ". At the regular City Council meeting on Aug. 16, 1995, staff submitted the new ordinances for City Council consideration. The City Council approved the graffiti ordinance. Additionally, the City Council asked staff to resubmit the modifications to the existing nuisance abatement ordinance with lined out old language and highlighted new language. Staff has complied with that request and resubmitted for City Council review. The proposed modifications will reduce City Attorney participation, staff time and eliminate the public hearing declaration process. FISCAL IMPACT• The City will experience a substantial reduction in City Council, City Attorney and staff time associated with nuisance abatement. In cases when a nuisance has been declared, the City will recover associated expenditures through the "Payment of Abatement Costs" provision of the proposed ordinance. 1 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None required. CONSEOUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON THE RECOMMENDED MOTION: The existing nuisance abatement procedure will continue to battle administrative obstacles in the abatement of public nuisances. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Schedule second reading and adoption. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Proposed modification to the Saratoga City Code, Article 3 -15 2) Flow Chart, Existing Nuisance abatement Procedure 3) Flow Chart, Proposed Nuisance Abatement Procedure 4) List of various types of nuisances c: \wp60 \docs \abate2.sum II 2 Article 3 -15 NOTICED NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE 3= 15.010 Authority. This Article is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 38773.5 of the Government Code. Bee e�atien�e €- saisanee- R -- eleee1 TXV3- 15.020 F t`b� e-Whenever -- fie- Eit�y-- Metteeii- has 19p - �*e�.toitrt�-o-rr- -ems erdinanee- that- - a- -e*i�b &--u r- a- met —_I- eeuneii -ma r- ,d-t- i- .3-ze- �t*e�- - o- f- - t-hi-a - -ta- a € €eetz -the abatement - a €- etb- -h - all& -to.- e- -t+re=loeets -e€- sae -h- abatement a- s}�eeia�- asssss�� --ate -ice -�� c�� -�oi� -t�ri el�r - et}el�t -nt�� 9 anee exists: 3- 15.030 Netiees;- estin9v f a a P _ ............. f a�- Pr €ter t as3age- -o -a--re o3 3o r-s e�elinaaee- deeiar4!ng the- eetenee- c�- a- rtii-sa -rtE� open- e- paree� - o-- i- e� -,-re- E�►- Manages sl�ai�- eatise- netiees- te- be- eenspietietts�p- }�es�ed- en- �l�e- p�epe�tp� en whieh- the- nuisanee- exists -as -f eliews- f��- ���- i- ee- fx2- eaeh- sepa�ateip�rteci�a�C�e -rrtrf -��,� e� net - exec- €� €tp - €eet- €ventage- -ems f�� -- Net -mere- than - tie- �etiees- en- anp- pa�ee�- e;ae�- €� €tp- €eel frentage- but - +ess- than- ene- httndr, ed- €eet- frontage i -or f 3�--- N&triee�&- set- ifte,-se-- t-pr&rr- on -fix 4ecd-- €eet -tggat-t i- f- -the €tentage- a €- a- pa�ee�- is- g�eate�- than- ehe- ht�nd�ed - €eet- fb�-- �t�el�- ao-�ic��Yta- ��- �- per.�- tad-- a� -3�as� €3 €�ee�►- ela�rs -p��e� te- .the- *_4me - -f m -* eerriirg=- b�-- tire- -e- itT- Cewh—_rIr - -&f- a -to -the e�et�eseel- abatement -e €- the- nt�isanee- 3- 15.040 Natiee5 - €ems- I�iE a d �Drd ................... ..............:.....:.......... 9Phe�tr icte�egi.ri� eel- �- Seet ±en -3—Ir {€3. - 9 ha- 1-1- b e -stibstanti -a -1 -1 p in -the- €e��ewi�g - €e�m� NGTIee- T6- ABATB- NH18ANeB - NeTIee- Is- +W&FrB3t-- G +VEN- --------------------- - - - = -- �9_; - the- E3��r- �trrrei3- rtrf- �- �' re- �rt�r-- o-�- Se-�a�oga�kee�apet�- �- pttb��e nttisanee- te- e�eist -en- the- p�epe�tp- dese�ibed -asp -The -- eenditierrFa - ptrYr33- e-- iftAsafre- e- -aael- -the aetienfs�- te- be- taiten- €ems- abatement- the�ee €- awe- as- €e��ews� eenditien ---------------- eerreetive- Aetien upen- -to- -e -e- stieh- -ptib-14e- - -t+rr&r -the eerreet4!ve- aretriefts, -d_=e r= ibed- *ereiir,- tie- ettisanee -be--aiqa -t-e -by the- e3tp -,r€- - wi +k -be- assessed against - -the -- prope- t- p- ,&n-- wh4eh - -the - eons t +tote-- a-- epeoiaI- - assesstxe - -3rpcxr -and - -sitc-11-= prepertp tint 4i- paid, - -i ce==, ,F= „m =;,; Ate- be-eel leeted -&t- - sftm \ -- ate -a -el -fin the -- seine - --ern re�L -as- ivif ri- e-i -pa- deeia atien -�f -- isance - by- -t4i-e-- G..ty, is- -en - -f-i3e --ire -the 6€€} ee- a €- tl�e- Sa�atega- Eitp- e�e�k- �np- ppeperbp- o�a��- oi3�ti- �°►g����re- a€ia�e�en� -bp -the e � t p -o€ - �i°ttto� -is- �e�•ebp- nert3 €.eel- t e -a�� end -a- -�reet� -ng- rtrf- �i�e- e i t p eettnei- a € - the- £�i�*- er€- sap ---------------- 9=7 eemmeneing- at- �- �r:�r. ; --a��- ire- �.�.�a#�ogtt-- C•�-tp- I�a��,-- �3���- �r*tiit�ra�e �i�e�►t�e; - Sa�a�ega; - ea���e�n�a; - �a�ies- �ke��- eb�ee�� ens- w }��- be- l�ea�el axd- g�*aen- elite -8er�s �de�a��e�►- - Bateel- tM:s-- - - - - -- day-of -------------------------- - �9 - - -- ------------ 7 -------- - ------------------ eity- Manager »::d�tertrt:ec :`. ::<e >a`zre :u� .mod to::::be:::: >ia:ker::::s.. m... n .. .........:...t................. ...........................................:................................... :...:..::::.:::::::::::::::::.. :....:..............:� ....:...............,.:....:.....:....:.:._.._.._.-:.:....... ............................... ............................. ............................... .. . .. ........ 3- 15.050 Notices; publication and- mai }in . (a) In addition to posting ar ..... the notice ae 3;;;arcl r required by Section 3- 15.030., the City Manager shall direct the City Clerk to publish such notice once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. easel -te xta��r- ��o-tite - o-f ---he -.peel abatemen €- ter�acal��re�o�- the- prepe�t�- c�eser-i�ecl ice-- tire- ��3ee; -as shown- by- -the- 3�-e-�5- TmR-*R -x°©33 - a�r»le �� t- le- Cirtp -an -the elate - a €- mai }ing - fb� - -- The-- neti-e-e- shall- - ice- pub4rlshred7 -and - tm4led-- b�- -the -eitp ng-by-the eity- t rl--- rf-- ebjeet } one --to,- e-- prepesed- --&f- -tire nui- sanee- fe }-- �Phe- netiee- pt}b }isheel- easel -xtai }eel -by- the- eity -e }e�k -shall that- stteh- netiee- she} }- be- signeel -by- the -eity- a }erk. - 3-15.06 0 Hearin eedre arc ::::; xf;::: is ; :::bf::::; bd ;:::: :� b: a :� a ............. ........ .............. ......... At - t4-N_- t-i& - stated -3-3r- t-1 - net3ee --set - €arty -3 sec- tip -3- }5- A�49;- �h�e�-it'�- �bttrrf,'33 si�a��.- hear- anc}t��ic�� -a-13 �i�e- eb3eetiens to -t4w_— repose - abateiaeent --.f - -the - iitxi: o—_.- -IFl�re - maw -be eentint� eel- €rein- ti�te- te- tixte- 3- 15.010 Aetien -by- city- eeumei}- 8oard dr -:AD` At- the- -t4, —_ 4teat- rtg 3- �5 7 066; - the -eirt -y -a-l- Hof + - -ci- ee € -iees -te the- -ahat rt.-- Ir€- tea- -cb-jeretiron-s-- h,&ve- bees --x -- ate -the bearing -i0p.ir-- Yte-- 2itp- Eonse4 -1- has- ��e��tr3 -ec eeene4:1- shall;- bp- reselutien;- order- blue- eiby_Manager -te- abate -the nxi-sanee- 3- 15.080 Abatement- werlf- Appalaf;;;ir;;Orer The- -aba rrb- �o�l�- �ra�r - -be -- pew €armee�- �-- t4ip-- Ei -tyJs- -own employees -- er --br -= - -rt, xrt- ae�t -oi , -- -ai°► r - -eemb ►ab en thereof -- q%e- ei -tr*- aKjet- --an -iris -and eentraebers -may - upc}t-pr-ivftt-e -- property --as- mad- die- aeeessa��r -er apprepr�abe- �n- ereler -be- abate- �l�e- nt��sanee- elee�ered- be -ex�s� -open sr�eb- praperby: �i���r -e€ -blue abatrblt� --o� en behalf- a € - ire -t; -e- owrte�- abate - blue- �rttsanee -a ..::::::..: ..:..:::.:::::::::::......::::::::::::::::::::..:::::..::::.,.:::: ::..::..:::::::::...:::::::.:.. ......x afi�.......of:.,:.a]:1...:.:. t: c:�...a ...... ......... .............. .. 1�?.. ..............................P .............. .......�1�.......... C. ..........>:o> ..; .d...r..::C:.....r:::....... .d............1..4..g....p....a....1 .. 3- 15.090 Regert- a €- eests - sr 9Phe- art --+awager -- shad -I- - an frf- -the abatement- eests -i t - Lhe-- Limit ,-- irreItt&!,ng- at-€erney, L-s -fees- Saeh-- aeeatint- 3iid- ice , - -- p;,et"-- pi &t-&,--- th6o- -eesbs a �ibt� abbe -- c}- mats-- seperabe- arc &I- -frf -- land- -t p - *44,ch- -the abatement- werk -i& - erforreed-.- Following abatement work - -tie-- eitp -+Rmwtq&i- Vrepat-,e -a7 "f -final- t-emrzed-- wr4:bten bepert- she�aing- the- teta�- abatement - seats- anel- he- sha��- submit -sash repent - fed- een�ir�natien -bp- the- Eitp- eet�nei� -a €- its - newt- a�ai�ab�e regular -meeting -a €ter -t4t..-_ - notite--per -ice -set - 12- heteiIr. - At- +east ten- days- prism - -to--tire- 4ertre- -o-f- -e € -the - repert tegether- with- a "wrrt-tefr-rto-tiee- -o-f- -t4h -_ 4&be- ,vn -whie r -tihe- saone -ska}} be- earsi4e reel - by - -tb-e Eeuneil- shaii -be - yea- t -1eci- to- - t4ie•- �s�s -to roahem- eotiee-- wa5 -- eta- rieci- ptrrsttarrt- te- ��*3�- 3— Yr.- f�.rE3-(- o-�- anc�-a eepp- the�ee€- sha } }- a }se- be- pesteel- at- E�tp -Ha }} 3- 15.100 Een €at }en- a €- �epe�t- a €- Bests:iti4giil A�- �l�e- �-f- 3.�- �s�eens�de��ng �l�e��rf- eers�s- p�e� }eleel the- the -abatement 'phe- Ea r- .00�4-- trap -- them; - by- -reso IiAAen,- -eonf4rnn-- the-- pepertr -as ,stibm }heel- e�- meel }� }eel - .......... ........... ......... 3- 15.110 Payment- of- abateffient- eests- r Ali :i4t�ibk .............:........:.... the- 2 }bp- i�arrager�tay- ��-i��a�nerit� - i- e- �€ -tr]_3 o€- Abe- aba�e�nenb eests- - patLee - -- cry - -3 --at- - an - t4rne - -after Ben€ }gnat }en -e€ -the � }�rl�- b�- #.*�Yre- �- it�r- >'ne�-i �i^sfitas�- �e- See��en 3- 3:5.I9A -and -bp- €44+nig a € -atreh -repoi-t- - with- -tore- Ee#.ftty-Tax 3- 15.120 P}} ng- �epe�t- Wtl�- Ee►tu�ty= �a3c -Ee }Bee -- eel }eel }ea -e€ assessment: a ] Ge i i rf 3; . >R pvz : o €: ts : After- the - ei -ty- - confrir ter -the pepai-�_-- a €- eesbs -to abate - the- nuiaenee- cal* r e & 3af►el,- ane1 - }€ stiel�-- c- ost- a-- �a�✓ e-- �3 o�-- �een-- �ai�k-- i�t-- €tt��; - ��- 2�rtp- �1�#- -sta }} transm4t- a-- copy = -e€ -- the- -b 4ieri-- w-i #_A-- a- -c,opy- -off- -the ese }tip }en - r€a nri - Yre-- same Tax -- Le�l-eet- er,- -whe she } }- adc�- t-�'te-�otrrrt a€- abetemeht- eeat�-- o�- trrr�rai�- ��3err�- the�ee €; te- the -ne}rt �1 �- tax -b4-1+- as ptt�peses - }e�* }eel- ega�nst- stteh- payee} .-- the= en►etint -e €- the- a9sessxtent sha}}- -be- -ea }}eeteel --at - the - 3 te-- e'e&- -i-n-- tlle•- manner --as - or&inarp mtzn�e }pa} �a�- I�s�,�- assess tent= �s- ele•1- tom,- ,- t- �re- a�tarrrt spa }} be -is r j�eet -to- -the - s$�ne- € epee }esti�e- anel- sa }e- t��e� }eleel- €ems- e�el�na��- mt�n�e�t�a }- tees- 3- 15.130 'Faxes- paid- im- errer;- re €tmd - e� alms - �rat�st�:��fl ..... ............................... tbC vs the- e��p- eetine��- map- erele�- re €tineleel- a��- er- anp- ,pa�� -e� -a -fax paid -ptrt } arr- die- is3�rTS-e € -l�s rri�l -e if- -ire- Er- 8et�r�e� finels -that - akk - paid-&f- -t4i,6- tax has -been- erreaeeaslp-levieel- �- �$x -�r-arty- -pert- ��e��eo� ;- sha��- net- be- �e- €��- txrri- ess- a- e�a3itr�s €4:I eel- wi -t*- -t- he- - eity- e -lerk- ter- - crr-be€t&re- Mareh -3st - efrtet- -the -tax beeame- alt}e- anal- pe�ab�e -- eke- e�a��t- sl�a��- He -*ae�� €peel- bp- tl�e- pe�sen EXISTING NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE INVESTIGATION/ VOL. DAY 1 COMPLIANCE NON- COMPLIANCE VOL. I DAY 12 COMPLIANCE/ CASE CLOSED PERP. STAFF REPORT/ SCH. C.C. DECLARATION DAY 43 C.C. MEETING / REVIEW BY OF NUISANCE BY CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION PREP. AND FILE NOTICE POSTING OF DAY 48 OF CODE VIOLATION NOTICE & ORDER ON PROPERTY NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION I DAY 58 NON- COMPLIANCE VOL. I DAY 73 COMPLIANCE/ CASE CLOSED PREP. STAFF REPORT/ SCH. C.C. HEARS OBJECTIONS DAY 103 C.C. MEETING / REVIEW BY RE:- ABATEMENT/ ORDER CITY ATTORNEY ABATEMENT BY RESOLUTION NON- VOL. DAY 117 COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE/ CASE CLOSED SCHEDULE ABATEMENT AND DAY 147 COMPLETE ABATEMENT WORK r r PREP. STAFF REPORT/ SCH. C.C. HEARS OBJECTIONS, DAY 177 C.C. MEETING RE: REPORT CONFIRMATION OF COSTS OF COST / REVIEW C. ATTORNEY BY RESOLUTION NON - PAYMENT FILE CONFIRMATION OF DAY 212 COST RESOLUTION WITH COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAYMENT OF COST WITH TAX COLLECTION/ CASE CLOSE VOL I DAY 207 PAYMENT/ CASE CLOSED t PROPOSED NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE INVESTIGATION/ VOL. DAY 1 COMPLIANCE NON- VOL. DAY 12 COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE/ CASE CLOSED DECLARATION OF NUISANCE, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND ORDER, POSTING OF PROPERTY NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION, APPEAL PERIOD, FILE NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION NON- VOL. DAY 42 COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE/ CASE CLOSED SCHEDULE ABATEMENT AND I DAY 72 COMPLETE ABATEMENT WORK PREP. STAFF REPORT/ SCH. C.C. HEARS OBJECTIONS, DAY 102 C.C. MEETING RE: REPORT CONFIRMATION OF COSTS OF COST BY RESOLUTION NON- PAYMENT FILE CONFIRMATION OF COST RESOLUTION WITH COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAYMENT OF COST WITH TAX COLLECTION/ CASE CLOSE VOL. PAYMENT / CASE CLOSED DAY 135 DAY 132 TO: Joe Oncay DATE: September 7, 1995 FROM: Sharon Melin SUBJECT: Request for list of categories applicable to nuisance abatement Obstructions - Watercourse Obstructions - Street Obstructions -Storm drain Garbage, Junk, Trash Litter, Trimmings, Oil Debris Sewer wells & sewage Weeds, rubbish, refuse,dirt Barking dogs, vicious animal Kennels, Apiary, Hives Mosquitos, stables, corrals Outdoor storage in commercial Landscaping, vegetation Graffiti Hazardous material Noise- Exhaust fans, equipment Abandoned, wrecked, dismantled Unauthorized encroachments Second Unit Accessory Structure Height restrictions Impervious coverage Swimming pool Fencing, walls, hedges Home occupation Signs Antennas Satellite dishes Setback requirements Malfunctioning audible alarm vehicles SARATOGA //CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Q10 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 20. 1995 CITY MANAGER ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant SUBJECT: Animal Services Agreement with the Humane Society of Santa Clara County to provide Field Services to the West Valley Cities RECOMMENDED MOTIONS M : 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with the Humane Society of Santa Clara County to provide field services to the City of Saratoga from July 1, . 1995 through June 30, 1998 (Attachment A). 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement to Allocate Costs for Fiscal Year 1995 -1996 for Animal Services to the Five West Valley Cities (Attachment B). BACKGROUND The fifteen month Humane Society Field Services contract expired on June 30, 1995. In an effort to balance the budget, the City Council reduced the Field Service allotment of'the Animal Control Program at approximately the same time. The intention was to cut expenditures by reducing the field service contract to a level of service required by law, or "emergency field services." Several complications arose while this level of service was provided during the month of July 1995, and the City Council restored the Animal Control Program budget to provide "full field services" at the July 25 Adjourned City Council meeting. The budget restoration allowed the City of Saratoga to appropriate funding to continue its participation in the West Valley Animal Services Program. The Humane Society submitted a three year proposal to the West Valley cities to extend the expired contract from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1998. The services are essentially unchanged from the past agreement, with the exception of pickup of injured wildlife (Attachment A, pages 2 and 3). This new service is beneficial because it provides for pick -up of injured wildlife from city streets, public property, and private property when permission is granted by the owner. In addition, full field services include the handling of strays and pick -up of dead animals which were not provided to Saratoga during the month of July 1995. FISCAL IMPACT - The past 15 month contract was a learning phase for the West Valley Cities and the Humane Society. The parties discovered through experience and extensive discussion that the program costs for this period were greater than originally estimated. The fee charged to the West Valley Cities for the initial twelve months of the program was $150,000, however, actual expenses to the Humane Society were approximately $165,700. The amounts listed below, and on page 11 of Attachment A, are believed to more accurately reflect the actual expenses which will be. incurred by the Humane Society over the next three years. A 4$ escalation fee has been included per annum. July 1, 1995 to June 30. 1996 $168,522 July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997 $175,263 July 1, 1997 to June 30 '1998 $182,273 These amounts have been pared down substantially through negotiation and careful analysis of the required contract service levels. The current proposal provides the required service levels at a price which can be afforded by the West Valley Cities, and allows the Humane Society to cover its real costs. Billing will be divided among the four cities. the costs to the individual jurisdictions for the initial term were based on percentages of total population. The statistics from the first year of the program revealed that an adjustment is required to apportion the jurisdictions' costs based on program usage levels rather than population. Attachment B, the Agreement to Allocate Costs for Fiscal Year 1995/96 for Animal Services to the Five West Valley Cities, allows the cities to analyze the program usage levels on an annual basis and to make adjustments as required. Attachment C outlines the proposed program usage allocations for FY 95/96 based on the FY 94/95 actual usage. This analysis proved advantageous to the City of Saratoga which used less of the services than initially projected. Due to this adjustment, Saratoga will experience a reduction from 21% to 17.6% of its annual program expense share, or an average $6,000 decrease per year if usage level remains relatively constant. A noteworthy point is that Saratoga paid $31,500 for field services during FY 94/95. Saratoga's. adjusted share of the new contract will be $29,660 for FY 95/96; $30,846 for FY 96/97; and $32,080 for FY 97/98, totaling $92,586 over the three year contract term. The FY 95/96 amount will be prorated to indicate that Saratoga did not participate in the contract during the month bf July 1995. At the July 25 Adjourned meeting, the City Council voted to fund the FY 95/96 field services program from the Animal Control and Environmental Services budgets. �� - J=ig _ ;_ y k.i. L- _ • i„i•`a`�r .470 • — — MO, Experience has shown that Saratoga's non- participation in the West Valley Animal Control Program during the month of July 1995, created a loss of economies of scale, causing the City to experience increased program costs and decreased service levels. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS• Execute the Agreements and return the documents to the Deputy City Clerk at the Town of Los Gatos. City staff, Sheriff's Department and Fire Department personnel have already been notified via memorandum of the services provided under this agreement and the +► names and numbers for program contacts. ATPACHMEWS: Attachment A: Agreement with the Humane Society of Santa Clara County B: Agreement to Allocate Costs C: Proposed Program Usage Allocations ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT between THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY a Non - profit Public Benefit Corporation and the CITY UNIT of CAMPBELL, CUPERTINO, LOS GATOS, MONTE SERENO, and SARATOGA Attachment A ' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Animal Services (a) Services Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (b) Commencement of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Field Services (a) Field Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (b) Response Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (c) Operating Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (d) Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (e) Appointment as Animal Control Officers . . . . . . 6 3. Dead Animal Services (a) Dead Animal Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (b) Operating schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Records Regarding Animal Services (a) Maintenance of Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (b) Inspection of Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ( c ) Monthly Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (d) Yearly Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Other Responsibilities (a) Sheltering of Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (b) City Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (c) Responsibility for Administrative Hearings . . . . 10 (d) Timely Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Payment Provisions (a) Payment Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (b) Payment Amounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 (c) Transition Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 (d) Inspection of Financial Records . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Term and Termination of Agreement (a) Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 (b) Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 (c) Effects of Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 (d) Termination Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Indemnification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Independent Contractor Relationship . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Assignability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ' 13. Nondiscrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14. Ownership of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 15. Gifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16. Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 17. General Provisions (a) Entire Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 (b) Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 (c) Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 (d) Invalid Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 (e) Further Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 (f) California Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 (g) Counterpart Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 EXHIBIT A - Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Animal Services Agreement ( "AGREEMENT ") is entered into as of the 1st day of July, 1995 (the "Effective Date "), by HUMANE SOCIETY of Santa Clara Valley, a California non - profit public benefit corporation ( "HUMANE SOCIETY ") , and the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and the Town of Los Gatos ( "CITY UNIT "). This AGREEMENT supersedes in its entirety the previous AGREEMENT of 1 April, 1994, and the AMENDMENT TO ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT dated 30 June, 1995. RECITAL In consideration for certain payments and promises by CITY UNIT, HUMANE SOCIETY has agreed to perform certain Animal Services for CITY UNIT. AGREEMENT Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this AGREEMENT, HUMANE SOCIETY and CITY UNIT agree as follows: 1. ANIMAL SERVICES (a) Services Provided. For the consideration set forth herein, HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide to CITY UNIT the Field Services and Dead Animal Services described in this AGREEMENT. These two categories of services are collectively referred to herein as the "Animal Services," and each category of services is sometimes 1 hereinafter referred to as a "Program Unit." The Animal Services shall be provided by HUMANE SOCIETY in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and ordinances. (b) Commencement of Service. The Field Services and Dead Animal Services shall begin on the Effective Date of this AGREEMENT. 2. FIELD SERVICES (a) Field Services. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide vehicles, communications equipment, office supplies, field and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies, and equipment reasonably required to perform the following services (the "Field Services "): Field Services: (i) Investigation and resolution of code violations, including issuance of citations as appropriate, in accordance with city ordinances or state statutes upon request from any city of the CITY UNIT. (ii) Investigation and resolution of dangerous dog complaints. (iii) Bite investigations. (iv) Pick -up of injured stray dogs and cats without regard to weight and injured wildlife (excluding birds) that weigh 50 lbs. or less, that are located on public property or readily accessible on private property with the permission of the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent. 2 I l (v) Police assists on animal - related issues when the call is initiated by the police or the condition requiring assistance has been verified by the police. (vi) Respond to emergency calls. (The term "emergency calls" means complaints of animal bites or attacks on humans that are. in progress, or where a bite has occurred and where the animal remains an immediate threat to persons.) (vii) Pick -up of confined stray dogs, cats, and other small animals, to include rabbits, chickens, turkeys, geese, and ducks, and excluding confined wildlife such as opossums, raccoons, skunks, or squirrels. (viii) Pick up of dead animals from city streets and public property as defined in 3(a) below. HUMANE SOCIETY will respond to the other animal - related issues from the CITY UNIT and its residents providing that the costs of services will be reimbursed on a time and material basis that reflects the actual cost incurred by the HUMANE SOCIETY, including subcontracted services. These services include transportation and sheltering for animals not accepted by the CITY UNIT Animal Shelter Provider at the HUMANE SOCIETY or other appropriate location. HUMANE SOCIETY will shelter animals for which it has appropriate 3 . facilities and which the Animal Shelter Provider cannot accommodate due . to either species or hours of operation at the following rates: 7/1/95- 7/1/96- 7/1/97- 6/30/96 6/30/97 6/30/98 Dogs and Cats $57.29 $59.58 $61.97 Other Animals 25.00 26.00 27.04 Resources will perform the services listed above on a priority - basis.- -. Timely response guidelines are prioritized as follows: #1 Sick and injured animals #2 Vicious animals #3 Confined stray pick -up #4 Code enforcement #5 Bite investigations #6 Dead animal pick -up (dogs, cats, small animals, deer) Priorities may be adjusted based on the immediate threat to a person or another animal. The HUMANE SOCIETY will perform the field services to the extent that resources allow. The CITY UNIT recognized that lower priority items may either not be completed and have to be referred back to the City for action or be completed over a time period which may exceed 24 hours. (b) Response Criteria. The Field Services are based upon City or citizen complaints and requests. HUMANE SOCIETY Animal Control Officers will target response times to complaints and requests to HUMANE SOCIETY in accordance with the following guidelines: 4 (i) Immediate response -of one (1) hour or less within reasonable limits allowed by staffing availability, to Emergency Calls, Police Assists, and critically sick or injured animals. (The term "Emergency Calls" means complaints of a bite or attack on a human in progress or where a bite or attack has occurred and where the animal.remains. an immediate threat to persons or property.) (ii) Response within four (4) hours of receiving a call for animals that were running at large and that are now confined by a resident. (iii) Response within eight (8) hours of receiving a call regarding other biting, vicious, injured or sick _ animals, quarantines, and dead animal pick -ups. (c) Operating Schedules. Except as defined in 2(e) below, the HUMANE SOCIETY will have no obligation to respond outside of the regularly scheduled shift hours of the HUMANE SOCIETY Animal Control Officers. The initial regularly scheduled hours of the Animal Control Officers will cover sixteen (16) hours per day, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., every day, but may be reasonably adjusted from time to time by mutual agreement of the CITY UNIT and HUMANE SOCIETY if the service levels are impacted. HUMANE SOCIETY's telephone switchboard will be staffed with a dispatcher to accept calls twenty -four (24) hours per day, every day. (d) Emergency Response. Any calls defined in 2(b)(i) (Emergency Calls, Police Assists, critically sick and injured animals) 5 arising between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will be handled by city staff or on an "As Available" basis by the HUMANE SOCIETY if requested by CITY UNIT. The applicable city will be billed at the rate of $36.40 per hour (July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996), $37.86 (July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997) and $39.37 (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998), with a minimum charge of one hour for field services rendered by the HUMANE SOCIETY between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. .daily. - (e) Appointment as Animal Control Officers. CITY UNIT hereby appoints as animal control officers ( "Animal Control Officers ") as such term is contemplated by §830.9 of the California Penal Code, those HUMANE SOCIETY personnel executing Field Services, as defined in Section 2(a), on behalf of CITY UNIT, with full power to exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer and the power to serve warrants. 3. DEAD ANIMAL SERVICES (a) Dead Animal Services. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide vehicles, storage facilities, disposal mechanisms, field and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment, required to perform the following services (the "Dead Animal Services "): (i) Pick up of dead animals, including wildlife, from city streets and public property. (ii) Owner identification and notification, if possible. (iii) Disposal. (b) Operating Schedules. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide Dead. Animal Services seven (7) days a week between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. HUMANE SOCIETY shall be available to the public for R I drop -off and disposal of dead animals at its shelter facility seven (.7) days a week, twenty -four (24) hours a day. 4. RECORDS REGARDING ANIMAL SERVICES (a) Maintenance of Records. HUMANE SOCIETY shall, maintain accurate records regarding its performance of Animal Services under this AGREEMENT. Such records shall include Field Services records regarding calls, dispatches and Animal Control Officers' responses, and Dead Animal Services Records regarding receipt and disposal of dead animals. (b) Inspection of Records. HUMANE SOCIETY's records regarding Animal Services shall be open to inspection by CITY UNIT or CITY UNIT's designated representative, upon request of CITY UNIT during HUMANE SOCIETY's regular business hours. (c) Monthly Report. HUMANE SOCIETY shall deliver to each participating city of the CITY UNIT during the term of this AGREEMENT a monthly Animal Control Report summarizing Field Services and Dead Animal Services provided by HUMANE SOCIETY for that city. This report shall include but not be limited to the following information: (i) Number of Animal Control calls received for which a response was provided, broken down by - Type of animal - Type of call - Average response time for each type of call (upon completion of HUMANE SOCIETY's computerized call tracking system) 7 (ii) Number of calls received broken down by - Calls received for services we provide - Calls received for services we do not provide (Requested services will be noted) (iii) Number of dead animals picked up and brought to the shelter by - Animal Control - City residents (d) Yearly Report. HUMANE SOCIETY shall complete and submit to the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department the Annual Report of Local Rabies Control Activities for all activities it provides for the CITY UNIT. Activities provided by the CITY UNIT's Animal Shelter Provider will be supplied separately to the County by the CITY UNIT's Animal Shelter Provider or by the CITY UNIT. These include: sections: A. Dogs vaccinated in "actual cost" public vaccination clinics B. Dogs licensed in "actual cost" public vaccination clinics C. Number of "actual cost" public vaccination clinics held D. Individual vaccination fee charged E. Total number of dogs licensed in jurisdiction G.2. Dogs surrendered by owner G.3. Dogs impounded for quarantine H. Disposition of dogs impounded 5. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES (a) Sheltering of Animals. Animals to be impounded which are E? taken into custody for the CITY UNIT by the. HUMANE SOCIETY shall be delivered to the CITY UNIT's Animal Shelter Provider. The CITY UNIT and the HUMANE SOCIETY agree to the following division of responsibilities between the HUMANE SOCIETY, the CITY UNIT's Animal Control Provider and the CITY.UNIT's Animal Shelter Provider: (i) Citizens from any of the four cities of the CITY UNIT who bring stray animals to the HUMANE SOCIETY shelter will be redirected to the Animal Shelter Provider. No stray animals from the CITY UNIT will be accepted by the HUMANE SOCIETY. (ii) The Animal Shelter Provider will be open to receive animals brought in by Animal Service Officers during the normal hours of operation for HUMANE SOCIETY Field Services - 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily, 7 days per week. (iii) The Animal Shelter Provider will be responsible for collecting and rebating back to the cities any fees and /or penalties collected from CITY UNIT citizens, including home quarantine fees. (iv) The Animal Shelter Provider will interface with the County Health Department for the testing of rabies- suspect animals. (v) The Animal Shelter Provider will be responsible for the shelter, emergency veterinary care, reclaim, adoption and /or final disposition of all stray animals brought to their facility by either the 9 HUMANE SOCIETY's Animal Services Officers or local citizens. (b) City Ordinances. The cities of the CITY UNIT intend to work together to establish uniform animal control ordinances and citation authority among the cities composing the CITY UNIT. As part of this process, CITY UNIT and HUMANE SOCIETY agree to cooperate in an effort to define (i) Overall philosophy for code enforcement and the CITY UNIT's expectations of the HUMANE SOCIETY in code enforcement. What ordinances and state mandates are to be enforced. (iii) How these ordinances and mandates should be enforced. (iv) What the HUMANE SOCIETY's discretionary limits are. (c) Responsibility for Administrative Hearings. The HUMANE SOCIETY shall not be responsible for or bear the expense of arranging and conducting any required hearings regarding dangerous dogs. HUMANE SOCIETY's Animal Control Officers will appear at no additional cost to the CITY UNIT at the hearings if required. (d) Timely Payments. CITY UNIT shall promptly deliver to HUMANE SOCIETY the payments hereinafter required under this AGREEMENT for the Animal Services provided by HUMANE SOCIETY. 6. PAYMENT PROVISIONS (a) Payment Schedule. Payments shall be made to the HUMANE 10 SOCIETY in equal monthly installments. The HUMANE SOCIETY agrees to invoice each city of the CITY UNIT fifteen (15) days before the first of the following month. All installment payments by the CITY UNIT shall be due and payable in advance on the first business day of each month during the term of our AGREEMENT, and if unpaid, shall be delinquent on the tenth business day of each month without demand or notice to the CITY UNIT. Five percent (5 %) of the amount of all delinquent payments shall be added as a service charge and shall be payable by the CITY UNIT together with the delinquent payments. (b) Payment Amounts. For all Animal Services to be provided by and for the performance of all other obligations of the HUMANE SOCIETY to CITY UNIT under this AGREEMENT, CITY UNIT agrees to pay HUMANE SOCIETY the following sums for the defined periods of this AGREEMENT: July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996 $ 168,522 July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997 $ 175,263 July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998 $ 182,273 Billings will be divided among the four cities /town of the CITY UNIT as directed by the Animal Services Committee. In April of each year, beginning in 1996, the Animal Services Committee will notify the HUMANE SOCIETY of the percentage shares of each city /town. (c) Transition Adjustment. Upon execution of this AGREEMENT, the payment provisions of the Amendment to Animal Services Agreement, dated June 30, 1995, is superseded. A payment adjustment will be 11 included in the.first invoice under this agreement to reflect the new contract price and revised allocation percentages among the cities and a lump sum for the contract differential incurred in the transition to the new contract terms. (d) Inspection of Financial Records. HUMANE SOCIETY's financial books and records pertaining to its provision of Animal Services shall be open to inspection and audit by CITY UNIT, or its designated representative, at CITY UNIT's expense, at any time during normal business hours during the term of this AGREEMENT. In addition,HUMANE SOCIETY will provide the CITY UNIT with a copy of its annual audited financial statements, audit management letter and responses. 7. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT (a) Term. The term of this AGREEMENT shall be for a period from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1998. (b) Termination. This AGREEMENT may be terminated earlier at any time: (i) upon the written consent of both the CITY UNIT and the HUMANE SOCIETY. (ii) by either the CITY UNIT or the HUMANE SOCIETY immediately upon notice to the other, if the other breaches any material obligation under this AGREEMENT and such breach remains unremedied for at least thirty (30) days following written notice thereof to the breaching party. (iii) immediately upon written notice by the CITY UNIT to 12 HUMANE SOCIETY if HUMANE SOCIETY has a receiver appointed for all or substantial part of its business or assets, if a bankruptcy proceeding is brought by or against HUMANE SOCIETY as a debtor, or if HUMANE SOCIETY ceases its business operations. (iv) upon at least three (3) months prior written notice by CITY UNIT to HUMANE SOCIETY of its desire to terminate this AGREEMENT. (c) Effects of Termination. Upon the effective date of any termination of this AGREEMENT, HUMANE SOCIETY's obligation to provide Animal Services to CITY UNIT under this AGREEMENT shall cease, and CITY UNIT's obligation to make payments hereunder for periods of time after the effective date of termination shall cease, provided that the parties shall have any and all remedies available under law for any breach of this AGREEMENT. (d) Termination Costs. In the event the CITY UNIT elects to terminate this AGREEMENT prior to June 30, 1998, the CITY UNIT agrees to the following lump sum termination payment recognizing the HUMANE SOCIETY lease obligations with respect to office space and vehicle requirements for said CITY UNIT. It is further understood that the termination payment set forth herein is the pro rata share for CITY UNIT as of the effective date of this agreement which will be reduced accordingly if the HUMANE SOCIETY subsequently enters into agreements to provide services to other private or public sector agencies not 13 under contract during the 1995 -96 fiscal year. Termination Cost Termination Cost if agreement is not if agreement is not renewed eff. 711/96 renewed eff. 7/1/97 $7,804.00 $4,770.00 8. Indemnification HUMANE SOCIETY shall defend with counsel approved by CITY UNIT, indemnify and hold harmless CITY UNIT, its officers, employees and agents against any and all claims, actions, loss, liability or expense (including attorneys' fees) arising out of, based upon, or resulting in any way from work or services performed under this AGREEMENT due to any alleged or actual, willful or negligent acts (active or passive) or omissions by HUMANE SOCIETY's officers, employees or agents. The acceptance of said services and duties by CITY UNIT shall not operate as a waiver of such right of indemnification. 9. INSURANCE HUMANE SOCIETY agrees to procure and maintain at its own expense the insurance policies set forth in EXHIBIT A, entitled "Insurance," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. All policies, endorsements, certificates and /or binders shall be subject to approval by CITY UNIT as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved by CITY UNIT. HUMANE SOCIETY agrees to provide CITY UNIT with a copy of all said policies, certificates and /or endorsements before work commences under this AGREEMENT and to maintain such policies, certificates and /or 14 endorsements in full force and effect during the term of this AGREEMENT. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP This AGREEMENT shall in no way be construed to constitute HUMANE SOCIETY as the partner, legal representative, or employee of CITY UNIT for any purpose whatsoever, or as the agent of CITY UNIT, except for the limited purpose of providing animal services in accordance with this AGREEMENT and code enforcement in accordance with city ordinances, and neither party shall act or attempt to act or represent itself directly or by implication as having any such status or relationship. The parties shall have the relationship of independent contractors, and except as specifically provided in this AGREEMENT, each party shall be solely responsible for all obligations and liabilities pertaining to the business, activities, and facilities of that party. As an independent contractor, HUMANE SOCIETY shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to CITY UNIT's employees, and HUMANE SOCIETY hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. 11. ASSIGNABILITY The CITY UNIT and the HUMANE SOCIETY acknowledge and agree that the expertise and experience of HUMANE SOCIETY are material considerations inducing CITY UNIT to enter into this AGREEMENT. Neither the CITY UNIT nor the HUMANE SOCIETY shall assign or transfer any interest in this AGREEMENT, nor the performance of any obligations 15 hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other, and any attempt by either the CITY UNIT or the HUMANE SOCIETY to assign this AGREEMENT or any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect. 12. NOTICES Any notices permitted or required hereunder shall be deemed to have been received when delivered in person or on the third (3rd) business day after the date on which mailed, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended at the address set forth below its signature at the end of this AGREEMENT and to the attention of the individual who executed the AGREEMENT for such party. 13. NONDISCRIMINATION HUMANE SOCIETY warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. HUMANE SOCIETY does not and shall not discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with it or persons receiving or seeking services from it on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 16 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS All reports, documents or other materials provided to the CITY UNIT by the HUMANE SOCIETY shall upon delivery thereof become the property of the CITY UNIT, without restriction or limitation upon their subsequent use; provided, however, that data base software programs or other data organization methods used by the HUMANE SOCIETY in preparing the report, document, or other material provided to the CITY UNIT by the HUMANE SOCIETY shall remain the exclusive property of the HUMANE SOCIETY, without restriction or limitations upon their use. 15. GIFTS (a) The HUMANE SOCIETY knows that each city of the CITY UNIT has prohibitions against the acceptance of gifts by a CITY UNIT officer or designated employee. (b) The HUMANE SOCIETY agrees not to offer any CITY UNIT officer or designated employee gifts prohibited by the Code of Ethics or Municipal Code of each city of the CITY UNIT. (c) The offer or giving of any gift prohibited by a Code of Ethics or a Municipal Code shall constitute a material breach of the AGREEMENT by the HUMANE SOCIETY. In addition to any other remedies the CITY UNIT may have in law or equity, the CITY UNIT may terminate this AGREEMENT for such breach as provided in Section 11 of this AGREEMENT. 16. VENUE In the event that suit shall be brought by any party to this AGREEMENT against another party, the parties agree that the venue shall 17 be exclusively vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or where otherwise appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California. 17. GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) Entire Agreement. This AGREEMENT constitutes the entire AGREEMENT between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written commitments, understandings and agreements. No changes or modifi- cations to this AGREEMENT shall be valid or binding unless contained in a written document executed by the parties. (b) Waivers. No delay or failure of either party to exercise or enforce at any time any right or provision of this AGREEMENT shall be considered a waiver thereof or of such party's right thereafter to exercise or enforce each and every right and provision of this AGREEMENT. A waiver to be valid shall be in writing but need not be supported by consideration. No single waiver shall constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver. The acceptance by CITY UNIT of the performance of any work or services by the HUMANE SOCIETY shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this AGREEMENT. (c) Interpretations. In construing or interpreting this AGREEMENT, the word "or" shall not be construed as exclusive, and the word "including" shall not be limiting. The parties agree that this AGREEMENT shall be fairly interpreted in accordance with its terms without any strict construction in favor of or against either party, and any ambiguity shall not be interpreted against the drafting party. 18 (d) Invalid Provisions. If any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in full or in part, such provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it legal, valid, and enforceable, and the other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall not be affected thereby. (e) Further Documents. The parties agree, upon request, to sign and deliver such other documents as may be reasonably required to carry out the intent and provisions of this AGREEMENT. (f) California Law. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. (g) Counterpart Execution. This AGREEMENT may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same document. (h) Amendments. The parties agree, upon request of the CITY UNIT, that this AGREEMENT is subject to amendment if any member of the CITY UNIT, with ninety (90) days notice to other members, files a Letter of Intent to withdraw because of budgetary reasons. 19 •1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the Effective Date. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Town Attorney ATTEST: CITY UNIT 20 CITY OF CAMPBELL City Manager CITY OF CUPERTINO City Manager TOWN OF LOS GATOS Town Manager n • 1 1. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: CITY OF MONTE SERENO City Manager CITY OF SARATOGA City Manager HUMANE SOCIETY HUMANE SOCIETY OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY, a non - profit public benefit corporation BY= Its: Address: 2530 Lafayette Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 21 .L ' P k. EXHIBIT "A" INSURANCE HUMANE SOCIETY, at HUMANE SOCIETY's sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain for the duration of this AGREEMENT insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the performance of the services hereunder by HUMANE SOCIETY, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. The coverage described in Insurance Services Office Form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Commercial General Liability together with Insurance Services Office Form Number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or that described in Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ( "occurrence ") Form Number CG 0001, including X, C, U where applicable; and 2. The coverage described in Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 (Ed. 6/92) covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 "any auto," or Code 2 "owned autos" and Endorsement CA 0025. Coverage shall also include Code 8 "hired autos" and Code 9 "nonowned autos "; and 3. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the California Labor Code and Employers Liability Insurance; and 4. Veterinary Professional Liability Errors and Omissions. B. Minimum Limits of Insurance HUMANE SOCIETY shall maintain limits no less than: 1. Commercial General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, subject to a general aggregate of $1,000,000; and 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 3. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the California Labor Code and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident; and 22 4. Professional Liability Errors and Omissions $1,000,000 General Aggregate Limit. C. Deductibles and Self- Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by CITY UNIT. At the option of CITY UNIT, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self - insured retentions as respects CITY UNIT, its officers, employees, agents and contractors; or HUMANE SOCIETY shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses in amount specified by CITY UNIT. D. Other Insurance Provisions The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages a. Each city of the CITY UNIT, its officers, employees, agents and contractors are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: Liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of, HUMANE SOCIETY; products and completed operations of HUMANE SOCIETY; premises owned, leased or used by HUMANE SOCIETY; and automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by HUMANE SOCIETY. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to each city of the CITY UNIT, its officers, employees, agents and contractors. b. HUMANE SOCIETY's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects each city of the CITY UNIT, its officers, employees, agents and contractors. Any insurance or self - insurance maintained by each city of the CITY UNIT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors shall be excess of HUMANE SOCIETY's insurance and shall not contribute with it. C. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies by HUMANE SOCIETY shall not affect coverage provided each city of the CITY UNIT, its officers, employees, agents, or contractors. d. Coverage shall state that HUMANE SOCIETY's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 23 2. All Coverages Each insurance policy required by this AGREEMENT shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, or reduced in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to CITY UNIT. E. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers acceptable to CITY UNIT. F. Verification of Coverage HUMANE SOCIETY shall furnish each city of the CITY UNIT with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this AGREEMENT. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the following addresses or any subsequent addresses as may be directed in writing by CITY UNIT: City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 City of Monte Sereno 18041 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Monte Sereno, CA 95030 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 G. Subcontractors HUMANE SOCIETY shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall obtain separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. 24 - RUG -23 -1595 09.35 FRUPI Elbbb b:i 56_e42b6( i u AGREEMENT TO ALLOCATE COSTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 -1996 FOR ANIMAL SERVICESTO THE FIVE WEST VALLEY CITIES Attachment B THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of , 1995, by and between the CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation, the TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation, and the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "West Valley Cities"). RECITALS WHEREAS, on April 1, 1994, the West Valley Cities entered into an Agreement to provide Aninnal Services to their citizens through a coordinated planning and contracting process, and WHEREAS, the April 1, 1994, Agreement provided in the Recitals and Paragraph 8(a) that following the first year of experience, the West Valley Cities would meet and agree to allocate the costs of providing the services on the basis of percentage of total services actually utilized each year, and WHEREAS, the Animal Services Committee has analyzed the information on utilization during the first year of experience and recommended the percentage allocation of actual services used contained in Attachment 1 to this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. For fiscal year 1995 -1996, the costs of providing animal - related services pursuant to the April 1, 1994, Agreement between the West Valley Cities shall be allocated pursuant to Attachment 1 to this Agreement. 2. Prior to April 1, 1996, the West Valley Cities shall meet and analyze the cost experience of providing animal services and'attempt to reach agreement on the cost allocation for fiscal year 1996 -1997. NASHAPMAWLCOST.PFM RUG -23 -1995 09:36 FROM 8696 63 56742867 X093 1U '(4111,)c h'. 61 CITY OF CAMPBELL CITY MANAGER ATTEST" APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERIC CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF CUPERTINO DATED: CITY MANAGER ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK DATED: CITY ATTORNEY TOWN OF LOS GATOS TOWN MANAGER AUG -23 -1995 09:36 FROM 8696 63 56742667 iu DATED: ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATED: ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF MONTE SERENO CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY (4111Jc r.VJo RUG -23 -1995 09:36 FROM 8696 63 56742867 10 l� Attachment C ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Ci_yt 94-95 % Prorated Ca Is Cost Campbell 961 31.8 $53,590 Cupertino 624 20.7 34,884 Los Gatos '836 27.7 46,681 Monte Sereno 66 2.2 3,707 Saratoga 532 17.6 29.660 $168,522 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z6 o MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM 5- e, 10 CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: I SUBJECT: Resolution abandoning offers of dedication of various easements on Lot 18 of Tract 7761 (Mt. Eden Estates) and accepting offers of dedication of modified easements Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Resolution abandoning existing offers of dedication of various easements and accepting offers of dedication of modified easements. Report Summary: The attached Resolution, if adopted, would abandon several offers of dedication of various easements encumbering Lot 18 of Tract 7761 (Mt. Eden `Estates), and accept offers of dedication of modified easements in their place. The existing offers of dedication have never been formally accepted by the City, and the easements covered by the offers have never been utilized for their intended purposes. Consequently, the property owner is requesting the City abandon the existing offers of dedication and accept the modified offers which better reflect the needs of the City and the desires of the property owner. The existing offers of dedication recommended for abandonment include those for a combination "Scenic, Trail and Drainage Easement ", and a separate "Trail Easement" which appear on the original and amended tract maps recorded for the subdivision in 1986 and 1989 respectively. The problems with these proposed easements however are that they encumber much more of Lot 18 than is reasonably necessary and that they are not located in the portions of the lot where they are needed or which are presently used by the public. The former is the case with the combination "Scenic, Trail and Drainage Easement ", while the latter is the case with the "Trail Easement ". To correct these problems, staff has worked with the property owner to establish separate "Scenic ", "Pedestrian & Equestrian ", and "Storm Drainage" easements on the lot in the locations where they make sense and /or are needed to fulfill the public purposes for the easements. These proposed, modified easements are offered for dedication by the property owner and are attached to the Resolution. Adoption of the Resolution will abandon the existing offers of dedication for easements (Exhibits A & B) , and accept the modified offers of dedication (Exhibits C & D). Fiscal Impacts• None. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution will not be adopted thus retaining the status -quo condition of Lot 18. This will render much of the buildable portion of Lot 18 as unusable acreage, while preventing the public trail and storm drainage facilities from existing in their needed locations. Follow Up Actions: The Resolution will be recorded. Attachments: 1. Resolution with Exhibits A -D. 2. Site plan showing existing offers to be abandoned. 3. Site plan showing proposed offers to be accepted. 4. Letters from property owner and property owner's engineer. EXHIBIT A 1. All of that area shown and designated as "Scenic, Trail and Drainage Easement" on Lot 18 as said lot appears on the Map of Tract 7761 (Mount Eden Estates Subdivision) recorded in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Santa Clara on December 4, 1986, in Book 567 of Maps, Pages 48, 49 and 50, and on the Amended Map of Tract 7761 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for the County of Santa Clara on August 21, 1989, in Book 604 of Maps, Pages 42, 43 and 44. 2. All of that area shown and designated as "Trail Easement" on Lot 18 as said lot appears on the Amended Map of Tract 7761 recorded in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Santa Clara on August 21, 1989, in Book 604 of Maps, Pages 42, 43 and 44. W 2 N W W SCALE: l" = 100' LANDS of COCCI AROI 4EX1STINla TRAIL EASEMENT 7.0 $E AU VDDAIED �x�srl�vc SCENIC, ,� �, %RAIL ARID PRAT -vgbE EAsEl�'lENT To 8E ASIA DO HIED Z�r •;```�. `�� m h j �`\ ca•^^l! /MtT,S Of JC �;�' 7R.I r /y .s,��•• , 0 IV O • O� O d `'.1i .ray p �r . t� •°s' • tr Ik s LOT 17 .fCEc r /Vl ♦r.4/c 79.7 AC. 4NDO�PA/N♦16E ear . sc 7M mac. so y b jvk ti \Nam. LOT � c,S ., : >.• .�� � L oyZ =:o�•...:. •: i i N y LOT pp o/d Ac. Q ti N EXi STi,vE� SL a p� FA3 Est EN T 70 RE M4 i� EXHIBIT "C" OFFER TO DEDICATE EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAINAGE AND CONTROL For valuable consideration, the undersigned owners of the hereinafter described real property, hereby warranting that they constitute all of the owners thereof, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Saratoga,. a Municipal Corporation, and easement for storm water drainage and control under, over, and across that certain real property situated in the City of Saratoga, county of Santa Clara, State of California. Said property is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a poijit on the northerly rights of way line of Villa Oaks Lane, said point being the corner of lots 17 and 18, as shown on the Amended Tract Map of Tract 7761, Mount Eden Estates and recorded in Book 604, at Pages 42 through 44, Santa Clara County; thence along the boundary between Lots 17 and 18 North 24 Degrees 09 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 70.64 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 61 Degrees 27 Minutes 39 Seconds East a distance of 218.94 feet; thence North 20 Degrees 16 Minutes 34 Seconds East a distance of 38.94 feet; thence North 46 Degrees 24 Minutes 43 Seconds West a distance of 128.92 feet; thence North 62 Degrees 29 Minutes 15 Seconds West a distance of 183.19 feet; thence South 34 Degrees 21 Minutes 53 Seconds East a distance of 104.13 feet; thence South 24 Degrees 09 Minutes 48 Seconds West a distance of 21.36 feet to the true point of beginning. The undersigned understand that the within offer can only by accepted by resolution of the city Council of the City of Saratoga, and recordation of this instrument shall not and will not constitute acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. this offer be irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The plural as used herein shall include the singular, and the singular shall include the plural. Executed this day of ��,�.,��,� , 1995. The Thomas E. Burke & Hope F. Burke 1985 Trust PAGE 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On the 14th day of September, 1995, before me, Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk, personally appeared T. E. Burke, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal of the City of Saratoga. Grace E. Cory, De uty City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 ' OFFER TO DEDICATE EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAINAGE AND CONTROL For valuable consideration, the undersigned owners of the hereinafter described real property, hereby warranting that they constitute all of the owners thereof, -for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, and easement for storm water drainage and control under, over and across that certain real property situated in the City of Saratoga, county of Santa Clara, State of California. Said property is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 18 as shown on the amended subdivision map for Tract 7761, Mount Eden Estates, and recorded in Book 604, Pages 42 through 44 Santa Clara County records; thence along the northerly boundary line South 56 Degrees 38 Minutes 33 Seconds West a distance of 101.24 feet to the true point of beginning of the 20 -feet wide storm drain easement; thence along the centerline of said easement South 55 Degrees 56 Minutes 04 Seconds East a distance of 80.92 feet; thence South 42 Degrees 53 Minutes 13 Seconds East a distance of 93.55 feet, thence South 15 Degrees 48 Minutes 06 Seconds West a distance of 77.05 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 33 Minutes 12 Seconds West a distance of 325.95 feet to the northerly limit of storm drain easement recorded in Book , Page Santa Clara county Official Records, and terminus of this description. The undersigned understand that the within offer can only by accepted by resolution of the city Council of the City of Saratoga, and recordation of this instrument shall not and will not constitute acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. this offer be irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The plural as used herein shall include the singular, and the singular shall include the plural. Executed this / day of 1995. The Thomas E. Burke & Hope F. Burke 1985 Trust PAGE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On the 14th day of September, 1995, before me, Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk, personally appeared T. E. Burke, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal of the City of Saratoga. Grace E. Cory, Dep y City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 OFFER TO DEDICATE THE PUBLIC A PEDESTRIAN & EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT For valuable consideration, the undersigned owners of the hereinafter described real property, hereby warranting that they constitute all of the owners thereof, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby irrevocable offer to dedicate to the city of Saratoga, a Municipal corporation, the use forever of a Pedestrian & Equestrian Easement under, over, and across that certain real property situated in the City of Saratoga, county of Santa Clara, State of California. Said property is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northerly rights of way line of Villa Oaks Lane, said point being the corner of lots 17 and 18, as shown on the Amended Tract Map of Tract 7761, Mount Eden Estates and recorded in Book 604, at Pages 42 through 44, Santa Clara County; thence along said northerly rights of way South 69 Degrees 50 Minutes 13 Seconds East a distance of 26.04 feet to the true point of beginning of the 15 -feet wide easement; thence along the centerline of said easement thence South 69 Degrees 50 Minutes 13 Seconds East a distance of 26.04 feet; thence North 24 Degrees 09 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 137.79 feet; thence North 42 Degrees 08 Minutes 49 Seconds West a distance of 361.43 feet; thence North 29 Degrees 45 Minutes 23 Seconds West a distance of 37.00 feet; thence South 73 Degrees 16 Minutes 05 Seconds West a distance of 139.23 feet to the westerly boundary of Lot 18 and terminus of this description.' The undersigned understand that the within offer can only by accepted by resolution of the city Council of the City of Saratoga, and recordation of this instrument shall not and will not constitute acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. this offer be irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The plural as used herein shall include the singular, and the singular shall include the plural. Executed this day of .S' alo i,,,d�r , 1995. The Thomas E. Burke & Hope F. Burke 1985 Trust PAGE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On the 14th day of September, 1995, before me, Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk, personally appeared T. E. Burke, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal of the City of Saratoga. Grace E. Cory, Depup City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 4 OFFER TO DEDICATE SCENIC EASEMENT For valuable consideration, the undersigned owners of the hereinafter described real property, hereby warranting that they constitute all of the owners thereof, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby irrevocably offer to dedicate to the city of Saratoga, a Municipal ;corporation, a scenic easement to be kept open and free from buildings and structures of any kind except irrigation lines, landscaping, public utility lines, storm and sanitary sewer lines, under, over and across that certain real property situated in the City of Saratoga, county of Santa Clara, State of California; more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most westerly corner of Lot 18 as shown on the amended subdivision map for Tract 7761, Mount Eden Estates, and recorded in Book 604 of Maps at Pages 42 through 44 Santa Clara County Records; thence along the northerly boundary line of Lot 18 North 51 Degrees 36 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 201.72 feet; thence South 87 Degrees 40 Minutes 04 Seconds East a distance of 341.64 feet; thence North 56 Degrees 38 Minutes 33 Seconds East a distance of 82.16 feet; thence leaving said northerly boundary line South 55 Degrees 56 Minutes 04 Seconds East a distance of 80.92 feet; thence South 42 Degrees 53 Minutes 13 Seconds East a distance of 93.55 feet; thence South 15 Degrees 48 Minutes 06 Seconds West a distance of 77.05 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 33 Minutes 12 Seconds West a distance of 65.28 feet; thence North 58 Degrees 34 Minutes 37 Seconds West a distance of 160.70 feet; thence North 88 Degrees 09 Minutes 56 Seconds West a distance of 192.41 feet; thence South 20 Degrees 01 Minutes 34 Seconds West a distance of 71.77 feet; thence South 13 Degrees 11 Minutes 07 Seconds West a distance of 70.00 feet to the westerly boundary of said Lot 18; thence along the westerly boundary of said lot North 34 Degrees 21 Minutes 53 Seconds West a distance of 120.00 feet; thence North 81 Degrees 14 Minutes 09 Seconds West a distance of 204.53 feet to the point of beginning. The undersigned understands that the within offer can only by accepted by resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga, and recordation of this instrument shall not and will not constitute acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. this offer shall be irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assign. the plural as used herein shall include the singular, and the singular shall include the plural. Executed this 144 day of se-_ /0 . 995. The Thomas E. Burke & Hope F. Burke 1989 Trutt PAGE 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On the 14th day of September, 1995, before me, Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk, personally appeared T. E. Burke, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal of the.City of Saratoga. Grace E. Cory, De ty City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 N Xw ^.N29.45'23 "W 37. 00' k o' SCENIC EASEMENT..—".. �6 ,W� �S t 5 , —13 �a N�Q�' 5b "l✓ I 41 Jo 1 9 u 20 . :...._... S 20.01'J4 "W g' 53 " � 'fy 71 77 0. �.9 s 1J 11 ' 07'•l✓ Z cp. G�cS� 70.00 hY 21. 36 cj .,0� `� �9• ob 25.04 ' �, ,9� , 9 �• 0 •. `� R= 181 .66' 1/f� 4 X90 d =9.45' 15" L, L= .30.9.3' WES TFA L L ENGINEERS, I NC . '9NF SARA TOGA CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "D " LOT 18, TRACT 7751 141� WESTFALL ENGINEERS INC. Consulting Engineers 14583 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 TEL: (408) 867 -0244 FAX: (408) 867 -6261 Mr. Larry Perlin City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 93053 July 13, 1995 Re: Modification to existing easements for Parcel 4 of PM629 -44 Lot 18, Tract 7761 Dear Larry, On behalf of Tom Burke, I request that some of the existing easement, specifically within Lot 18, be modified to enable the property owner of that lot to improve, not only the actual building site, but to create a beautiful environment surrounding this site. As you know, this particular lot has been covered by many various easements. Some of these easements were created to protect the natural vegetation. These easements were designated as "Scenic, Trail and Drainage Easement. Portion of the Scenic easement truly cover the undisturbed natural areas and should be preserved. However, most of these areas, as designated within Lot 18, have been not only disturbed, but are in need of cleaning up and landscaping. It is our request to delete the Scenic easement from the south and east portion of lot 18. The hillside directly north of the proposed building site should be defined as a slope easement so it can be landscaped and maintained. In addition, we would like to request removal of the trail easement, as shown on the Amended Tract Map for Tract 7761, since these easements do not continue beyond the tract's boundary SURVEYING CIVIL STRUCTURAL Enclosed are three copies of the map showing these easement and requested changes. Please let either Tom Burke or myself know if you need any additional information. Yours ver tr ly, Jit a Cymbal , Encl. Letter of authorization 3 copies of map cc: Tom Burke 9fiE, gfiomai E Bu4F- anal c�,4ol2F- �3- BUILL 19S5 gTu:it 691 NORTH MATHILDA AVENUE • SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 • 408 - 733 -1997 July 11, 1995 Jitka Cymbal Westfall Engineers Inc. 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Jitka: RECrIVE:t' Dal. Mt. Vewv, 6A 9484 73 0,5.3 This letter _= authorizes you to represent me and the Trust in bb.th the Iapplication for Lot line adjustment of Lot 18, Tract 7761 and the Subdivision map for three lots covering part of lot 4 of the 4 lot subdivision. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me immediatly so we can keep these two applicaitons moving thruough the City. Very , T."E. Burke, Personally and as Trustee cc: Teerlink SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 260 MEETING DATE: Sept. 8, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM. r-7 CITY MGR. ' SUBJECT: Renewal of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution extending the existing DBE Program for an additional year from October 1, 1995, through September 30, 1996. Report Summary: On April 19, 1989, the City adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in order to satisfy one of the technical requirements for receipt of federal funds for local projects. The Program is intended to facilitate the opportunity for minority and female owned businesses to submit bids and receive awards of contracts on federally funded projects. The Program is required to run during the same period as the federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. The expiration date of the DBE Program has already been extended to September 30, 1995, and a further extension is necessary to September 30, 1996. No changes to the Program itself are being made. It is anticipated the City will continue to renew this program to retain eligibility to receive federal funds for various projects. Among the projects in the foreseeable future are the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Rehabilitation and the Quito Road Bridge Replacement (Capital Project 9111) . Fiscal Impacts: Adds nominal costs to the bid, award and contract administration work for the project. Follow Up Actions: The resolution will be sent to the CalTrans Office of Local Programs. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The DBE Program would expire on September 30. Afterwards, the City would become ineligible to receive federal funds. Attachments: Proposed resolution with attached DBE Program. 9 E X H I B I T "A" DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM CITY OF SARATOGA I. Policy Statement It is the policy of the City of Saratoga ' to utilize Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and firms as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 in all aspects of contracting to the maximum extent feasible. This policy which is fully described herein constitutes policy and commitment to substantially increase DBE Utilization in all program activities funded wholly or in part by any U.S. Department of Transportation model element. This Agency, its contractors and subcontractors, which are the recipients of Federal -aid funds, agree to ensure DBE firms have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts. In this regard, s this Agency and all of its contractors and subcontractors will take all reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR 23 to ensure that DBE and firms have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. II. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Liaison Officer The City Engineer is the DBE Liaison Officer for this agency and shall report to the City Manager. M. Duties of the DBE Liaison Officer The DBE Liaison Officer shall develop, manage and implement the DBE Program on a day - today basis. The Liaison Officer shall- A. Arrange solicitations, time for the presentation of bids, quantities, specifications, and delivery schedules so as to facilitate the participation of DBEs. Where such changes are found necessary to increase DBE utilization, they will made in consultation and cooperation with the functional unit involved. B. Provide guidance to DBEs in overcoming barriers, such as inability to obtain bonding or financing. -1- a C. Carry out information and communication programs on contracting opportunities in a timely manner. D. Investigate the services offered by banks owned and controlled by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. E. Unless noted elsewhere herein the listing of DBEs certified by Caltrans will be utilized as businesses to be included in the solicitation of bids. Said listing is to be made available to all project bidders. Such listing will include the following information: Name, address, telephone number, ethnic and /or sexual ownership, type of work performed by firm. F. Prior to approval of the substitution of any DBE subcontractor, the prime contractors will be required to prove performance of good faith efforts to replace the DBE with another eligible DBE. G. Establish a DBE overall annual goal. The goal shall be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. H. Establish an appropriate individual project DBE goal for each Federal Aid Project advertised. 1. Perform good faith analysis when the project goal is not achieved. J. Maintain such documentation as is necessary to verify performance of all activities included in this program. IV. Public Notification A. At the time of submittal of this program to the State Department of Transportation, a notice in both minority and majority local media will be published. Said publication shall include: (1) The annual overall DBE goaL (2) Notification that a description of how the goal was set is available for public inspection for a period of 30 days. -2- (3) Notification that both U.S. DOT and this agency will accept comments on the goal for 45 days from the date of the notice. The notice shall advise interested parties that comments are for information purposes only. B. This program will be reaffirmed by public notice annually at the time of publication of overall goal. If substantial changes are made to this document, the entire document shall' be subject to notification noted in A above. C. In addition to the foregoing, interested disadvantaged and majority contractor organizations will receive direct mailings of this complete program. V, Establishment of Goal i A. The DBE goal will be established both annually (overall) and on a per contract basis. The overall goal will be based on planned contract activity for the coming year. The overall goal established will be subject to methodology and procedures established in 49 CFR 23, Subparts (C) and (D) and take effect on October lst of each year. B. The overall DBE goal established with this initial program is 10% and covers the period October 1, 1989, to September 30, 1990. C. Individual project goals will be established based on the following criteria: (1) Attainment of established overall goals. (2) Size of project. (3) Opportunities for DBEs as subcontractors, vendors and suppliers. (4) Minority population of geographic area in which work is to be performed. -3- .(5) . DBE goals being utilized in the geographic area by other State, Federal or local jurisdictions. (6) Availability of certified DBEs. (7) Past experience on projects similar to the project being evaluated. (8) Such other factors as may effect the utilization of DBEs. Complete evaluation documentation will be retained for each project. D. Projects which do not contain a specific goal will contain the following provisions: (1) "Policy. It is the policy of the Department of Transportation that, r disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds under this agreement. Consequently, the DBE requirements of 49 CFR Part 23 apply to this agreement." (2) "DBE Obligation. The recipient or its contractor agrees to ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds provided under this agreement. In this regard, all recipients or contractors shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR Part 23 to ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Recipients and their contractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, natioinal origin, or sex in the award and performance of DOT - assisted contracts." VI. Contract Procedure This program shall be implemented through the utilization of a contract special provision which will be provided /updated as, necessary by Caltrans'Division of -4- Local Streets and Roads. These procedures require bidders to submit the names of DBE subcontractors and suppliers, a description of the work each is to perform or material. to be furnished, and the dollar value of each DBE subactivity. VII. DBE Notification Projects will be advertised in local newspapers and minority focus newspapers when possible. These ads will include reference to DBE requirements and will indicate the DBE project goal. DBE supportive service assistance centers will receive notification of projects scheduled to be advertised. Such centers, will be afforded the opportunity to receive complimentary plans and specifications for projects within their geographical area of responsibility. VIII. Selection Criteria for Projects with DBE Goal Every project containing a DBE goal shall be evaluated by the DBE Liaison Officer or his /her designee to ascertain bidding contractors' efforts to attain the DBE goal. The award of any project must be concurred with by the DBE Liaison Officer or his /her designee before said contract may be awarded. Should there be disagreement between functional units concerning contractors' efforts to attain contract goals for DBE participation, the matter shall be referred to the City Manager or his /her designee, for final determination. Competitors that fail to meet the DBE goal and fail to demonstrate sufficient reasonable good faith efforts shall be declared non - responsive and ineligible for award of the contract. All contracts that contain a DBE goal, pursuant to this policy, will be monitored on an ongoing basis by project personnel during the course of construction. The DBE Liaison Officer is to be immediately advised of any circumstances wherein contractor compliance with the DBE provision is questionable. The contractor shall submit a final report for each project which includes total payments to the prime contractor as well as any payments the prime contractor has made to DBE subcontractors, vendors and suppliers. If the report indicates the prime contractor has not achieved the project goal, project personnel shall attach an -5- evaluation, in narrative form, of the reasons for failure to attain the goal and any corrective action that was taken. Prime contractors will be required to notify the Agency of any situation in which regularly scheduled progress payments are not made to DBE subcontractors, vendors or suppliers. IX. Counting DBE Participants This Agency, its contractors, and subcontractors shall count DBE participation in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.47, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. X. Records and Reports A. The DBE Liaison Officer shall maintain such records, and provide such reports, as are necessary to ensure full compliance with this policy. Such-' records and reports shall include, as a minimum, the following information: (1) Awards to DBEs. (2) Awards to majority contractors. ;�. (3) Final project reports concerning DBE utilization. (4) Such other data as is needed to fully evaluate compliance with this program. B. The DBE Liaison Officer shall submit reports to Caltrans and /or to the appropriate U.S. DOT element as required. These reports will include: (1) Number and dollar value of contracts awarded. (2) Number and dollar value of contracts and subcontracts awarded to DBEs. (3) Description of general categories of contracts awarded to DBEs. M (4) The percentage of the dollar value of all contracts awarded during the year which were awarded to DBEs. (5) Indication as to the extent of which the percentage met or exceeded the overall goal. (6) Reports shall be broken down separately by ethinic grouping. XI. Complaints Any complaints received by the Agency concerning this program will be investigated by the DBE Liaison Officer. He /she will endeavor to resolve said complaints within 90 days after receipt. The appropriate DOT element and Caltrans will be furnished a copy of the complaint and may be invited to participate in the investigation /resolution. The DOT element and Caltrans will receive a complete investigative report on the complaint and may be requested,-- to concur in the proposed disposition of said complaint. Contractors will be directed to notify the Agency of any complaints they may receive concerning this program. -7- 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �`� 013 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 20, 1995 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. Community Development SUBJECT: Report of Costs, Nuisance Abatement Located at APN 38644038 Recommended Motion(s): Confirm the final written report of abatement costs dated August 21, 1995 showing the total costs incurred by the City for the abatement of the declared nuisance located on APN 38644038. Adopt the report of cost, by resolution, and direct the City Clerk to file said report and resolution with the County Tax Collector in accordance with the Saratoga City Code, Article 3 -15. Report Summary: On March 15, 1995, the City Council declared the property located at APN 38644038, near Cox Ave. along the Southern Pacific Railroad train tracks, a public nuisance. The nuisance consisted of discarded palm frons and wood. The nuisance was removed by the City on April 24, 1995. In order for the City to recover costs associated with the abatement, the City Council must review and confirm, by resolution, the report of costs incurred by the City after hearing any objections of the property owners. The City Council may modify the report if deemed necessary. Upon confirmation of the report of costs, the City Manager may then receive full payment for the abatement or, if unpaid, file the report with the County Tax Collector for all or any unpaid portion of the costs. Reports filed with the Tax Collector are added to the next tax bill as a special assessment for municipal purposes. If the assessment is delinquent, the amount is subject to the same interest and penalties for ordinary municipal taxes. Fiscal Impacts: The City will not recover the abatement costs. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Notification of the property owners within ten days of the City Council review of the report of costs and posting of the item. Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motions: Same as fiscal impact. Follow Up Actions: City Manager to proceed with collection of abatement costs. Attachments: 1) Report of Costs 2) Resolution 3) Copy of Saratoga City Code, Article 3 -15 c: \wpdocs \exsum.950 , 4 O V 4( Ilf�l�� August -21, 1995 . QT I O&M&Iga0z 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE'*' SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe TO: Harry Peacock - City Manager FROM: Rebecca Spoulos _ Community Service Officer SUBJECT: Report of Costs, Abatement of Public Nuisance at APN #38644038, Based upon the City's Public Works Job Request /Cost Sheet, and the City Attorney billing statement, the following is a breakdown of the amount to be charged to Southern Pacific Railroad for the abatement of the public nuisance located on the property at APN #38644038. (Cox Avenue just North of Railroad Tracks Crossing) DESCRIPTION Four City Employees One 8 yd Dump Loader Disposal Fee for Palm Frons to Green Valley Disposal City Attorney Fees Abatement, Posting, Materials Community Service Officer Total Amount Complaint #94 -11- 090 /Abatement. fee Printed on recycled paper. TIME AMOUNT 1.5 hrs .$137.90 1:5 hrs .$93.75 $ 75.00 1.0 hrs $100.00 $ 10.00 2.0 hrs $ 50.00 $466.65 MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT JOB REQUEST / COST SHEET ATE JOB NUMBER R ate ! Z 3 /-s Z .9,Q .3 1 q. !0 3 JOB DESCRIPTION ✓✓1 5 o e O S o MATERIALS oty Item sees Supplier 6vL049A Price Amount .oa WORK REQUESTED BY APPROVED BY N STARTING DATE_ FINISHING DATE CHECKED R tom_ P CA J C�A! (C2)' LNG 2 Ct G DATE DATE DATE LABOR Employee jHrl s U 04 Ju s s R ate ! Z 3 /-s Z .9,Q .3 1 q. !0 3 S 5 o e O S o MATERIALS oty Item sees Supplier 6vL049A Price Amount .oa COST SUMMARY Labor Eauipment Materials Total v`O 31 9 3 � 75 3 bo 16 Vj 4 AT. or. ri ilk .1 4.f 77: 46 .149, 3- 10.020 Collection of costs by the City. Wherever the City Attorney is authorized or directed to commence or sustain any civil action or proceeding, either at law or in equity, to enforce any of the provisions of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, or any condition of an approval, permit or license granted pursuant to this Code, or to enjoin or restrain any violation thereof, or otherwise to abate any public nuisance, or to collect any sums of money on behalf of the City, then the City shall be entitled to collect all the costs and expenses of the same, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and reason- able investigation costs, which shall be set by the court and made a part of any judgment in any such action or proceeding. 3- 10.030 Recorded notice of Code violation. (a) Whenever the City Manager has knowledge of a violation of any provision of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, or any condition of an approval, permit or license granted pursuant this Code, he may notify the owner of the proper- ty upon which the violation is located of his intent to record a Notice of Code Violation in the office of the Recorder for the County. Such notice of intent shall be mailed to the owner at the address shown on the latest available assessment roll, or as otherwise known to the City Manager, and a copy thereof shall be posted upon the property. The notice of intent shall describe the nature of the violation and inform the owner that a Notice of Code Violation will be recorded unless a hearing before the City Manager is requested by the owner within twenty days from the date of the notice. (b) In the event a hearing is not requested and the violation has not been corrected, or in the event that after the conduct of a hearing and consideration of all evidence presented thereat by the owner, the City Manager deter- mines that a violation of one or more of the aforemen- tioned codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders or conditions in fact exists, the City Manager may record a Notice of Code Violation in the office of the County Recorder. The determination by the City Manager, follow- ing a hearing, that a violation exists, may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 2- 05.030 of this Code. (c) At the request of the affected property owner or other interested person and upon determination by the City Manager that the violation has been fully corrected 31 3- 15.030 and no longer exists, the City Manager shall furnish to the owner or other interested person a Notice of Expungement of the previously recorded Notice of Code Violation. (d) The recording of a Notice of Code Violation pursu- ant to this Section shall be in addition to any other rights, remedies or actions available to the City by reason of the same violation as described in the Notice. Article 3 -15 NOTICED NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE Sections: 3- 15.010 Authority. 3- 15.020 Declaration of nuisance. 3- 15.030 Notices; posting. 3- 15.040 Notices; form. 3- 15.050 Notices; publication and mailing. 3- 15.060 Hearing. 3- 15.070 Action by City Council. 3- 15.080 Abatement work. 3- 15.090 Report of costs. 3- 15.100 Confirmation of report of costs. 3- 15.110 Payment of abatement costs. 3- 15.120 Filing report with County Tax Collector; collection of assessment. 3- 15.130 Taxes paid in error; refund; claims. 3- 15.010 Authority. This Article is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 38773.5 of the Government Code. 3- 15.020 Declaration of nuisance. Whenever the City Council has declared by resolution or ordinance that a nuisance exists upon a parcel of land, the City Council may utilize the provisions of this Article to effect the abatement of such nuisance and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the parcel upon which such nuisance exists. 3- 15.030 Notices; posting. (a) After the passage of a resolution or ordinance declaring the existence of a nuisance upon a parcel of land, the City Manager shall cause notices to be conspicu- ously posted on the property on which the nuisance exists as follows: 3- 15.030 (1) One notice on each separately owned parcel of property of not over fifty feet frontage; or (2) Not more than two notices on any parcel over fifty feet frontage but less than one hundred feet frontage; or (3) Notices not more than one hundred feet apart if the frontage of a parcel is greater than one hundred feet. (b) Such notices shall be posted at least fifteen days prior to the time for hearing by the City Council of objections to the proposed abatement of the nuisance. 3- 15.040 Notices; form. The notice required by Section 3- 15.030 shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on 19___, the City Council of the City of Saratoga declared a public nuisance to exist on the property described as: The condition(s) constituting such public nuisance and the action(s) to be taken for abatement thereof are as follows: Condition Corrective Action Upon failure to abate such public nuisance through the corrective actions described herein. the nuisance will be abated by the City of Saratoga and all costs of abatement will be assessed against the property on which the nuisance exists and will constitute a special assessment upon and against such property until paid, said assessment to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes. A copy of the declaration of nuisance by the City Council is on file in the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk. Any property owner objecting to the proposed abate- ment by the City of Saratoga is hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to be held on 19____, commencing at 7 p.m., at the Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale 32 Avenue, Saratoga, California, when their objections will be heard and given due Consideration. Dated this day of . 19 . City Manager City of Saratoga 3- 15.050 Notices; publication and mailing. (a) In addition to posting the notice required by Section 3- 15.030, the City Council shall direct the City Clerk to publish such notice once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and to mail written notice of the proposed abatement to each owner of the property de- scribed in the notice, as shown by the latest assessment roll available to the City on the date of mailing. (b) The notice shall be published and mailed by the City Clerk at least fifteen days prior to the time for hearing by the City Council of objections to the proposed abate- ment of the nuisance. (c) The notice published and mailed by the City Clerk shall be substantially in the form set forth in Section 3- 15.040, except that such notice shall be signed by the City Clerk. 3- 15.060 Hearing. At the time stated in the notice set forth in Section 3- 15.040, the City Council shall hear and consider all the objections to the proposed abatement of the nuisance. The hearing may be continued from time to time. 3- 15.070 Action by City Council. At the conclusion of the hearing provided for in Section 3- 15.060, the City Council shall allow or overrule any objections to the proposed abatement. If no objections have been made at the hearing or the City Council has overruled those made, the City Council shall, by resolu- tion, order the City Manager to abate the nuisance. 3- 15.080 Abatement work. The abatement work may be performed by the City's own employees or by independent contractors, or any combination thereof. The City Manager and his authorized representatives and contractors may enter upon private property as may be necessary or appropriate in order to abate the nuisance declared to exist upon such property. Prior to commencement of the abatement work by or on behalf of the City, the property owner may abate the nuisance at his own expense. 3- 15.090 Report of costs. The City Manager shall keep an accurate account of the abatement costs incurred by the City, including attorney's fees. Such account shall indicate, where appro- priate, the costs attributable to each separate parcel of land upon which the abatement work is perforated. Follow- ing completion of all abatement work, the City Manager shall prepare a final itemized written report showing the total abatement costs and he shall submit such report for confirmation by the City Council at its next available regular meeting after the notice period set forth herein. At least ten days prior to the date of such meeting, a copy of the report together with a written notice of the date on which the same shall be considered by the City Council shall be mailed to the persons to whom notice was mailed pursuant to Subsection 3- 15.050(a) and a copy thereof shall also be posted at City Hall. 3- 15.100 Confirmation of report of costs. At the time fixed for considering the report of costs provided for in Section 3- 15.090, the City Council shall hear any objections of the owners of the property to be assessed for the abatement costs. The City Council may modify the report if deemed necessary. The City Council may then, by resolution, confirm the report as submitted or modified. 3- 15.110 Payment of abatement costs. The City Manager may receive payment in full of the abatement costs charged against a parcel of land at any time after confirmation of the report by the City Council pursuant to Section 3- 15.100 and prior to the filing of such report with the County Tax Collector pursuant to Section 3- 15.120. 3- 15.120 Filing report with County Tax Collector; collection of assessment. After the City Council has confirmed the report of costs to abate the nuisance declared to exist upon a parcel of land, and if such costs have not been paid in full, the City Clerk shall transmit a copy of the report together with a copy of the resolution confirming the same to the County Tax Collector, who shall add the amount of abatement costs, or unpaid portion thereof, to the next regular tax bill as a special assessment for municipal purposes levied against such parcel. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner as ordinary municipal taxes. If such assessment is delin- quent, the amount shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale pro- vided for ordinary municipal taxes. 33 3- 20.030 3- 15.130 Taxes paid in error; refund; claims. The City Council may order refunded all or any part of a tax paid pursuant to the provisions of this Article if the City Council finds that all or any part of the tax has been erroneously levied. A tax, or any part thereof, shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with the City Clerk on or before March 1st after the tax became due and payable. The claim shall be verified by the person who paid the tax or his guardian, executor, administrator, personal representative or successor in interest. Article 3 -20 EMERGENCY NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE Sections: 3- 20.010 Authority. 3- 20.020 Nuisance declared. 3- 20.030 Alternate procedure. 3- 20.040 Abatement by City Manager. 3- 20.050 Report of costs. 3- 20.060 Notices; posting. 3- 20.070 Notices; form. 3- 20.080 Notices; publication and mailing. 3- 20.090 Hearing. 3- 20.100 Action by City Council. 3- 20.110 Payment of abatement costs. 3- 20.120 Filing report with County Tax Collector; collection of assessment. 3- 20.130 Taxes paid in error; refunds; claims. 3- 20.010 Authority. This Article is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 (commencing with Section 38771) in Chapter 10, Division 3 of Title 4 of the Government Code. 3- 20.020 Nuisance declared. Any encroachment upon, or obstruction in or to, any public sidewalk, street, alley, lane, court, park, trail or easement, or other public place, shall constitute and is hereby declared to be a nuisance. 3- 20.030 Alternate procedure. Tftis Article constitutes an alternate procedure to Article 3 -15 of this Chapter for abatement of a nuisance and for assessment of the abatement costs against the property SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 e O AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS • DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Approval of Program Supplement #11 to the City -State master agreement for Federal -Aid projects Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Resolution approving Program Supplement #11 to the Local Agency -State Master Agreement for Federal -Aid Projects. Report Summary: The attached Resolution, if adopted, will approve Program Supplement #11 to the Master Agreement dated August 17, 1977, between the City and the State covering terms and conditions for receipt of federal funds for local transportation projects. Program Supplement #11 incorporates the Pierce Road Bridge Replacement, Capital Project No. 953, into the master agreement. The Program Supplement must be approved before the City can receive any federal funds which are administered by Caltrans, and the approval of the Program Supplement must be memorialized by the City Council by adoption of a resolution. The project is currently out to bid, with bids due on September 28. A recommendation for award of a construction contract will be made at your October 4 meeting. Construction is expected to begin immediately thereafter so the project can be completed this fall before the beginning of rainfall. The Program Supplement obligates up to $289,800 in federal HBRR funds (80% of the estimated construction cost) for the project. These are matched by up to $72,450 in local funds. Fiscal Impacts• Approval of the Program Supplement commits the City to funding the 20% local match for the project. Funds for the project are budgeted in Capital Project No. 953. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution would not be adopted and the Program Supplement would not be approved. Until it is, the City cannot claim reimbursement for the federal funds obligated to the project. Follow Up Actions: The Program Supplement will be signed and returned to Caltrans with certified copies of the Resolution. Attachments: 1. Resolution approving the Program Supplement. 2. Program Supplement #11. 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2- 6O � AGENDA ITEM S-8 6 MEETING DATE: September 20, 1 95 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE SUBJECT: 1995/96 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolution amending the Fiscal- Year 1995/96 Budget. Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1995/96 Budget for the following four specific items: reclassify building insurance costs, recognize payment and reimbursement of legal costs, provide authority for payment of prior year "roll over" expenditures and reduce expenditure authority for Project #924. Also included with the resolution are a Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule for your consideration. The first item, reclassify building insurance costs, transfers $6,000.00 in budget authority from Program 7074- Financial Management to Program 8083 -Fixed Asset Maintenance for the cost of providing earthquake \flood insurance. There is no overall impact to the General Fund balance from this transfer. The second item, recognize payment and reimbursement of legal costs, amends the budget to reflect an additional $800.00 in revenue and a like amount in expenditure for providing verbatim transcripts to a citizen in the Friends of Nelson Gardens vs. City of Saratoga case. There is no overall impact to the General Fund balance from this transfer. The third item, provide authority for payment of prior year "roll over" expenditures, appropriates monies from the undesignated fund balance to cover expenditures that were anticipated to be finalized by the end of FY 1994/95, but were not, and require new authority in the 1995/96 Budget to pay vendors. Specific itemization of costs is provided in the resolution and supporting worksheet. The impact of approving this appropriation reduces the General Fund balance by $98,256.00 and the Landscape and Lighting District Fund balance by $17,533.00. There is adequate authority in both funds to cover these expenditures. Furthermore, preliminary audit results indicate a $240,000.00 improvement in General Fund revenue over expense for last year when compared to the estimate used in the 1995/96 Budget. This improvement increases the General Fund 1 b/- balance available for appropriation. The fourth and final item, reduce expenditure authority for Project #924, adjusts the 1995/96 Budget downward by $117,000.00 due to payments made in FY 1994/95 for Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road construction activities that were planned for FY 1995/96. This adjustment improves the Gas Tax Fund balance by $117,000.00. Fiscal Impacts: Overall revenues increase by $800.00. Overall expenditures increase by $5,589.00. Specific changes by Fund are as follows: Fund Revenues Expenditures 01- General Fund $800.00 $105,056.00 71- Landscape /Lighting $ 17,533.00 14 -Gas Tax ($117,000.00) Follow Up Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Outstanding vendor invoices will not be paid and work on specific projects can not be completed. c: \execsumm \exsm9l4.95 2 Budget Resolution Number 95 — 30._ Amount: Source of Funding: General Fund: Financial managment— Insurance Revenue— Refunds /reimbursemnts Undesignated fund balance Subtotal General Fund Landscape /Lighting Fund: Undesignated fund balance Gas Tax Fund: Undesignated fund balance Total Program & Account: General Fund: Fixed asset maint.— Insurance Litigation services— Contracts Equipment ops— Replacement Equipment ops— Replacement Equipment ops— Replacement Street maintenance— Contracts Projects— Contracts Projects — Contracts Projects — Contracts Subtotal General Fund Landscape /Lighting Fund: Landscape /Lighting —Land imp. Gas Tax Fund: Projects— Contracts Total City of Saratoga Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet Revenues Expenditures Ref. 01 7074 5340 #1 01 9000 9890 #2 01 0000 2010 #3 71 0000 2010 #3 14 0000 2010 #4 09/14/95 $800.00 $5,589.00 $6,000.00 800.00 98,256.00 105, 056.00 17,533.00 (117,000.00) $5,589.00 01 8083 5340 #1 $6,000.00 01 7075 4510 #2 800.00 01 8082 6785 #3a 17,980.00 01 8082 6785 #3b 14,024.00 01 8082 6785 #3c 14,062.00 01 3031 4510 #3d 27,325.00 01 4510 8505 #3e 6,475.00 01 4510 9503 #3f 14,590.00 01 4510 9301 #3g 3,800.00 105,056.00 71 3039 6715 #3h 17,533.00 14 4510 924 #4 (117,000.00) $5,589.00 Contingency Fund Reserve: Balance before resolution $200,000 Effect of this resolution $0 Remaining Fund, $200,000 General Fund Reserves: Current Projected Year End Balance (based on Adopted Budget) $2,148,000 Reserve Requirement (greater of 25 %of revised budget or $2,000,000) $2,000,000 Change due to this resolution ($98,256) Comments: ---------------------------- #1 To reclass earth qu ake\flood insurance to fixed asset maintenance. #2 To adjust budget for receipt of payment and associated expenditure of verbatim transcripts in Friends of Nelson Gardens vs. City of Saratoga. #3 To appropriate monies from the undesignated fund balance for "roll over" expenditures anticipated in the FY 1994/95, but not payable until FY 1995/96: a Bodies for replacement vehicles 45 & 53, b Vehicle 54 replacement, c Vehicle 57 replacement, d Community center parking lot paving, e Survey monuments for Capital Project #8505, f Retention payment for Capital Project #9503, g Lighting installation at Warner Hutton House Capital Project #9301; and h Landscape improvements in VPD #1. #4 To correct the 1995/96 Budget for Saratoga \Sunnyvale Road Project expenditures paid in FY 1994/95, but anticipated in FY 1995/96. C:\BGTRES96\BDGTRES1.WK1 City of Saratoga Resolutions Approved Fiscal YE 6/30/95 EXPENDITURES: 09/13/95 C:\BGTRES95\RESRCP1.WK1 Appropriat. Adopted Operating General Intragov Total Capital for Gen. Fund Grand Approp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Programs Government Services Operations Projects Contingency Total Budget 7,679,903 987,509 697,171 -9,364,583 1,067,530 200,000 10,632,113 N/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7,679,903 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 987,509 697,171 9,364,583 1,067,530 200,000 10,632,113 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriat. REVENUES: Use of for Gen. Fund Grand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Restricted Total Fund Balances Contingency Total Budget 7,267,757 3,269,981 10,537,738 0 0 10,537,738 N/A Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7,267,757 --- -- ------ 3,269,981 0 10,537,738 0 0 10,537,738 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 7 c000 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: September 20, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: Trinity Development - 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Consideration of General Plan designation and Zoning District amendments for the property and attendant environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission; and Appeal of Planning Commission approval of nine -lot Tentative Subdivision Map. Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve the General Plan designation and Zoning District amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, thereby denying the appeal. Report Summary: Description: Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels at 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational designation to a Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density designation. Request includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassified from an Agricultural designation to a R- 1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 designation. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is also requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single- family lots. An environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Summary of Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission first heard these applications at the June 14th public hearing, including a request for a two -phase subdivision map approval. The Commission rejected the phased map request and continued the applications with direction to staff and the applicants to provide additional environmental support documents, including an updated biological assessment. Trinity Development; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Page Two The item was then heard at the August 9th public hearing wherein the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 (Commissioners Asfour & Caldwell absent) to recommend approval of the environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration and the General Plan designation and Zoning District amendments to the City Council. The Commission then also voted unanimously to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map. The following written materials are attached for reference: • Staff memo and staff report to the Planning Commission (without attachments) dated August 9, 1995 and June 14, 1995. • Planning Commission meeting minutes dated August 9, 1995 and June 14, 1995. • Environmental Initial Study and Addendum to Initial Study. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, staff prepared an Initial Study to identify potentially significant environmental impacts which may result from this net increase of seven additional single family lots. The following studies were required to assist staff with the environmental assessment: • H.T. Harvey & Associates performed an updated Biological Assessment of the property in July, 1995. Their comprehensive study concludes that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect on the area's biological resources. • The City's Geotechnical Consultant reviewed the submitted geotechnical investigations and site conditions and granted all nine proposed lots a geologic and geotechnical review clearance. • The City's Horticultural Consultant reviewed the site development plan and visited the property in order to identify significant trees. His recommendations for tree protection and preservation have been incorporated as conditions of project approval. • The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and responded that the total potential 90 to 100 vehicular trips generated by the proposed development would not impact Saratoga roads. The project would not create a significant adverse effect on area traffic circulation. • The Saratoga Union School District reviewed the proposal and responded that nine single family residences would not impact the school district. The project would not create a significant adverse effect on school facility planning or enrollment. • All applicable public and private utility and safety providers reviewed the proposal and their requirements have been included as conditions of project approval. Based on the determinations and conclusions of these studies /responses, staff supported a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The mitigation measures were adopted by the Planning Commission as conditions of the Tentative Subdivision Map approval. Trinity Development; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Page Three Procedurally, the Planning Commission's other option would have been to reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration as insufficient and require that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Staff's recommendation to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was based on staff's opinion that the environmental review performed was adequate and that an EIR would not yield any new information which was not covered in the Initial Study and supporting documents. However, upon the conclusion of the public hearing and based upon all the documentation and oral testimony before it, the City Council has the authority and the obligation to make the final decision as to whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient or whether a focused EIR should be prepared. One factor to consider in this review is that the City Council may determine that a "fair argument" can be made that, irrespective of all of the documentation, there still may exist an unknown potential for environmental impact. Therefore, the City Council could require a focused EIR to ensure that the identification of all currently unknown potential impacts and their mitigations have been addressed. General Plan Designation and Zoning District Amendments: The originally submitted General Plan and Zoning map applications proposed that the majority of the property be redesignated to Residential - Medium Density, allowing for ten lots. The applicants revised the map at staff's direction to develop designations for the property that are more consistent with the development and land use patterns in the vicinity. The revised map allows for nine lots. The amended land use designations would replace the current Open Space - Outdoor Recreational General Plan and Agricultural Zoning District designations. The current designations were adopted in August 1971 to reflect the land's Williamson Act agricultural preserve status which was adopted in May 1971. The proposed General Plan and Zoning District designations are the same as existed on the property prior to its designation as a Williamson Act property. The Planning Commission reviewed the new designation requests at two public hearings. At the August 9th hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the General Plan designation and Zoning District amendments per the attached Exhibit "A" to the City Council. Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map: The "Friends of Nelson Gardens" have appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. Their Appeal Application also contests the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve the General Plan and Zoning District amendments. The latter items are not appealable since they are not final decisions by the Planning Commission but are recommendations to the City Council. Trinity Development; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Page Four The attached Appeal Application includes a letter written on behalf of the "Friends of Nelson Gardens" by their attorney contending that several procedural errors were made by the City in processing the various applications related to this project. The Planning Commission was in receipt of this letter when their August 9th decisions were made. The City Attorney's office also reviewed the correspondence prior to the meeting and their recommendation was that the project had been reviewed and processed properly and that the Planning Commission should act on the applicants' requests. Public Notice: Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of the subject properties and a notice was placed in the Saratoga News. Follow -up Actions: Resolutions and an Ordinance will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Resolution GPA -94 -003, Ordinance AZO -94 -002, Resolution SD -94 -005 & Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Appeal Application 3. Staff Memo & Staff Report to Planning Commission (without attachments) & Planning Commission minutes dated 8/9/95 & 6/14/95 4. Environmental Initial Study and Addendum to Initial Study 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO. GPA -94 -003 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Trinity Development Company; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. WHEREAS, the Trinity Development Company is requesting a General Plan Amendment for that portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 503 -49 -041 & 503 -49 -042 from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational to a Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density Single Family Residential designation per Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on June 14 and August 9, 1995; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment to reclassify Assessor Parcel Numbers 503 -49 -041 & 503 -49 -042 from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational to a Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density Single Family Residential designation per Exhibit "A ", by making the following findings: • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area B Specific Plan; and • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the existing land use designations and development patterns in the vicinity. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, this 9th day of August, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Asfour, Caldwell Cha' man, fPa—nning Commission ATT ST: Secret ry to the Ptqnning Commission 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. AZO -94 -002 ORDINANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE Trinity Development Company; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. WHEREAS, the Trinity Development Company is requesting an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for that portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 503 -49 -041 & 503 -49 -042 from an Agricultural designation to an R -1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 Single Family Residen- tial designation per Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on June 14 and August 9, 1995; NOW, THEREFORE, 'BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga recommends approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reclassify Assessor Parcel Numbers 503 -49 -041 & 503- 49 -042 from an Agricultural designation to an R- 1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 designation per Exhibit "A ", by making the following findings: • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area B Specific Plan; and • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the existing zoning districts and development in the vicinity. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, this 9th day of August, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Asfour, Caldwell C rman, anning Commission AT EST: Secre ary to the Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. SD -94 -005 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP Trinity Development Company; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Map approval to subdivide two existing parcels into nine single family residential parcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -94 -005 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated June 14, 1995 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code Sections 66474 (a) - (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Final Map approval of the proposed subdivision is contingent on City Council approval of the related recommended General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Phase One Tentative Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated July 31, 1995 and marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: Community Development 1., Future development on all lots shall require Design Review approval. All building sites shall be left in a natural state until Design Review approval has been granted and Building Permits have been issued. Appropriate building sites shall be determined at the Design Review stage based on current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy. The site development plan reviewed by the Planning Commission was an informational document only, intended to indicate that feasible building sites exist. 2. Future homes shall be sited and designed to minimize the amount of pad grading necessary and the removal of significant 0 , 0 File No. SD -94 -005, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. existing native trees. At the time an application is submit- ted for Design Review for Lot #1, the conceptual driveway indicated on the Tree Plan, Exhibit "A ", shall be relocated to retain tree #119, a nine inch Coast Live Oak. 3. Landscape plans shall be required for each new home applica- tion. These plans will need to incorporate a reasonable number of native trees to revegetate the property and to provide continuous wildlife habitat. 4. Design review approval shall only be granted upon finding that the proposed structures are compatible in terms of scale and design with the existing adjacent residences, that it is in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines and that all of the necessary Design Review findings can be made. 5. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall be limited to single story structures not to exceed 22 feet in height. This restriction shall expire upon issuance of Final Occupancy approval for each lot. Future additions and /or redevelopment shall be governed by current Zoning Ordinance requirements. 6. Fencing restrictions shall be recorded on Lots 8 and 9 to limit the maximum permitted fencing to 4,000 sq. ft., consis- tent with Saratoga's hillside fencing regulations. This would allow for continuous wildlife access through the upper half of the property. 7. No trees shall be removed without obtaining a tree removal permit, with the exception of those trees shown to be removed on the Tentative Map marked Exhibit "A" to accommodate public improvements. 8. Pursuant to and for the purposes set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Saratoga and the Communi- ty Foundation of Santa Clara County dated November 21, 1994, payment in the amount of $585,000 shall be deposited in an escrow account established by the City upon approval of the Tentative Map. 9. Subdivision improvement construction hours shall be restricted between 7: 3 0 a. m. and 6: 0 0 p. m. , Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils public safety. The Public Works Director may grant an exemption upon his /her determination of an emergency. No such construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays. 10. Any necessary subdivision improvement work, including road widening, utility trenching or other construction activity, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of permits. All requirements for tree protection as recommended by the City Arborist shall apply throughout subdivision improvements construction. 0 0 File No. SD -94 -005, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. 11. All public and private improvements required for the project shall be completed and accepted for construction by the Director of Public Works, Planning Director, and /or the appropriate officials from other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to Final Occupancy approval of any permitted homes on any of the lots. City Engineer 12. Prior to submittal of the Final Map for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 13. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the informa- tion required in Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. C. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 14. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 15. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. • File No. SD -94 -005, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. 16. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and /or rights -of -way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 17. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Director in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. Specific work to be reflected on the improvement plans shall include, but not be limited to: a. Replacement of defective P.C.C. curb and gutter around the perimeter of the property as determined by the Public Works Director. 18. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 19. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agree- ment with the City in accordance with Section 14- 60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 20. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 21. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14- 05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 22. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Director with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 23. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivi- sion improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Director of Public Works. File No. SD -94 -005, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. 24. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 25. Subject to the determination of the Public Work's Director, prior to approval of the Final Map the owner (applicant) may be required to execute an agreement with the City waiving the rights of the owner or any successive owners of any of the lots created by the subdivision to protest the annexation of the lots into the City's Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1. 26. Subject to the. determination of the Public Work's Director, prior to Final Map Approval, the owner (applicant) may be required to enter into an agreement with the City waiving the rights of the owner, and any`successive owners, to protest the formation of and /or annexation into an assessment district for the purposes of undergrounding utility lines serving the properties. 27. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the Director of Public Works. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to Final Map Approval and maintained on site at all times during construction of the subdivision improvements. City Geotechnical Consultant 28. A Geotechnical Clearance shall be required for Lots 5, 7, 8 and 9 prior to acceptance of Design Review applications on these lots as complete. Prior to obtaining a Geotechnical Clearance for Lots 5, 7, 8 and 9, site - specific geologic and geotechnical investigations shall be performed. As part of these investigations, the applicants' geologic and geotechni- cal consultants shall: (1) review the subdivision level report by Freeman -Kern Associates, Inc. and City review memorandums, (2) identify and evaluate areas on the lots underlain by surficial materials (fill, colluvium, landslide and fan deposits), (3) evaluate the long -term stability of slopes on the lots (including artificial and natural slopes), and (4) provide supplemental geotechnical design recommendations, as needed, for the proposed construction. The investigations shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the follow- ing: a. An original, engineering geologic map and cross sections shall be prepared at an appropriate scale (i.e., 1:480 or 0 0 File No. SD -94 -005, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. larger) for each lot. The maps and cross sections shall extend beyond the lot boundaries to ensure that off -site conditions have been considered with respect to the proposed developments. Engineering geologic maps and cross sections shall provide the following information: (1) extent and probably thickness of surficial earth materials (including existing fill, colluvium, land- slides, and alluvium or fan deposits), (2) natural and artificial slopes and slope profiles, (3) type and structural orientation of underlying bedrock, (4) location and extent of filled creek channel, and (5) locations of existing and proposed structures and improvements. b. Specific geotechnical issues on Lots 5, 7 and 8 to be evaluated shall include: demolition and removal of existing structures; mapping and subsurface exploration to determine the extent of buried structures and filled watercourses and mapping stability evaluations of the cut slopes on Lot 8. Grading recommendations, considering the proximity of the proposed structures to the buried watercourse, septic tank and well, shall be provided in the site - specific reports. c. Specific geotechnical issues on Lot 9 to be evaluated shall include: evaluation of the long -term stability of cut slopes along Saratoga Hills Road; characterization of the area of thick colluvium (possible landslide) in the western portion of the lot; mapping and evaluation of the cut slope in the eastern portion of the lot; and consid- eration of the cut slope with respect to proposed grading for the residential structure and driveway. Specific drainage and /or landscaping practices should be recom- mended to ensure stability of the western portion of the lot. d. The site - specific geotechnical conditions on these lots shall be explored, and representative earth materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, artificial fill, etc.) shall be sampled and tested to provide engineering parameters for foundation and retaining wall design. The geotechni- cal consultants shall specifically: (1) determine the thicknesses of surficial materials (artificial fill, colluvium and fan deposits) on the property, and (2) document, with appropriate data, the location and extent of the buried watercourse that extends through the central portion of the property. Recommendations for drainage improvements shall be provided, as well as specific recommendations for structural foundations, as needed. The results of the site - specific geologic and geotechnical investigations shall be summarized in written reports with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to 0 0 File No. SD -94 -005, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechni- cal Consultant prior to the granting of a Geotechni -cal Clearance for Lots 5, 7, 8 and 9. 29. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each lot, the project geotechnical consultants shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer. 30. Prior to final sign -off of a grading permit for each lot, the geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed) , and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer. Utility and Public Safety Providers 31. Sanitary sewer service for all parcels shall be required per the requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District. 32. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company. 33. The owner (applicant) shall install additional fire hydrants as determined by the Saratoga Fire District. City Attorney 34. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 35. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 0 File No. SD -94 -005, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. 40 Section 1. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of August, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Asfour & Caldwell 0 -1-i" Z"" , , , Z_ Ch irma , PlAnning Commis ion ATTEST: Secretary, Plannin Commission DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED Mitigated Negative Declaration GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 Trinity Development Company; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow the properties to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural designation to a Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density /R- 1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 designation. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is also requested to subdivide the 5.1 acres into nine single- family lots. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPONENTS Trinity Development Company, Applicant 1925 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 202 Campbell, CA 95008 The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County, Owner 960 W. Hedding, Suite 220 San Jose, CA 95126 REASON FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment and 9 -lot Tentative Subdivision Map are not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed project will have an impact on the immediate on -site environment, these effects are not significant pursuant to the terms and meaning of CEQA and can be mitigated through the conditions contained in the Resolution to approve the project. For expanded discussion, see Initial Study dated May 24, 1995 and Addendum to Initial Study and Staff Reports to Saratoga Planning Commission dated August 9, 1995 and June 14, 1995. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of 1995. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Environmental Initial Study and Addendum to Initial Study I CITY OF SARATOGA INITIAL STUDY FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two hillside parcels totaling 5.1 acres into nine single - family residential building sites. A General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change are also requested to allow the properties to be rezoned from an Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural designation to a Residential /R1- 12,500 and R1- 40,000 designation. FILE NO: GP -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 LOCATION: 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 I. BACKGROUND Proponent: Trinity Development Company, Applicant 1925 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 202 Campbell, CA 95008 The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County, Owner 960 W. Hedding, Suite 220 San Jose, CA 95126 Date of Initial Study Availability: 5/24/95 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over - crowding of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The physical topography will change as a result of building pad grading and the removal of existing orchard, native and ornamental trees. Careful review and approval of building placement and site revegetation with native planting will mitigate this loss. This will not result in a long term adverse change in the environment. YES MAYBE NO d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X Many of the existing 2 acres of orchard trees and some of the remaining 3.1 acres of native and ornamental planting will be removed. These will be replaced with native planting and will not result in a long term adverse change in the environment. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X Water run -off will increase as a result of increased impervious surfaces associated with the development of homes and driveways. This increase will be controlled to an acceptable level by the City's lot coverage limitations and will not result in a adverse change in the environment. f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temp- erature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? X 4. YES MAYBE NO Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants)? X Many of the existing 2 acres of orchard trees and some of the remaining 3.1 acres of native and ornamental planting will be removed. These will be replaced with native planting and will not result in a long term adverse change in the environment. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Many of the existing 2 acres of orchard trees will be removed. This loss of apricot orchard is not a significant agricultural loss and will not result in a long term adverse change in the environment. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, or insects)? The existing 5.1 acres of land presently provides a habitat for bird and animal wildlife. Some of this habitat will be lost as a result of development. The attached "Nelson Foundation Property Wildlife Assessment ", prepared by Harvey and Stanley Associates in 1988, concludes that this loss will be mitigated by the amount of relatively undisturbed woodland habitats which exist near the site and will not result in an adverse change in the environment. b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X X X X YES MAYBE NO C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? X The existing 5.1 acres of land presently provides a habitat for bird and animal wildlife. The City's zoning and subdivision regulations will ensure that this habitat is not entirely lost (e.g. maximum lot coverage will be limited to 55% and 30% for the R1- 12,500 and R1- 40,000 zoning districts respectively). 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X Nine new single family homes may increase the ambient noise within the neighborhood. These will not be significant levels, however, and will not result in an adverse change in the environment. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Nine new single family homes may increase the amount of light and glare within the neighborhood. These will not be significant levels, however, and will not result in an adverse change in the environment. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X The requested General Plan and Zoning designation is consistent with surrounding land uses and the community's expectations for how this land would be developed once its Williamson Act agricultural contract expired. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X Water run -off will increase as a result impervious surfaces associated with the of homes, driveways, patios, etc. This be controlled to an acceptable level by coverage limitations and will not resul- change in the environment. of increased development increase will the City's lot t in a adverse C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any altera- tion of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? X YES MAYBE NO a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X Nine new single family homes will increase the amount of traffic within the neighborhood. These will not be significant levels, however, and will not result in an adverse change in the environment. The relatively low building densities proposed are consistent with the City's General Plan and the expectations for development within Saratoga. b. Effects on existing parking facilities? X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE NO d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications system? X C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish YES MAYBE NO wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future) . X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed nine single - family building sites are consistent with the City's General and Specific Plans for this area and conform to the density of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The short term loss of existing orchard, ornamental and native trees will be mitigated by the requirement to replant the property with native trees. The loss of bird and wildlife habitat will be mitigated by restrictions on individual lot site coverage and the amount of relatively undisturbed woodland habitats which exist near the site. Aesthetic impacts of new residential construction will be mitigated by design controls to ensure that the new homes are compatible with the existing homes in the area and do not impact views, privacy or solar accessibility. IV. MITIGATION MEASURES The following Mitigation Measures have been identified as a means to reduce the impact of single- family residential development on the property to a less than significant level. These measures would be incorporated as conditions of project approval. These measures are not a complete list of project conditions, but an initial response to this environmental evaluation. 1. Future homes shall be sited and designed to minimize the amount of pad grading necessary and the removal of significant existing native trees. 2. Landscape plans shall be required for each new home application. These plans will need to incorporate a reasonable amount of native trees to revegetate the property and to provide continuous wildlife habitat. 3. Individual lot coverages shall not exceed the maximum allowable for the assigned zoning district designation. These maximum allowable lot coverages may be further reduced if there is additional evidence that it is warranted. 4. Fencing restrictions may be imposed to limit the maximum permitted fencing to 4,000 sq. ft., consistent with Saratoga's hillside fencing regulations. This would allow for wildlife access through the property and mitigate wildlife habitat loss. 5. Future home construction shall be compatible with the existing single- family residences in the area in terms of massing, size and style. Future home construction shall also be designed to minimize view, privacy and solar accessibility impacts on nearby properties. V. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have an effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case with the mitigation measures listed above required as conditions of project approval. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Mom, z4 ms- 41 .00 DAT SIN TURE Attachments: 1. Zoning and Location Map and Zoning Map Legend 2. Excerpt from Saratoga Area B Specific Plan 3. "Nelson Foundation Property Wildlife Assessment ", prepared by Harvey and Stanley Associates in 1988 forms \nelgarxir J VIA, KIM a 1-12,500 R- a qu , ftffi- rJ� ZONING MAP LEGEND ZON I NG BOUNDARY AP AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE/ ® OPEN SPACE OVERLAY DISTRICT A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 5 ACRE MINIMUM SITE AREA R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL D 1 ST R 1 CT R -1- 40,000 40,000 SQ.FT. MINIMUM SITE AREA R -1- 20,000 20,000 R -1- 15,000 15,000 R- 1- 12,500 12,500 R -1- 10,000 10,000 HC —RD HILLSIDE CONSERVATION — RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT NHR NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDES RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R —M MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL D l ST R I CT R —M -5,000 5,000 SQ.FT. MINIMUM SITE•AREA R —M -4,000 4,000 R —M -3,000 3,000 P —C PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT P —A PROFESSIONAL do ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DISTRICT C COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL C —V VISITOR COMMERCIAL CH -1 do CH -2 HISTORIC COMMERCIAL MU —PD MIXED —USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT L AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS /PIERCE ROAD Area B is bounded by Pierce Road on the north, Saratoga Creek and Congress Springs Road on the south and is to the west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Most of the area is occupied by low density residential development, or mountainous and orchard open space, similar to Area A. There are, however, some differ- ences between the two areas. Area B contains one Williamson Act orchard. Foothill Elementary School, the only school within the area, is in the R -1- 15,000 area paralleling Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Wildwood City Park is located near the Village Business District, which is just across Saratoga Creek. Adjacent to the Park, separated by Fourth Street, is an area of former apartments which have been converted to condominiums. An area of more spacious clustered condominiums materially increased in size since the last plan review is to the southwest. Lying at one end of the area and close to the village, this region is somewhat separated from the rest of the area and has minimal impact on the overall predominance of single family lower density homes in Area B. Except for the hillside area, the majority of Area B is already developed. There remains a parcel known as the "Horticultural Foundation" and a nearby orchard area, designated "Spaich Orchard" both with potential for significant development. The Foothill School site would also be a candidate for development if it were closed by the school district. The area is unanimous in the desire to assure that any development or redevelopment of sites wihin the area be only single family detached residential with a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A major concern of the area is the development of the West Valley Corridor as a full freeway. The area unanimously indicated a high priority on immediate development of the corridor, in the belief that its completion would greatly decrease the present intolerable traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The residents are concerned with the noise, pollution and safety hazards presented by the ever - increasing traffic on that road. In the absence of the promised development of.the corridor, the area would like other remedies for relief from the adverse impact of the traffic. These might include sound walls, dense plantings or other means of decreasing through traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Another concern is the through traffic in neighborhoods which seem to be a result of extensive hillside development. It is felt that this traffic is using residential streets for access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and that the roads designated as collectors are not adequate to handle the traffic that is being generated. For this reason, there is opposition to development that will create more trips to and from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 4 -4 AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS /PIERCE ROAD Among other traffic related concerns is the safe pedestrian passage between the west side of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and the shopping and school areas in the Argonaut area. It is felt that a pedestrian signal at Blauer Drive would help provide safe access to shopping and school. In conjunction with any develop- ment between the existing Argonaut Center and Cox Avenue, it is felt that a thorough plan for handling any increase in traffic in and out of the shopping area should be developed, possibly to include an access road which could also provide access to Cox Avenue. Residents of this planning area who reside in the Fourth Street vicinity find it difficult to get from Fourth Street to Big Basin Way during peak traffic hours. This situation is especially severe during commute hours and holiday weekends and during the Christmas period when the tree sales are taking place in the county area of the hillsides. For this reason, a safe way of turning from Fourth Street onto Big Basin Way is felt to be a necessity. This would also help decrease some of the through traffic in other neighborhoods which is generated by those people trying to bypass this traffic bottleneck. 4 -5 AREA B - GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT 1. All development of vacant sites within this area shall be limited to single family detached residential and conform to the density of the surrounding residential area. 2. A traffic signal should be installed in the vicinity of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Blauer to provide safe pedestrian passage between homes on the west of Saratoga- Sunnyvale and shopping and schools on the east side of the road. 3. Traffic should be reviewed to enable those living in the area of Fourth Street to safely enter Big Basin Way during peak traffic and holiday times when traffic is heavy. 4. In the absence of completion of a freeway in the West Valley Corridor, the City shall work with the appropriate agencies to develop and implement a plan to increase the protection of neighborhoods bordering Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road from the noise and pollution which is a result of heavy traffic. This effort will include the consideration of installation of whatever sound barriers or dense landscaping that may be appropriate to help the impacted neighborhoods regain the use and enjoy- ment of their property. 5. The City should study how traffic from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road impacts the circulation of nearby local residential streets to determine feasible traffic control methods by which to minimizE those impacts. 6. As a condition of City permit approval, if any further develop- ment of the area in the vicinity of the Argonaut Shopping Center takes place, the impact of increased traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road shall be studied and a plan for minimizing the traffic impact shall be developed. This might involve an access road paralleling Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and providing access to Cox Avenue. 7. Pedestrian crosswalks and islands should be considered for Pierce, Brandywine and Blauer. 8. Bike paths should be placed on both sides of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 4 -6 SARATOGA r— �--• and the i ? SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ( •� e orr A r �G� SARATOGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE i 7 B r� CIa: \ ;OX AVE. � SpR KI z Z E a p L o p ALLENDALE AVE. NC, N l ...� C+Oycni •. c SpR /NGS RD. &ARATOGA CITY LIMITS. Gz.�q •U �o 0 •`s ew j SARATOGA I •J1VItl1AA1S R A10CINl .1 UIT a KICIU%Al MANNING M. /1.•10••1 111111. 1.• 11..(11(0. (11.111 3/3/R3 G 0 OS D. rJ rJ INFLUENCE I 'LIO SPHERE J 01 25001 5000/ 7500' 4 � March 22, 1988 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS RESOURCE MANAGERS "kjCF-IVeD y MAR PLANNING DEPT. NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT Prepared by HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES Christopher Cutler, Field Biologist Dean'G. : Belch, Botanist David J. Hartesveldt, Project Manager Ronald R. Duke, Principal' Prepared for Jeff 1ti'yatt Ainsley Development,•Inc. 2195 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 7583 San Jose, California 95150 File No..403 -01 906 Elizabeth Street • P.O. Drawer E • Alviso, California 95002 • (408) 263 -1814 000173. SETTING AND PRQJECT DESCRIPTION �I Harvey and Stanley Associates conducted a wildlife assessment of the five acre'Nelson Foundation Property on March 18, 1988. The I purpose of this assessment was to identify potentially significant impacts to wildlife by delinieating wildlife habitats 11 on the site and generating a list of wildlife species likely to be found within them. Special emphasis was placed on special status wildlife which may use the site. Such wildlife is often afforded protection under federal and state laws. A wildlife biologist and a botanist visited the site to assess the natural �I communities present on the site, and identify their value to I wildlife. All species observed were recor-ded, but no ;attempt was made to identify all species present. Birds, mammals, and rept-i -1_as were named following The American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds (1983), Engels (1967), and �l Stebbins (1985).respectively. �l The project site is located in the eastern foothills of the Santa ll Cruz Mountains at dlevations between 500 and 600 feet. The site is in northwest Saratoga, Santa Clara County (Figure 1). Its boundaries are Saratoga Hills Road on -,the southwest, Pontiac Avenue on the southeast•and east, and Trinity Avenue on the north, �1 Development is'currently confined to two small houses with I associated out buildings in the center the property. Planned development will.. result in the subdivision of the property into I nine parcels and the construction of a home on each parcel. I Specific construction plans for each - parcel were.not available at the time of the study, ll The flora of the area is a mixture of native and horticultural jl species (Coate 1988). An apricot orchard is located on the jJ eastern third of the site, while 'the hill on the northern third. �) is fallow grassland. The site is surrounded by other houses and (mostly) non - native horticultural plantings. However, the - site is within one quarter mile of natural areas in the Santa Cruz 11 Mountain foothills. ,) 000.74 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES 4 ;: „r rPacific " 1 Bri = =i.it :.: Orry .Y �✓. 7 1 .12 0 4 Sr•'r t 2 7; •:y:`J,maV.l b ,'t."— failrpeMA, , • Moe Bcaefif:;. F� '• brae Marint�' "•r. %'7irrilo. ar. 62 R�ra.l Princeton lisrarel Hills - niuAif�. ,A t bor6li Nall Moon • Mi�mar�.•i- �'S•2 '•. :'east I :� SM • 1 r _ .e• 3 .:t Half Moon Bay /�`�• elm .7f°".R •'Cal Puriti . Rrlage • i Jo Be r Tunirast Woo amide' I _'' y :r•r�� 6 ea 2 • �aB/iyerryl` „o �Nunnrr ::: ru rrorl "PIeC• 6 `Rp, fay ette` �•`Pdnr Mava'O \1 l III ;� a i !' • ' iSAipprdSu =1 :) • Oak nd i awood - �R/hea. Vd1i1/�' 6 AlamedaN� 6,�t Mea t ' Rl�.P�k:, b'�-' ork..�.Sf, , Rokr.Craven . t ) 7 a ' 10, Park` '•' „ Mrmarial�; ' \ , ` ,: > 11Moraga'. i 'Wain t.,, .. ... it .. St. Brxh� ; {,:•ri' ,. Fa_ '� i 6 (C re CJ t I ^r..!;:; ":^e :: .. 0►klane. a.ee, 1 6 �- .,,. a�=, : ' Sao Francisco! _ ..to.ca/ m • Aep. r.: gamo c' • 6 Oaklan ' u✓,le Mt D' 5 s �:, ,• ""`�'. n0?;:n *ai• •r[noouu +`., ' ,italhx/Sr^, 'r'!y 7 fr•fQere •� " frfiA +r /r0•rt1 -1- r o, teS '� ^�'• , %tavM.D Rn �• �pminril4 V.l;:. rro.lue. I ,Pori, rrr'. ,Moron ✓GaOOr•��•; . m :T =r� ii � '•t't ::_ :..San � - 9 `ZL;i�c IRA o. '.; • •:Leandro 7 ingame <r ,.r . s ti Q�. 'Corate P(vk dr o i :San Mateo.:. 'San Lorenzo ) Castr7o V�Iley` ; o '0!' �. r." �91 ..;q.;:.:Y i; `t r 7 _7 •)4P�_ FosterCiry, I . _ r • Sar1Ramon : 17 cC4 2 Hayward : _I/u.s: A: 1•.:.;':. Mt. Eden Dublin [ s 7'r• ,S j� . � � •r, e',1 - • .. L' a _,6 :ID.11l Resrge iyGl ; .: O (��� , . +, f, r. l , _•a •Iramrr0.Araa �ann `�` —Riidwood ~• ` t` , on City _,; su Clfy .. Co7•_orrNnr. r 12r J+i: - ?: .. ^C o , 1 ,,Ot y\.� .'. i. RpO°� /Pit �'''r� • {• c ^ `:' ,�.!1 �� , .rrl . \ . or I 'Fremon -:rti' r e ton ' .. 'n 0 82 7 4' Sin font %mo Bay a a 7 \ u '• Pk. I Wr /dli /eReluprNewark a - ^' \ r 778 �r rw.0 - G7 Palo Alto s o ..ft !' ea Valley ; t - a , . , _ a..: •.. ter:.:• a 'o _C• �'i. . 8a • Mrr1en +o ) '1 San JOSe.+ _a!1 rorltrr l Ln m•w.el` - \. A 75 l�oer Hills .Altos ` .' /l fjf'" s ad ..:'•' i +%P F�' ero.� :. "-- H Is I rrr:,. Honda A1tn , - Loma Mar 4,1, Honda , a IeW '/ ' v•a"' (� .�•� i " . 4 1 F r ' ..... -� .. r` vlj.. CA)0 hold t � -� � i\IIOS _. 1 2 2 '•r a ri' 2 '1 -� 777 r r� Ed Lwm r •. `: y.d / WWI,. - Srare'\ \_Cr. CO. .dr �.�� r9 8 SUM}IVale '•.- Ref. park. • .S •a`, ° s Po"of, '� a 2rrar4. ' ♦'' 1e •4 ,-'• , %�w�r;, ?k•',ls h Sky/rnr < . J I t -- C'.^ ♦ p ^�-- _ •`�Y- yL Pk )_ p) f 5`t r 5 iil- .} Cilw.•.n C q r.,w Ohio, tas yrr roc. crr -CUpef n a tare , _� •�__ y PROJECT SITE r> r,A1:r .r. //Ltarr. ,•'Ireenun' .�`7 `` -cue �tsrs. �k`, ,,.a +•, +a �` Crerk l` 6 / 7: - ' _ , [_ - -- f �• /rr urt , : :•`)' Pk. ff _ r __N1. Rock .'Rrdnood is 37ir r 776 ,F %•i�r• 1 • , es - eni[ rtrala' _ Park .+6i Basn • Pot r< a ^7` 1 _ ; .,,'� / v 4. _ ^, ` ...,r _jtarrrn \ yw r ` \•: ' -a•r�a frrdf 6om• . - ',� � �� • ta. sefrq.e n Rock Q' (1 \\ inry�Sara- - 7 7: . t, •,'Vf. _ B ts(afft 1 r. PL -togas 9 +5 Campbe 171' ~iiv n. . j 9 • E ; • lOnde tropeel / Monte '•��.wc.•6sa - -,r' It : ;'i 276 Sereno -p_ 1 Los Gatos , - " ro 1 �loarph of �''. I [a•` J [tararor _ r �.aw.a 2 82 )`_ ., e< 1 • \::. sit ). e 1^ Boulder Creek Rrr. vent/ r i 7 nton : ... i. Rec.Am r )Corole 1 f:, ,JO ranwrrrur 9 �� b A f .I r.r,. ••i� n ugrr.�� . .'Ben RedW00d HoIY Omrkr..r� 1';r1'•G10 t ; Lomond � 0'1,L,° Estates'ai`r ° Co. Pk\` ,�'1' _ •� • ', rr rrl ro+ HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. reaOWC.v CC"mi ea,s fervaOrwe(Mrt f[wra4rs of SOlfCl .arwK1•r NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY. VICINITY MAP File No 403 -01 Date 3/21/88 Figure 1 2 000175 d Twenty -five different species of birds, two species of mammals and one species of reptile were obsgrved on the Nelson Prol:>erty site. The signs of several other species of mammals and Birds were discovered on the site. Because of the proximity of the site to a large, relatively natural parcel of oak woodland, it is thought that many species of wildlife use the property at different times of the year. The Nelson property may function as an ecotone, an area bordering a distinctive habitat type which has characteristics of more than one habitat. Due to the somewhat mosaic nature of the property, t:he_ area may be considered to be composed of a few different: habitat t3•pes, each distinct from the other but with an associated exchange of wildlife due to the small size of the property. Four main habitats (orchard, horticultural, riparian, and grassland) were identified on' the property and are discussed below (Figure2). Dominant plant species were recorded in each habitat. Habitats were classified as community types using Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland, 1986). Nomenclature for plant species follows A California -Flora (Munz and Beck, 1968). Horticultural plant species are named following The Sunset *New We' stern Garden Book (1979). r AREA 1: ORCIIARD /NON- NATIVE GRASSLAND Approximatel..y one third of .the property is composed of an apricot orchard located at the eastern portion of the site. This area is dominated by apricot (Prunus armeniacus) planted in orderly rows. Other woody vegetation present includes -chinese pistacio (Pistacia sinensis), and Italian stone pine (Pinus inea). The herbaceous layer consists of non - native weedy grasses and forbs such as ripgut: grass (Brornus rigidus), wild oats (Avena fatua), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes- caprae), whiteleaf fil.aree (Erodium moschatum), persian speedwell (Veronica persica), and burr.clover (Medicago polymorpha). Weedy native species occurring here include blue -eyed grass (Sisyrhynchium bellum), California poppy (Eschscholzia cal.ifornica), and red maids (.Calandrin.i.a ciliata). 3 000176 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES A> .. ... ... ... D \ ORCHARD ........ . .... ............. HORTICULTURAL PLANTINGS LIVE OAK RIPARIAN FOREST NON—NATIVE GRASSLAND/ WILDFLOWER FIELD STRUCTURES I r. w U ....... . ...... .. . ........ j .. fj j c� en Z IL 0 <J c_ L �6 SCALE: X ... ....... ...... ...... 1 INCH = 75 FEET e) HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES. INC. NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY HABITAT MAP During the reconnaissance eight•species of birds were observed in the orchard. In general, this area is not thought to be•••very valuable to wildlife except perhaps as a foraging site.' The apricot trees themselves may be used by a variety of birds for foraging. Nectar feeding species such as Anna's hummingbird and Northern oriole may be attracted to the flowers produced on these trees. Insect eating birds, 20 or more different species of which may occur on the site, are likely to be .attracted to the _ dying trees due to the high numbers of insects they may harbor. As the trees mature, cavities formed by the falling of branches away from the main trunk may be utilized as nesting sites by several species including Chestnut - backed Chickadee, Violet Green Swallow, White- breasted Nuthatch, American kestrel, and Acorn Woodpeckers. Black - tailed deer may use the area for feeding on young apricot shoots as well as the abundant herbaceous cover beneath the trees. AREA 2: NON - NATIVE GRASSLAND /WILDFLOWER FIELD The northern area of the site is occupied by a steep hill. This area is covered with grasses and forbs. There are a few scattered oaks in this area. Large patches of scotch broom ( p. rtium ,junceum) have ' in•vaded this community. Non- native grasses such as ripgut grass (Bromus rigidus), farmer s foxtail (Hordeum leporinum), and wild oat (Avena fatua) dominate. Native species are also very common throughout. These include purple ne.edlegrass .(Stipa pulchra), Ithuriel's spear P (Brodiaea blue dicks (Brodiaea pulchella), soaproot (Ch.loro�a1um omeridianum), and bicolored lupine (Lupines bicolo*•). 1 There were signs of black- tailed deer, Botta's+ pocket gopher and dusky- footed woodrat in this area. One house mouse ►:as observed. Deer may use the area for foraging and move to an area outside the property, while the three rodent species live within the grassland habitat. The grassland,is so small in size that it is unlikely that any mammal or bird species associated specifically with a grassland habitat would be found in this area. ' The few trees present, some of which exceed 10m in height, may be used as perch sites for birds of prey such as American kestrel or red- 5 00-0178 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES r v tailed hawk. There was no evidence that these trees 'have been used as nest sites for these species in the past. The th.ickut of broom growing in the middle of this area provides cover t t)1' a few species of birds, such as the Bewicl:'s wren and brown and r•ufous- sided towhees, yet probably does not receive a great deal of use from many other wildlife species. Furthermore, the broom is'not representative of a natural micro - habitat since it was introduced from a different continent. Local wildlife species are therefore not adapted to the type of habitat created by a pure stand of broom. AREA 3: IIORTICULTURAL AREA The most important wildlife habitat on the property is found in -1► the central portion, encompassing all of parcel 4 and the western portions of parcels 3 and 6. This area is characterized by a variety of horticultural and native trees which provide valuable cover and foraging areas for many different species of wildlife. Many of the trees planted in this area are fairly .large (many over twenty feet high). Common non - native tree species include Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarna), Douglas fir (Pseud suga menziesii), coast redwood (Sequoia semnervirens ), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) . Within this area there are some large, remnant, native, valley oaks ( uercus lobata Q ---. -- ) , and there is evidence that native species are recolonizing the site. Native species found growing in this area include California bay laurel (timbellularia californica toyon ( Ileteromeles arbutifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californicus) coast live oak and (guerrus agrifolia), These species indicate that the garden is slowing returning to the Coast Live Oak Community found in the nearby hills. Both , gray and fox squirrels were observed in this area and signs of black- tailed deer and striped skunk were present. A majority of the birds observed on the property were found in this area, utilizing both the trees and the areas around them. 6 00017*9 v 3 Several of the tree species in, this area, notably valley oak ( 11 cus lobata) and coast live oak (9 agri fo.l.i-a) , are valuable to a variety of wildlife species for the protective cover and food resources they provide. Many different kinds of birds flean insects from the leaf and bark surfaces of these trees, nest in the natural cavities they provide and utilize their complex structures for protection against aerial predators. Oaks are important to mammals for forage and protection as we.11. a dense - shrub thicket at the northeast corner of this area provides valuable cover for birds which would not otherwise be found in this habitat, such as the California thrasher and rufous - sided towhee. AREA 4: CENTRAL COAST LIVE, OAK RIPARIAN FOREST This area occupies 2000 square feet along a partially filled drainage within the horticultural area. Like the previous community it consists of planted non- native and adventive native species. Planted species include. incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), coast..- redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and jeffre- 3 pine (Pinus jeffr.eyi). Native species present are bi.eleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California box elder. (Acer negundo ssp. californicus), poison oak*.(T'oxicodendron diversiloba), coast live oak, mexican'elderberr y (Sam)ucus mexicana), chain fern (Woodwardia fimbriata), sword fern (Polysticum munitum_), and California polypody fern (Polypodium californicum). This fragment of riparian habitat is of little value to wildlife due to the very limited extent of typical- riparian vegetation i within it. A small stream channel up `to five feet in widthA 80 feet in length is located in this habitat but water flow is intermittent and is not likely to significantly affect the occurrence of wildlife on the site. WILDLIFE WITIi SPECIAL STATUS Although there were no federally or state listed threatened or- endangered species found on the site, one species of interest is 0001.80 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES 1 1 I l l 1 I 3 1 1 i 1 9 f 1 known to occur near the site. The California mountain kin —snake (Lampropeltis zonata multifasciata), a taxon considered loc-al 1v unique by the Santa Clara County Flannin- Department, has`beeri found within a mile and a half of the Nelson property (castle Rock Ridge quadrangle, U.S.G.S. 1955, revised 196 °, 7.5 ' ►nap). State law prohibits the collection of this species without an authorized permit. M 000181 8 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE Potential removal of many of the trees now present. on the Nelson Foundation - Property with the implementation of the development plan will result in habitat loss to wildlife. Several species of birds nest only in natural or woodpecker- created tree cavities. Two species of birds not native to this continent, the European starling and the house sparrow, are cavity nesters which have increased in numbers. Due to the aggressive behavior typical of both of these species, native birds are often displaced or excluded from tree cavities. In one native species, the Western bluebird, exclusion from nesting cavities has-caused significant Population declines in several areas within the range of this species. Fourteen different species of birds thought to occur on or adjacent to the property are .cavity nesters. Six of these species were observed during the site reconnaissance. Cavities suitable for nesting are found in coast live oak and valley oak, several individuals of which occur on the site. Natural cavities are also common to orchard trees. Although the trees of the site serve as habitat for cavity nesting birds, the reduction of this habitat is not expected to be significant. Relatively undisturbed woodland habitats our• extensively near the site. Furthermore, it is expected that many v trees on the site will not be destroyed. The extent of any habitat loss to wildlife will be significantly reduced, if development of the' site is done such that large trees, particularly valley and coast live oaks, are avoided. In addition to their value to birds, oaks have value to a number of mammal species as well. Black- tailed deer utilize oaks and .other trees with large canopy areas for fawning cover and foraging. Herbaceous plants which often gro ;.r in the shade of oak trees cannot survive without significant amounts of shade. Many of the types of plants which grog: under oaks are eaten by deer. The acorns produced by oak trees provide a valuable dietary resource for several species of mammals, including deer. Any removal- of oak trees will reduce the value of the site as habitat to deer and other mammals to some extent. Any fencing of the 9 000182 site that may accoinpany develpp men t: wi.11 pr•.e�cI Lido dear- from using the site as habitat. These impacts are not expected L-o be significant. Considerable deer habitat, relative to that found on the project site, can still be found in the vicinity. Although the remnant Coast Live Oak Riparian Community is - poor and not likely to provide particularly valuable habitat to- wildlife, it is generally protected under federal and state laws. No jurisdictional concerns with regulatory r y abencies are anticipated if construction activities avoid this habitat. rM I LIM r rM LU A. FAN 000183 10 REFERENCES Arionymus. 1983. The American Ornithologists, Union checklist of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. Auk 102:680 -686. Coate, Barrie D. An analysis of the health and structure of the trees on the Nelson Foundation Property, Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga. Prepared for Ainsley Development Inc. Engels, L.G. 1967. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press. 506 PP• Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descript.iorls of tkie Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Department of Fish and Game. �. 155 pp. Munz, P.A. and .D.D. Beck 1968. A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkely. 1681 pp. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western reptiles and Amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Co. 336 pp. Williamson, J.F. (ed. }. 1979. Sunset New Western Xardrn Book. � Lane Publishing Co. 512 pp. 11 000184 7 APPENDIX A List of Wildlife Species Predicted to Occur on the Site l(O= Species observed on reconnaissance, S =sign of species). J CLASS AMPHIBIA California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) Arboreal Salamander (Aneides jiLgubris ) CLASS REPTILIA Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentali.$) 0 Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus) Gopher Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) Common.Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) CLASS AVES Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Red- tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) California Quail (Callipepla californica) 0 Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Common Barn Owl (Tyto'alba) �- Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) 0 Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) S Red - breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber). 0 Nuttall' -s Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 0 Common Flicker (Colaptes aura tus) Western Flycatcher (Empidonaa difficilis) Black Phoebe (Savornis nigricans) Tree Swallow (Tachvcineta bicolor) Violet Green Swallow (Tachvcineta thalassina) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 0 Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coer•ulescens ) 0 Chestnut - backed Chickadee (Parus _rufesc_en.s_) 0 Plain Titmouse (Parus inor.natus) 0 Common Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) 12 0001 �� t Q White - breasted Nuthatch (Sitter ca:•oli.nensis) Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta p)Lamaea) 0 Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bew.ricki_i ) 0 Ruby- crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendu_la) Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicaria) 0 Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) 0 American Robin (Turdus mi.gratorius) 0 Northern Mockingbird (Mimus pol.ygl.ot.tos ) 0 California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivurn) 0 Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedorum) . European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 0 Hutton's Vireo (Vireo huttoni) 0 Orange- crowned Warbler (Vermivora c_e.lata) 0 Yellow - rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) Black- throated Gray warbler (Dendroica ni •es(jens) Bla-c) headed Grosbeak (Pheuticus melanoceplialus) 0 Rufous -sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 0 Brown Towhee (Pipilo fuscus) Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) 0 Golden- crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla) White- crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophris) 0 Dark -eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) Western Meadowlark (Sturnella negle:cta) Northern Oriole (Icterus *galbula) 0 Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) 0 House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) 0 Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) House Sparrow (Passer d.omesticus) CLASS MAMMALIA Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Western Gray Squirrel (Sciurus gri.seus) 0 Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) S Botta's Pocket Gopher. (Thomomys bottae) Western Harvest Mouse (ReithrodontornN,s mey1alotis) Deer. Mouse (Peromyscus mani.culatus) 13 000186 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES 0 House Mouse (Mus musculus) Coyote (Canis latrans) Gray Fox (Urocvon cinereoat gerite�as ) Raccoon (Procyon l.otor) S Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) S Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) I 0041$7 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY for the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Change & Subdivision of the 5.1 Acre Property Known as the Nelson Gardens Comprehensive Project Review At the applicants' request, staff had scheduled review of the development application in phases as provided for in the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Commission did not want to consider the subdivision proposal in two phases. The phased subdivision request has been withdrawn by the applicants and the Tentative Map now includes the entire 5.1 acres. Geologic and Geotechnical Review The original application for a phased subdivision map included a geologic and geotechnical review clearance from the City's Geotechnical Consultant for the proposed lower seven lots (Phase 1). A clearance had not yet been provided for the upper two lots (Phase 2). The Planning Commission did not want to consider the subdivision map in phases without benefit of a geologic and geotechnical review clearance of the entire 5.1 acres. The entire 5.1 acres has now received a geologic and geotechnical review clearance from the City's Geotechnical Consultant. Current Biological Assessment The Wildlife Assessment referenced in the environmental Initial Study dated May 24, 1995 was prepared in 1988 by Harvey and Stanley Associates. The Planning Commission was concerned that this seven year old document may no longer be accurate. An updated Biological Assessment dated July 18, 1995 has been prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates. Their study concludes that the proposed development would have a less than significant effect on the area's biological resources according to the terms and requirements of CEQA. Traffic Circulation Impacts The Planning Commission was concerned that the Initial Study indicated that the nine lot subdivision would not have a significant effect on the environment. Seven new single family homes would be expected to generate approximately 70 vehicular trips per day according to standard traffic engineering projections. The attached memo from the City Engineer concludes that the traffic generated by the total nine homes would not cause a significant adverse effect on Saratoga roads, traffic facilities or circulation. School Enrollment and Facilities Impacts A Saratoga resident expressed concern that the Initial Study did not identify the impact of the development on the Saratoga Union School District as a significant adverse effect. The attached letter from the Saratoga Union School District Superintendent indicates that the additional school children generated by a total of nine single family residential lots would have a negligible effect on the school district. Aesthetics Concerns were raised that the aesthetic protection mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study were too broad. These aesthetic mitigation measures are performance standards to be used in evaluating individual lot development. Staff feels that these measures, in addition to the Design Review criteria outlined in Section 15 -45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, will ensure adequate aesthetic protection. Each individual application for lot development will be subject to staff's, the Planning Commission's and the public's review at a regularly scheduled public hearing. Construction Traffic and Noise Impacts The issue was raised that this particular in -fill development proposal would cause substantial short term traffic and noise impacts during construction. It was emphasized that the 5.1 acres is surrounded by existing single family homes. A condition of Tentative Map approval limits construction activity to between 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Attachments: 1. Letter from Mary Gardner, Superintendent Saratoga Union School District 2. Transmittal from Larry Perlin, City Engineer 3. Biological Assessment prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates dated July 18, 1995 4. Memorandum from City Geotechnical Consultant 5. Tree Commentary prepared by City Horticultural Consultant SRRRTOGR NOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3424 August 3, 1995 James C. Walgren, AICP City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Walgren, RECEIVED AUG 7 -1995 PLWN1NG GFP1. This letter is in response to your request for information regarding impact of the development of the Nelson Gardens area on the Saratoga Union School District. There are approximately 5.1 acres in the Nelson Gardens property. If nine homes are built on this property, the impact is estimated to be twelve additional students. The additional of twelve students would have no significant impact on the district at this time. Sincerely, Mary G rdner, Superintendent MG /bm TO: James Walgren, Associate Planner FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Impacts of Nelson Gardens Development DATE: August 3, 1995 As requested, I have reviewed the anticipated traffic impacts of the Nelson Gardens development. The current plan proposes nine residential lots on the property. The additional traffic which could be expected to be generated from a project of this size is between 90 and 100 trips per day. In my opinion, this amount of additional traffic would neither significantly nor detrimentally impact the adjacent network of residential streets which would serve the new homes. If there is any additional information you need concerning this, please let me know. 0 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULT.9NTS NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY, TOWN OF SARATOGA BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ' Prepared by: H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ronald R. Duke, M.A., Principal ' Rick A. Hopkins, Ph.D., Project Manager/Wildlife Ecologist Patrick B. Boursier, Ph.D., Plant Ecologist/Wetland Scientist 1 1 1 ' July 18, 1995 1 ® Alviso Office '906 Elizabeth Street • P.O. Box 1180 Alviso, CA 95002 •408- 263 -1814 • Fax: 408 - 263 -3823 Prepared for: James Walgren, Planner Town of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Project No. 403 -02 ❑ Fresno Office 423 West Fallbrook, Suite 207 Fresno, CA 93711 •209- 449 -1423 • Fax: 209 - 449 -8248 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GENERAL PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The project site is located within Saratoga city limits, Santa Clara County, California (Figure 1). The approximately 5 -acre site is located in the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. It is approximately 1.7 miles west of Saratoga city hall. The property is bordered by Saratoga Hills Road to the southwest, Pontiac ' Avenue to the east and southeast, and Trinity Avenue to the north. The site primarily consists of a relatively level plain, long used for agriculture and a single moderately steep ' hill. Site elevations range from approximately 500 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to 600 feet NGVD. The parcels occur on the U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map, Cupertino, CA (township 7, south; range 2, west). ' Two soil phases underlie the project area, Pleasanton loam, 2 to 9 % slopes (eastern one - third) and Azule silty clay loam, 15 to 30 % slopes (western two- thirds; Soil Conservation Service "SCS" 1968). Both of these soils are characterized as well- drained, medium to fine-textured soils (SCS 1968). PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The proposed project would subdivide the site into 9 parcels for single family lots. Two phases are planned: 1) the development of seven lots on the relatively flat eastern half of the site. These lots would range from 12,500 to 15,800 square feet. These lots would be accessed from Trinity Avenue (Lots 41, 4, and 5), Pontiac ' Avenue (Lots 42 and 3), and Saratoga Hills Road (Lots 46 and 7); and 2) development of two lots on the steeper western half of the site. These two lots are 40,000 (lot #8) and 62,000 (lot #9) square feet. Lot #8 would be accessed from Saratoga Hills Road and Lot #9 would be accessed from Trinity Avenue. Maximum ' lot coverage is estimated at 30% and maximum site coverage at 55 %. BIOTIC SURVEYS Surveys of the Nelson Property were initially conducted by H. T. Harvey and Associates' biologists in the spring of 1988. This work was primarily conducted to identify potentially significant impacts to wildlife by ' delineating wildlife habitats and generating species lists. A report describing site existing conditions, as well as, potential impacts and mitigations of the proposed development was subsequently written Nelson Foundation Property, Wildlife Assessment (H. T. Harvey & Assoc., File No. 403 -01). This report described ' the floristic composition and physical aspects of biotic habitats on the study area which dominated at the time of these surveys (March 1988). ' The current report summarizes results from our field surveys conducted in July 1995. To the extent possible, we have incorporated information presented in our previous report. The environmental review process has changed substantially since 1988. A number of plant and animal species have been added to various sensitive species list kept by state, federal, and local agencies, plus local conservation groups (e.g., California Native ' Plant Society). In addition, several changes have occurred in the regulatory framework (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, etc.). Therefore, this update includes a review of several additional special- status species, changes in regulations, as t well as improvements (and standardization's) of habitat classification schemes and an improved database of the flora and fauna of the county. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES A FEET 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5280 FEET MILE O _ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 _.4 0.5 0.6 O.] 0.8 0 :9 1.0 MILE H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS Nelson Foundation Property Biotic Assessment: Site/Vicinity Map File No. 403 -02 Date 7/18/95 Figure 1 Field surveys to identify and map biotic habitats, identify plants found on the site and assess the suitability of the site to support special- status plant and animal species, were conducted 17 July 1995. Survey staff included a wildlife biologist (Dr. Rick Hopkins) and plant ecologist (Dr. Patrick Boursier). A list of vascular plant species observed on the site and a list of potential wildlife species are included in Appendices A and B, respectively. BIOTIC HABITATS OF THE PROJECT SITE The current floristic composition of the study area, and the extent and distribution of biotic habitats on site is the result of several factors, including; earlier dominance by native species; site development; alteration of site hydrology; agricultural land use activities; horticultural plantings, and; more recently, site abandonment. At one time, prior to site development in the 1930's, the property was dominated by a mixture of oak woodland and native grassland species which currently dominate the rolling hills situated primarily to the west of the property. During this period, excess rainfall from these foothills entered a minor drainage off site which flowed across the central portion of study area. This drainage on site eventually became a swale funneling moisture to the east as sheet flow and/or entering the local water table through soil percolation. Portions of this channel supported many riparian trees and shrubs commonly observed locally in the Santa Cruz Mountains. ' Over the years, site improvements, which have substantially altered the native flora, have included selected removal of many of these species, cultivation of the eastern third of the property and planting to an apricot (Prunus armeniacus) orchard, planting of numerous native trees and shrubs not endemic to this portion of ' California, introduction of many horticultural species, deepening and widening of the historic seasonal drainage channel, and grading the central portion of the parcel to create pads for homes and outbuildings. In addition, the hydrology of the property was significantly altered by the interception of seasonal flows occurring within the drainage channel located off site and placement of this water into the storm water system. The ' majority of these modifications occurred in the 1930's and 1960's; the final additions in the upper portion (or southern section) was done in the mid- 1970's. As a result, the historic drainage channel which once flowed across the site is no longer hydrologically connected to drainages located off site, and the floristic composition ' of this area is far more horticultural in nature and no longer closely resembles that of a native riparian habitat. The bottom of this isolated channel has been sealed with poured concrete (from the 1930's and 1960's) and contains many landscape features (transported boulders, footbridges, artificial lighting). ' At the time of our initial surveys, conducted in the spring of 1988, the vegetation on site, although in a state of decline, was more actively maintained through artificial watering, cultivation and weed removal, and the riparian vegetation, although artificially maintained, more closely possessed functions and values of a riparian ' habitat. That survey identified five distinct biotic habitats including: orchard, horticultural plantings, live oak riparian forest, non - native grassland/wildflower field and structures. Since then, irrigation and weed removal activities have continued to decrease, although, the apricot orchard is regularly cultivated. As a result, the ' quality of the riparian habitat has substantially declined, invasive exotic species and introduced horticultural plants have greatly expanded, much of the herbaceous understory has disappeared, and the distinction between individual biotic habitats, identified in our earlier report, no longer exists. We have, therefore, combined many of the habitats previously described into just three habitats: orchard; developed (residential), and; ' horticultural plantings/foothill woodland habitats. Each of these habitats is described below and shown in Figure 2. The approximate areal extent of these areas is shown in Table 1. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Legend: � �� K~~~l Project Boundary E. .I Orchard N�0�8 Developed (residences) Horticultural Plantings/ U��� Foothill Woodland Elevation Contour (ft.) � 0 � kN 0 100 200 ft. LU ui Table 1. Approximate areal extent of the habitats found on the Nelson project site. Habitat Type Acres Percent of Total Orchard 1.7 34.9 Developed (Residential) 0.1 2.4 Horticultural Plantings/Foothill Woodland 3.2 62.7 TOTAL 5.0 100.0 Orchard Vegetation. The eastern one -third of the property has been planted and maintained as an apricot orchard for several decades (Figure 2). This monoculture is regularly disked as a weed control measure. Prior to cultivation in the late spring, the understory of this orchard is dominated by invasive, non - native annual grasses and forbs including ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), wild oats (Avena fatua) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorunr). The current survey was conducted in mid -July, therefore, many of the ephemeral herbaceous species identified in our earlier report were not visible but presumed to be present. The perimeter of the orchard has been planted with Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees. In addition, coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) has invaded along portions of the perimeter fence. This end of the parcel is surrounded on all sides by roads (Pontiac Avenue and Trinity Avenue; see Figure 2) and is relatively flat (approximately 2% slope). Access to the site has been limited by placement of cyclone fencing around the edge of the property. Pedestrian and vehicle traffic on these roads is relatively frequent. Wildlife. The wood and debris piles adjacent to the orchard would provide cover for western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria niulticarinata), and gopher snake (Pituophis nielanoleucus). Birds typically found in this the abandoned apricot orchard on site include Northern Mockingbird (Minrus polyglottos), Northern Oriole (Icterus galbula), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), and House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Other species which are expected to occur include the Yellow - billed Magpie (Pica nuttalli), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and California Quail (Callipepla californica). Mammals that may forage in this habitat on site include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), broad - footed mole (Scopanus latimanus), black - tailed hare (Lepus californicus), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). In addition, there was evidence of black - tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) foraging in this area on some of the shrubs. Developed (Residential) Vegetation._ Two homesites and numerous outbuildings have been constructed on the parcel beginning in the 1930's. A single, relatively broad, gravel driveway services all of these structures. The driveway, walkways and immediate perimeter of these buildings have been planted with numerous species including honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), wisteria (Wisteria sp.), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), maidenhair tree (Ginkgo biloba) and ' western redbud (Cercis occidentalis). The driveway entrance is located off of Saratoga Hills Road in the approximate location of the historic alignment of the seasonal drainage channel which once flowed across the H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES parcel. As a result, the upper portion of this channel has been filled and its hydrologic connection to portions of the drainage situated off site has been effectively severed. The placement of these structures in the mid - portion of the property has required moderate grading and soil compacting Wildlife. Residential and developed habitats may support a variety of wildlife, depending on the amount of shrubby vegetation, height and density of the tree canopy, and the presence of debris, such as wood piles, weedy lots, etc. There are several bird species typical of this type of habitat. A common invasive species is the European Starling, which may nest in the palm trees on site. Starlings may also use dead snags for nesting or roosting. House Sparrows (Passer domesticus) typically nest under eaves or in shrubs near human habitation. Other bird species commonly found near residences with gardens include the House Finch, Northern Mockingbird, and California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis). Mammals such as the Virginia opossum, house mouse (Mus musculus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), raccoon, and striped skunk will forage in and around these buildings. These abandoned buildings may provide roosting habitat for several species of bats including Yuma myotis ( Myotis yumanensis), western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus), western red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Horticultural Plantings /Foothill Woodland Vegetation. For reasons described above, this habitat designation currently includes several of the habitats which were previously identified as separate categories in our 1988 report including: central coast live oak riparian forest, horticultural plantings and non - native grassland/wildflower field. The horticultural plantings/foothill woodland habitat extends from the western edge of the orchard, from Saratoga Hills Road to Trinity Avenue, in and around the developed (residences) areas up the hillslopes to the western edge of the parcel (Figure 2). Cyclone fencing completely surrounds this habitat and existing homesites border the property to the north and northwest. The total elevation gain of this area is approximately 90 feet (from 510 feet NGVD to 600 feet NGVD). The small hills of this habitat are southeast, east and west - facing (Figure 2). ' The floristic composition of this habitat is somewhat variable and includes a mixture of endemic natives, introduced natives (i.e. native to other portions of California), non - native, introduced horticultural species and invasive exotics. Each of these component groups of plants may form locally dense patches, however, there is ' no structural or functional dividing line among these species. Much of the overstory species in the central portion of the site include incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), California bay (Umbellularia californica), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp. ), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), California redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak, Northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), ' lemon (Citrus sp.), California box elder (Ater negundo var. californicum) and big -leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum). ' These mature trees form an essentially closed canopy with scattered individuals of coyote brush, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), magnolia (Magnolia sp.), fig (Ficus sp.), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), blue elderberry (Sambucus nrexicana) and oleander (Nerium oleander) shrubs ' and trees forming the relatively open understory. A relatively sparse herbaceous cover occurs in the dense litter beneath the canopy and includes many of the non - native annual grasses and forbs observed in the orchard habitat, as well as, periwinkle (ilinca major) and English ivy (Hedera helix). ' Many of these introduced pines and eucalyptus species have been planted and/or have successfully invaded the hills located in the western portion of the study area. Coast live oak, valley oak, toyon, and coyote brush occur throughout this area, and locally dense patches of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) form impenetrable ' thickets on the top and western slopes of this habitat. Many of the same non - native herbaceous species observed elsewhere on site also occur here in the understory. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ' Wildlife. This habitat supports a combination of horticultural, planted native, and naturally occurring native species plant. The structural diversity of this habitat supports (understory of grasses, shrubs and several different heights of the trees) a diverse assemblage of wildlife species. Gopher snakes, common kingsnakes ' (Lampropeltisgetulus), and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) are expected to feed on a variety of small rodents. These rodents include California mice (Peromyscus californicus), brush mice (Peromyscus boyli), western harvest mice (Riethrodontonnys megalotis), and dusky - footed woodrats (Neotoma fucipes). Animals including the Titmouse (Parus inornatus), California Quail (Callipepla californica), Acorn Woodpecker ' Melanerpes formicivorous), and Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) are expected to feed on the acorn drop on site. Other birds found here are California Towhee (Pipilo fuscus), White- breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), Hutton's Vireo (Vireo huttoni), and Orange - crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata). tThis habitat is preferred by black - tailed deer (Odocoielus hemionus colunibianus), because it generally provides a diversity of food plants and cover for reproduction. Five deer (three does and two fawns) were ' observed in this habitat in the central portion of the site. SPECIAL - STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES Information concerning threatened, endangered, or other special- status plant or animal species that may occur in the area was collected from several sources. These sources included the California Department of Fish and ' Game's Natural Diversity Data Base, Rarefind (CNDDB 1994), California Wildlife Habitat Relationships species notes (CDFG 1988, 1990a, 1990b), miscellaneous information available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and technical publications. The California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 1994) supplied information regarding the distribution and typical habitats of vascular plants in the vicinity. A search of published accounts on the locations of these species was conducted within the Cupertino (U.S. Geological Survey Topographical Quadrangle Map) in which the project site occurs, and the eight surrounding ' quads including Mountain View, Milpitas, San Jose West, Los Gatos, Castle Rock Ridge, Big Basin, Mindego Hill an Palo Alto using California Natural Diversity Data Base, Rarefind reports (1994). Special- Status Species Regulations Overview. Several plant and animal species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site have been given special status under federal or state endangered species legislation or otherwise have been designated as sensitive by ' state resource agencies or professional organizations whose lists are recognized by agencies when reviewing environmental documents. Such species are referred to collectively as "species of special- status ". ' Federally - listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). "Take" under FESA includes activities such as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically ' enumerated conduct." Harm has been defined by USFWS's regulations to include some types of "significant habitat modification or degradation." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 29 June 1995 that "harm" may include habitat modification "...where it actually kills or injuries wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering." Activities which may result in "take" of ' individuals are regulated by the USFWS. Candidate species do not have any legal protection under FESA. However, candidate species on Lists 1 and 2 receive special attention from federal agencies during environmental review. Taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient biological information to support a proposal ' to list as Endangered or Threatened are placed in Category 1. Taxa, the listing of which may be warranted according to existing information, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking, are placed in Category 2. Some candidate species have been petitioned for federal listing. 7 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Resource agencies have a heightened sensitivity toward impacts to these species during the environmental review process. State - listed threatened and endangered species and are protected under provisions of California's Endangered Species Act (CESA). Activities which may result in "take" of individuals (e.g., "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill ") are regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of "take" under CESA. The CDFG has interpreted "take" to include the "killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat modification ... ... The CDFG has also produced three lists of "species of special concern" which serve as "watch lists ". Species on these lists either are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored. They may receive special attention during environmental review, but do not have statutory protection. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society (California Native Plant Society 1988, 1993), but which have no designated status under state endangered species legislation, are defined as follows: -List 113. Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. -List 2. Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. -List 3. Plants about which we need more information - A review list -List 4. Plants of limited distribution - A watch list. Special- Status Plant Species and Their Habitats Several plant species which have been given special status under state and/or federal species legislation are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. These species, along with their habitat preferences are listed in Table 2. All of these special - status plants, as well as all other special- status species known to occur in the region, are found in habitat types that are not present on the project property (i.e. serpentine soils, vernal pools, etc). Due both to the lack of appropriate habitat and the highly disturbed condition of the site (i.e. plowed, cultivated), no special- status plant species are expected to occur on -site. The current project site has a history of agricultural /horticulturaUresidential land use and does not contain potentially suitable habitat for any of these plant species. No further surveys for special- status plants are warranted and expanded descriptions of these plants are not provided. Special- status Animal Species. Information about possible threatened, endangered, or other special- status animal species of the area was col- lected from several sources. These sources included the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships species notes, and miscellaneous information available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Santa Clara County Sensitive Species Maps, and technical publications. Table 2 lists relevant special - status wildlife species, their status, and the likelihood of their occurrence within the project site. No suitable habitat exists on site to support the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), White - tailed Kite (Elanus caeruleus), Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Burrowing Owl, (Speotyto cunicularia), California H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Table 2 S ecial status plant and animal species, their status, and potential occurrence on the Nelson Property, Saratoga, Santa Clara County. California ..... : SPECIES STATUS* P..OTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCEON SITE Tiburon Indian Paintbrush Castille'a affinus ss . ne lecta FPE, ST, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Coyote Ceanothus Ceanothus errisae FPE, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Santa Clara Valley Dudle a Dudle a setchellii FPE, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Metcalf Canyon Jewelflower Stre tanthus albidus ss . albidus FPE, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. White-rayed Pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidi ora FE, SE, 1B No appropriate roc slope habitat on site; presumed absent. San Mateo Thorn Mint Acanthomintha duttonii FE, SE, 1B No appropriate se ntinite vertisols habitats on site; presumed absent. Marin Western Flax Hes erolinon con estum FT, ST, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Robust S ineflower Chorizanthe robusta var robusta FE, 1B No appropriate coastal bluff scrub habitat on site; resumed absent. StateProtected, Federal Cand(d, ate S ecies, or;CNPS List 4 . .. Acci iter striatus . No suitable breeding habitat on site; occasional winter transient. Showy Indian Clover Tri olium amoenum FC2 *, 1B Unlikely, only one occurrence is known in species range; presumed absent. Contra Costa Goldfields Lasthenia con u ens FC1, 1B No appropriate vernal pool habitat on site; presumed absent. Most Beautiful Jewelflower Stre tanthus albidus ss . perainoenus FCI, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Santa Clara Red Ribbons Clarkia concinna ss . automixa FC2, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Mount Hamilton Thistle Cirsium ontinale var. cam pylon FC2, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Fragrant Fritillary Fritillaria liliacea FC2, 1B No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Big Scale Balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrole is var. macrole is IB No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Hall's Bush Mallow Malacothamnus hallii 1B No appropriate habitat on site; presumed absent. Serpentine Linanthus Linanthus ambi uus CNPS 4 No appropriate se ntine habitat on site; presumed absent. Le enere Le enere limosa . FC2, 1B No appropriate vernal pool habitat on site; presumed absent. Dudley's Lousewort Pedicularis dudleyi I FC2, SR, 1B No appropriate shady wood habitat on site; presumed absent. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE, SE, ST No suitable breeding or foraging habitat on site; presumed absent Willow Flycatcher Em idonax traillii SE No suitable breeding or foraging habitat on site; presumed absent California Tiger Salamander Amb stoma tali orniense FPE, S No suitable habitat on site; presumed absent. California Red-legged Fro Rana aurora dra toni FPE, SP, S No suitable habitat on site; resumed absent. .. .:.. Cal�fornia:S * i6 of S ecial Concern,.S.tate Protected,:o.r Federal Candidate S .. ec es .... i _. .. ::.. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana bo lei FC2, S No suitable habitat present on site; presumed absent. Western Pond Turtle Clemm s marmorata FC2, S No suitable habitat present on site; presumed absent. Western S adefoot Sca hio us hammondii FC2, S No known records from Santa Clara County; resumed absent. California Horned Lizard Phrynosoma coronatum rontale S Marginal habitat on site; possible but unlikely. California Mountain Kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata Locally Unique Marginal habitat on site White - tailed Kite Elanus caeruleus CP No suitable habitat present on site; presumed absent. Northern Harrier Circus c aneus S No suitable foraging or breeding habitat on site; presumed absent. Sharp-shinned Hawk Acci iter striatus S No suitable breeding habitat on site; occasional winter transient. Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooverii S Marginal breeding, rare to occasional foragine on site. Table 2 Special-status lant and animal species, their status, and potential occurrence on the Nelson Property, Saratoga, Santa Clara County. California. con't) SPECIES STATUS* .. POTENTIALFOR O.CCURRENCE;;ON SITE .:.. COMMON: NAME _ ; SCIEN:TIFICNAME .::: Golden Ea le Aquila chrysaetos CP, S No suitable breeding or foraging habitat on site; p resumed absent. Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia S No suitable breeding or foraging habitat on site; presumed absent. Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi FC2 Occasional transient. California Horned Lark Eremo hila al estris actia FC3 No suitable breeding or foraging habitat on site; presumed absent. Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus S Suitable breeding habitat on site, potential forager. Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia S Rare to Occasional migrant. Tricolored Blackbird A elaius tricolor FC2,S No suitable breeding or foraging habitat on site; presumed absent. Long-eared M otis M otis evotis FC2 Rare to occasional forager; marginal roosting habitat in buildings on site. Long-legged M otis M otis volons FC2 Rare to occasional forager; marginal roosting habitat in buildings on site. Fringed M otis M otis th sanodes FC2 Rare to occasional forager; marginal roosting habitat in buildings on site. Townsend's Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii FC2, S Rare to occasional forager; marginal roosting habitat in buildings on site. Pallid Bat Antrozous allidus S Rare to occasional forager; marginal roosting habitat in buildings on site. California Mastiff Bat Eumo s perotis call ornicus FC2,S Rare to occasional forager; marginal roosting habitat in buildings on site. San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma usci es annectens FC2 Possible resident on site. Ringtail Bassariscus astutus CP Marginal habitat on site. American Badger Taxidea taxus S No suitable habitat on site; presumed absent. * = Federal, state, and California Native Plant Society listing designations. 1B = California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) list 113; plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, and elsewhere. CNPS 4 = CNPS list 4; plants of limited distribution; a watch list. FE = Designated as an endangered species by the federal government under the authority of the federal Endangered Species Act. FT = Designated as a threatened species by the federal government under the authority of the federal Endangered Species Act. FPE = Currently proposed for endangered status by the federal government. FCI = Designated as a candidate species by the federal government. Occurrence on list 1 indicates that U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list the species as Endangered or Threatened. FC2 = Designated as a candidate species by the federal government. Occurrence on list 2 indicates that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has potential 'information for upgrading listing to endangered or threatened, but conclusive data on the biological vulnerability and threat are not currently available to support proposed listing. FC2* = Threat and/or distribution data are insufficient to support federal listing, but the organism is presumed extinct. SE = Designated as an endangered species by the California Fish and Game Commission under the authority of the state Endangered Species Act. ST = Designated as a threatened species by the California Fish and Game Commission under the authority of the state Endangered Species Act. S = Species of special concern, includes species whose breeding populations in the state have declined severely or are otherwise so low that extirpation is a real possibility. There are nospecial legal statutes governing the protection of this group. CP = Fully protected species in the state of California see Fish and Game Code). RL = Listing determined to be unwarranted by the USFWS; no longer a candidatespecies. Locally Unique = Determined by Santa Clara County to be species that are locally unique. O c� a y n- Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and American badger (taxidea taxus). In addition, due to the lack of vernal pools, stock ponds or perennial creeks or streams, the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni), western spadefoot (Scaphiopus hammondii), and western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) are absent from the site. Rare to occasional transients, migrants, and foragers include the Sharp- shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Vaux's Swift (Chaetura vauxi), and Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia). The long -eared myotis (Myotis evotis), long - legged myotis (Myotis volans), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Townsend's big -eared bat (Plecotus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and California mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) may forage on site. The abandoned buildings provide marginal breeding habitat due to their small size and the occurrence of development adjacent to the site. Therefore, these species are not expected to breed on site. The California horned lizard (Phynosoma coronatum frontale), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), San Francisco dusky - footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) may breed or be resident on site. Expanded descriptions are included for only these species. California Species of Special Concern, State Protected, or Federal Candidate Species Coast Horned Lizard (Phgnosoma coronatum frontale). Federal listing status: Candidate 2 (FC2); California Species of Special Concern. The Coast horned lizard occurs in a variety of habitats; in scrubland, grassland, coniferous forests, and broad -leaf woodland. It is common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low shrubs. The horned lizard tends to occur in patches of fine, loose soil, where it can bury itself and search for ants and beetles, its preferred food items. There is sonic marginal habitat on site for the horned lizards on the hill on the west side of the site. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Federal listing status: Candidate 2; State listing status: None. In approximately the past twenty years, some populations of the Loggerhead Shrike have declined significantly. These populations are primarily in eastern North America. However, other populations, including those in western North America, appear to be decreasing as well. In California, Loggerhead Shrikes are still considered a fairly common species. Shrikes generally build their nests in dense shrubs or bushes in open areas. There is suitable breeding habitat for this common Bay Area species on site. San Francisco Dusky - footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). Federal listing status: Candidate 2; State listing status: None. The distribution of this subspecies is poorly understood. It is assumed to include most of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Woodrats generally occurs in heavily or moderately wooded forests. They build there nests out of sticks and leaves at the base of a tree or near dense shrubs. They forage on the ground or in trees primarily on fungi, flowers, grasses, acorns, etc. The dusky - footed woodrat may occur in the dense shrub areas on site. Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus). Federal listing status: None; State listing status: Fully Protected, CDFG Code 4700. Ringtails are a close relative of the raccoon. They inhabit cavities in rock outcrops, talus slopes, and hollows in trees, logs and snags. Ringtails are usually not found more than 0.8 km from permanent water. This secretive carnivore is nocturnal and feeds mainly on rodents and rabbits and less frequently on birds, reptiles, invertebrates, fruit, nuts, and some carrion. Ringtails may occur in the more heavily wooded areas on site. 11 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES REGULATED HABITATS Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitats Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted for areas which met the regulatory definition of Waters of the United States (jurisdictional waters). Areas meeting the regulatory definition of "Waters of the United States" ' (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899), has jurisdiction over "Waters of the U.S." These waters may include all waters used, or ' potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as "Waters of the U. S. ", tributaries of waters ' otherwise defined as "Waters of the U. S. ", the territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to "Waters of the U.S." (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Areas not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non -tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on ' dry land, artificially- irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water - filled depressions (33 CFR, Part 328). In addition, agricultural lands which satisfy the criteria as "prior converted croplands," as defined by the Soil Conservation ' Service (SCS; National Food Security Act Manual 1988, Section 512.15), are not subject to regulation under Section 404. "Prior converted croplands" are defined as wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the ' extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland values. To qualify as "prior converted croplands" the lands must not be inundated for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season. Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into ' such waters must be in compliance with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be approved in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency charged with implementing water quality certification in California. Similarly, activities which result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream, or which substantially change its bed, channel or -bank, or which utilize any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed requires that the project applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), under Sections 1601 -1603 of the State Fish and Game Code. The CDFG potentially extends the definition of stream to include "intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue -line streams (USGS), and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream - dependent terrestrial wildlife" (CDFG 1994). The man -made fountain on site does not meet the regulatory definition of jurisdictional waters (USACE) and no riparian habitats which would fall under the authority of the CDFG (i.e., Section 1603 of Fish and Game Code) occurs on site. This area is presently isolated from any natural drainage channel, has a cement bottom (work done in the 1930's, 1960's and 1970's), and does not support any of the characteristics of areas regulated by these agencies. 12 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Implementation of the proposed project (subdivision into 9 single family dwellings) would have a number of impacts on the area's biological resources. These impacts may or may not be significant adverse effects. CEQA, Statute and Guide lines provides guidance in evaluating project impacts and determining which will be significant. CEQA has defined "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project ". According to Appendix G of CEQA, Statute and Guidelines, a project's effects on biotic resources will normally be considered significant when the project will: (a) substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; (b) interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; (c) substantially diminish habitat for wildlife or plants. This section describes the assumptions and thresholds of significance developed to evaluate impacts on the biological resources of the Nelson Foundation site resulting from implementing the proposed plan scenario. Impacts to wildlife species are assumed to be directly correlated with the loss of plant communities which provide their primary habitat. The conversion of these communities to residential land uses, therefore, will result in the loss of or reduction in some associated wildlife species. These losses would result from site grading, road building, infrastructure installation, and direct wildlife loss or disturbance by construction activities and human habitation. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT The biological resources listed below are considered sufficiently abundant regionally that project impacts to them, when considered in the context of this project alone, would be less than significant. Loss of Orchard from Project Development Project implementation would result in the loss of 1.7 acres of an abandoned apricot orchard. Plant and wildlife species that occur within this habitat are relatively common species that are regionally abundant. Therefore, the loss of this orchard from the site will be a less - than - significant effect. Loss of Buildings from Project Development Project development would result in the removal of the existing buildings. The flora and fauna that occur in the previously- developed areas tend to be relatively common species that are regionally abundant. No special - status plant or animal species are known to use these buildings. Therefore, the loss of these buildings will be a less- than - significant impact. Loss of Horticultural Planting/Foothill Woodland from Project Development Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 3.2 acres of this habitat. ' The loss of this habitat would reduce the overall carrying capacity of the site for a variety of animal species including the White - crowned Sparrow, California Towhee, Western Meadowlark, California ground squirrel, California vole, western harvest mouse, raccoon, striped skunk, gray fox, and black - tailed deer. Thus, some 13 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES terrestrial vertebrates may be lost from site development, -or displaced to neighboring sites not presently developed (primarily south and west of the site). Woodland habitats are abundant regionally and this habitat on site is highly modified (i.e., not natural). Hence, the majority of the biotic resources associated with it will continue to be abundant following project completion. The loss of this habitat from the site will result in a less - than - significant impact to the flora and fauna of the region. Loss of Habitat for Various Special- Status Plant and Animal Species Several special- status plant and animal species have been identified as historically or currently occurring in the project vicinity. On the basis of reconnaissance surveys conducted on site and the lack of serpentine based soils, it has been determined that several special- status plant species do not occur on site. Therefore, project implementation will result in a less - than - significant impact on special- status plant species. The project site is outside the known distribution or there is a lack of suitable habitat for several animal species listed in Table 2. These include the California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, western spadefoot, and western pond turtle, American Peregrine Falcon, Willow flycatcher, White- tailed Kite, Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle, Burrowing Owl, California Horned Lark, Tricolored Blackbird), and American badger. Therefore, project development would result in no impact for these three species since the project site is outside their known ranges. Sonic special- status terrestrial vertebrates may be occasional visitors, migrants, or transients. These species include the Sharp- shinned Hawk, Cooper's Hawk, Vaux's Swift, Yellow Warbler, long -eared myotis, long - legged myotis, fringed myotis, Townsend's big -cared bat, pallid bat, and California mastiff bat. Due to the abundance of similar habitat regionally, impacts to these species resulting from a small loss of foraging habitat are expected to be less - than - significant. The Loggerhead Shrike, which may breed on site, is fairly common in the San Francisco Bay Area (and in the state) and the population appears to be stable (see discussion in Existing Condition Section under Loggerhead Shrike). The project site represents a small fraction of the available breeding habitat for these two species in central California. Thus, project development will have a less- than - significant effect on the available breeding habitat for this species. ' The California horned lizard and the San Francisco dusky - footed woodrat are possible inhabitants of the more site. The horned lizard might occur in the looser soils on the hillside and the woodrat would occur in the more densely wooded or shrubby areas of the site. The relatively small loss of potential habitat for these two species is not considered significant due to the abundance of more natural habitat available to them in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Therefore, impacts to these two species is expected to be less- than - significant. ' The ringtail occurs primarily within the valley oak woodland and riparian woodland habitats. Woodland habitats in the region are abundant. Therefore, the loss of potential habitat is considered a less- than - significant impact. t Loss of Regulated Habitats ' No regulated habitats are to be lost from project development. Hence, no significant impacts are anticipated.. 1 14 H. T. HARVEY &ASSOCIATES tImpacts to Wildlife Movements t CEQA Guidelines interprets a "substantial interruption of wildlife movements" as a significant environmental affect. This rather broad language sometimes causes confusion because in fact animals make three different types of movements on a regular basis. Typically, substantial interruption is interpreted as the disruption of a ' wildlife movement corridor. The term "corridor" implies a linkage between or among larger habitat patches. In order to assess the importance of an area as a "movement corridor" it is important to understand the basic concepts underlying animal movement patterns. Animal movements can generally be subdivided into 3 major behavioral categories: 1) movements within a home range or territory; 2) movements during migration; and 3) ' movements during dispersal. These different types of movement patterns and how they relate to use of the Nelson site by the various wildlife species is described below. ' Movements within a Home Range or Territory. Burt (1943), who recognized that animals exhibited consistent use patterns, defined home range as that area an animal learns thoroughly and habitually patrols during its normal activities of foraging, mating, and caring for young. The term territory refers to an area that ' an animal defends through overt defense or advertisement (Noble 1939, Brown 1964, Wilson 1975). The breeding territories of song birds is a classic example of this behavior. Not all animals, however, exhibit territorial behavior. ' Movements during Migration. Along with the normal movements associated with a home range or territory some wildlife species exhibit a number of distinct. movement patterns such as migration and dispersal. Migration is generally defined as a movement from the breeding or natal grounds to a "wintering" area and the ' subsequent return for the next reproductive effort (Terrill 1990). Movements during Dispersal. Dispersal generally refers to the movement of an animal (usually juveniles) from its natal area to an area of unoccupied habitat, or movements by adults related to short-term changes in ' resource availability. Many small mammals such as California voles and deer mice are considered good colonizers since a portion of their populations will frequently disperse from their site of origin. ' The Nelson site consist of orchard, residential, and horticultural plantings /foothill woodland habitats. These habitats provide for a reasonable diversity of terrestrial wildlife species on site. The movements of these various species on the site will vary depending upon the species in question. Amphibians, reptiles, and various ' small mammals will forage within the various habitats on the site. Portions of the populations of many of these species will disperse onto (immigrate) or off of the site, primarily to the west on the south. Animal Movements on the Site. No detailed study of animal movements on site was conducted for this ' report. However, knowledge of the site, its habitats, and the ecology of the species on -site allows us to predict what types of movements are occurring. t The site is included in the foraging radius for many avian species. The territories for many of these species will exceed the size of the site. A number of other avian species will forage in relatively small areas that may be encompassed entirely by the site; a foraging territory may also include only a portion of the site. Bird ' species with relatively small foraging territories include the Plain Titmouse, Chestnut - backed Chickadee, California Towhee, Rufous -sided Towhee, Song Sparrow, Common Bushtit, Acorn Woodpecker, and Nuttal's Woodpecker. Dispersing juveniles of these species might traverse the site, immigrate, or emigrate from the Nelson site in search of unoccupied habitat. ' A number of medium to large mammals such as gray fox, coyote, raccoon, and black - tailed deer are known to occur either on the Project Site or within the vicinity. The home ranges of most of these species are larger ' than the Project Site. Therefore, the movement patterns (i.e., their home ranges) for these species would 1 15 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES include portions of adjacent habitat. Juveniles of these species would either traverse the site, immigrate, or emigrate from it. The black - tailed deer is a non - migratory and relatively common large mammal that inhabits virtually all habi- tats of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range. There is a paucity of information, however, on the Santa Cruz deer herd (Fowler and Curtis 1985). Nonetheless, Fowler and Curtis (1985) generated a crude density estimate of about 10 deer /mil. The black - tailed deer is one of the more easily and frequently observed large mammals of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Additionally, the deer is one of the most popular game animals in the state. But hunting is not allowed within the city of Saratoga or any public lands near the site. Harvest of deer is relatively low in the Santa Cruz Mountains because of the relatively small parcels of private land. The Santa Cruz Deer Herd Management Plan (Fowler and Curtis 1985) identified several potential manage- ment problems that may affect this herd. These include poaching, deer killed by free - roaming dogs (Canis domesticus), habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation (Fowler and Curtis 1985). Black - tailed deer are known to forage on site (five were observed during site visits). The average home range for black - tailed deer is approximately 0.5 to 0.75 mil. Therefore, the site represents only about 1.0 to 1.5% of these individual deer home range. The eastern portion of the site will be subdivided into 7 lots ranging from 12,500 to 15,800 square feet. This type of development will generally displace deer from that portion of the site. However, deer may continue to occasionally forage along the margins of this area. The two, relatively large lots on the western portion of the site is likely to continue to provide some habitat value. Large estate lots (1 to 5 acres) along the eastern flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains provides some forage opportunities for deer. The site is not known to be a migratory route for any of the terrestrial species either known to occur on the site or are found within the vicinity. It does however, supports several different vegetation cover types that provide ' habitat for a variety of wildlife species. These wildlife species will use the site during their normal movements (e.g., home range or territory), or juveniles (and to a lesser extent adults) may disperse over, from, or onto the Project Site. Impacts. Habitat fragmentation has been identified by numerous ecologist as one of the greatest threats facing ' wildlife species today (Harris and Gallager 1989). Theoretical ecologists have recently focused a great deal of effort on determining the importance of corridors as landscape links between or among larger (fragmented) habitat areas. A number of advantages of corridors have been identified including their potential to alleviate genetic and stochastic affects resulting in local extirpation; their potential to aid in the support of species that ' require more resources than can be supplied by single preserves; and their potential as habitat (Simberloff and Cox 1987). However, the presence of a corridor can result in certain detrimental affects such as an increase in the transmission of diseases, parasites, and natural catastrophes; they also provide means for predators and ' competing species to colonize preserves; and they may allow for the invasion of exotic species and human disturbance (Simberloff and Cox 1987). CEQA guidelines (Appendix G) indicate that a project will have a significant environmental effect if it will "(d) interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species ". Project buildout on site represents a loss of habitat for some wildlife species, but the project site does not ' presently function as a "wildlife corridor ". Some species may disperse through the Project Site, but most wildlife that presently use the Project Site do so as part of their normal movements for foraging, mating, and caring for young. In other words, the property falls within their home range or territory. Individuals of the ' various amphibian, reptile, and small mammal species that presently occupy the site will be displaced or lost. Therefore, project buildout will represent a loss of habitat for the wildlife species that presently use the site, but 16 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES development will not significantly fragment the habitat of the region (dense development presently occurs on the north, east, and south part of the site). Black - tailed deer may be displaced (or mostly displaced from the ' eastern portion of the site), but they are expected to continue using the two larger lots on the western portion of the site. Therefore, project development is not expected to have a significant impact on wildlife movements within the region of the project site. Disturbance to Nesting Raptors. ' No nesting raptors were observed during the reconnaissance site visit. The site presently represents only marginal habitat for raptors that occur in the area. Hence, the loss of the woodland habitat on site is expected to result in a less- than - significant impact to nesting raptors. I — 17 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES LITERATURE CITED Brown, J. L. 1964. The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull. 76:160 -169. Burt, W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mammalogy 24:346 -352. California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. California's Wildlife, Vol. I, Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game. 1990a. California's Wildlife, Vol. II, Birds. California Department of Fish and Game. 1990b. California's Wildlife, Vol. I11, Mammals. California Native Plant Society. 1995. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Edited by M. W. Skinner and B. Pavlik. CNDDB 1995. California Natural Diversity Data Base. California Department of Fish and Game. CEQA. 1986. California Environmental Quality Act; statutes and guidelines. Office of Planning and Research. Fowler, G. S. and B. E. Curtis. 1985. The Santa Cruz Deer Herd Management Plan. Calif. Depart. Fish and Game Publication. 49pp. Harris, L. D., and P. B. Gallagher. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need for movement cor- ridors. Pages 11 -34 in G. Mackintosh, ed. Preserving communities and corridors. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D. C. Harvey and Associates. 1984. Santa Clara County Sensitive Species Data Base Maps. Hickman, J.C. ed. 1993. the Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. Noble, G. K. 1939. The role of dominance in the social life of birds. Auk 56: 263 -273. Remsen, J.V. 1979. Bird species of special concern in California. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Report No. 78 -1. Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv. Biol. 1:63 -71. Soil Conservation Service. 1968. Soils of Santa Clara County. USDA. Terrill, S. B. 1990. Food availability, migratory behavior, and population dynamics of terrestrial birds during the nonreproductive season. Studies in Avian Biology No. 13:438 -443. Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology. Belnap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Mass. 697 pp. 18 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Appendix A. Plants observed on the Nelson Foundation Project Site. FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ... COMMON NAME ._.:. Aceraceae Acer macro h llum big-leaf maple Acer ne undo var. tali ornicum California box elder Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak A iaceae Conium maculatum poison hemlock A oc naccae Neriwn oleander oleander Vinca major periwinkle Araliaceae Hedera helix English ivy Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis co ote brush Centaurea solstitialis yellow star - thistle Senecio vul aris common groundsel Si/ bum marianum milk thistle Brassica ra a field mustard Ca prifoliaceae Lonicera s . honeysuckle Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Cu pressaceae Calocedrus decurrens incense cedar Cu ressus macrocar a Monterey cypress Juni erns s . juniper Fabaceae Cercis occidentalis western redbud Cvtisus sco arius Scotch broom Adedica o polymorpha bur clover Vicia s . vetch 617isteria s . wisteria Fa aceae Ouercus aQri olia coast live oak Ouercus lobata valley oak Geraniaceae Erodium moschatum white -stem fillaree Geranium dissectum cut -leaf geranium Geranium molle dove's -foot geranium Gink oaceae Ginkgo biloba maidenhair tree Ju landaceae Ju lans tali ornica var. hindsii N. California black walnut Lauraceae Umbellularia call ornica California bay Ma noliaceae Magnolia s . magnolia Moraccae Ficus s . fl M rtaceae Eucalyptus s . eucalyptus Oxalidaceae Oxalis es -ca rae Bermuda buttercup Pa avaraeeae Eschscholzia tali ornica California poppy Pinaceae Pinus e re i Jeffrey pine Pinus pi nea Italian stone pine Pseudotsu a menziesii var. menziesii Douglas fir Poaceae Avena atua wild oats Bromus carinatus California brome Bromus diandrus ripgut grass C nodon dactylon Bermuda grass C nosurus echinatus hedgehog do ail Hordeum murinumss . le orinum farmer's foxtail Lolium multi ovum Italian ryegrass Oryzo sis miliacea smilo grass Vul is m orus rattail fescue H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Appendix A. Plants observed on the Nelson Foundation Project Site K ). FAMILY NAME .:.... SCIENTIFICN.4ME .e..o...n...'.t. COMMON NAME ... .. Polygonaceae Erio onum asciculatum California buckwheat Rumex cris us curly dock Portulacaceae Cla tonic perfoliata miner's lettuce Rosaceae Cotoneaster s . cotoneaster Heteromeles arbuti olia to on Prunus armeniacus apricot Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry Rubiaceae Galium s . bedstraw Rutaceae Citrus s . lemon tree Taxodiaceae Sequoia sem ervirens Redwood tree The species list is arranged alphabetically by family name and species for all vascular plants encountered during a plant survey. In some cases it was not possible to accurately identify a particular plant to the species level due to the absence of specific anatomic features required for identification. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX B VERTEBRATE SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR ON THE NELSON FOUNDATION SITE H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Turkey Vulture P� eons and Doves (Cathartes aura) FAMILY. ACCIPtTRIDAE HawksOld World Vultures,<and Narr�ers Sharp-shinned Hawk (Columba asciata) (Acci iter striatus) Cooper's Hawk (Zenaida niacroura) (Acci iter coo erii) Red - shouldered Hawk Common Barn Owl (Buteo lineatus) Red- tailed Hawk ical Owls` (Buteo 'amaicensis) Rough-legged Hawk (Otus kennicottii) (Buteo la o us) FAMILY: FALC.ONIDAE Caracaras !and Falcons ....... .............._................ ..:. American Kestrel (Falco s arverius) ORDER GALLIFORM'ES (Megapodes, Currassows Pheasants, and,; Relatives FAMILY. `PHASIANIDAE uails Pheasants, and'Relatrves Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) California Ouail (Callipepla californica) FAMILY COLUMBIDAE P� eons and Doves Rock Dove White- throated Swift (Columba Livia) Band- tailed Pigeon :!FAMILY TROCHILIDAE (Columba asciata) Mourning Dove (Zenaida niacroura) ;ORDER..STRIGIFORMES Owls '` FAMILY..:TYTONIDAE BarnOwls Common Barn Owl (Tyto alba) FAIVIILY.:STRIGIDAE` T ical Owls` Western Screech Owl (Otus kennicottii) Great Horned Owl I (Bubo virQinianus) II Common Poor -will I (Phalaenoptilus nuttallii) II Vaux's Swift (Chaetura vauxi) White- throated Swift (Aeronautes saxatalis) :!FAMILY TROCHILIDAE Hummm'b�rds ..........,:.......:. Anna's Hummingbird. (Caly to anna) Rufous Hummingbird Selas horns ru us) Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) Lewis' Acorn H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Red- breasted Sapsucker (S hyra icus ruber) Nuttall's Woodaecker (Picoides nuttallii) I Northern Flicker Olive -sided Flycatcher (Sayornis ni ricans) (Conto us borealis) Western Wood -Pewee Ash - throated Flycatcher (Conto us sordidulus) Willow Flycatcher (Tyrannus verticalis) (Em idonax trailhi) Hammond's Flycatcher (Eremo hila al estris) (Emaidonax hammondii) Black Phoebe (Sayornis ni ricans) Say's Phoebe (Savornis sava) Ash - throated Flycatcher (ATyiarchus cinerascens) Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) FAMILY. ALAUDIDAE' Larks . ; .. .. . Horned Lark (Eremo hila al estris) TAMILY HIRUNDINIME. Swallows . Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Violet-green Swallow (Tachvcineta thalassina) Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stet ido teryx serri ennis) Cliff Swallow (Hirundo vrrhonota) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) . ;:FAMILY. CORVIDAE: Ja s, . a ies; and Crows ..... ................: Steller's Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) Scrub Jay (A helocoma coerulescens) Yellow - billed Magpie (Pica nuttalli) American Crow (Corvus brachvrhynchos) Common Raven (Corvus corax) sFA -MILY. PARIDAE 'Titmiice .. .. Chestnut- backed Chickadee (Parus ru escens) Plain Titmouse (Parus inornatus) TAMILY .AEGITHALIDAE. Bushtit >' .. _._ ...... . Bushtit (Psaltri arus minimus) FAMILY. SITTIDAE Nuthatches White - breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) ;FAMILY CERTHIIDAE Cree' ers Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) FAMILY TROGI.ODYTIDAE. Wrens Rock Wren (Sal inctes obsoletus) Bewick's Wren (Thrvomanes bewickii) House Wren (Tro lodvtes aedon) H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Lark S arrow (Chondestes rammacus) Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) Song Sparrow (Melos iza melodia) Lincoln's Sparrow (Melos iza lincolnii Golden -crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atrica ilia) White - crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leuco h s) Dark-eyed Junco (Junco h emalis) Red-winged Blackbird (A elaius hoeniceus) Western Meadowlark (Sturnella ne lecta) Brewer's Blackbird (Eu ha us c anoce halus) Brown- headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus) Northern Oriole (Icterus albula) FAMILY :FRINGILLIDAE inches . Purple Finch (Car odacus ur ureus) House Finch (Car odacus mexicanus) Pine Siskin (Carduelis inus) Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis sahria) Lawrence's Goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei) American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) FAMILY .PASSERIDAE Weaver Finches House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) ....... ...... . . ORDER <MARSUPIALIA (Opossums, Kangaroos, :and Rela. ices) ORDER <INSECTIVORA Shrews and Moles .. ;:FAMILY. SORICIDAE Shrews .. _ .... ..... ... ...... _. ..... ..... Ornate Shrew (Sorex ornatus) ::FAMILY ,TALPIDAE Moles Broad - footed Mole I (Scapanus latimanus) II Yuma Fringed Myotis (ATyotis th sanodes Long-legged M otis (M otis volans) California M otis (M otis tali ornicus) Western Pi istrelle (Pi istrellus hes erus) Big Brown Bat (E tesicus uscus) Western Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis) Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) Townsend's Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES BARRIE D. &ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 - 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 • RECEIVED FED 22, 199,9 ruaiVIVING DEPT A COMMENTARY ON THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES AT THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION /TRINITY PLACE SITE 20851 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: James Walgren City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit By: Barrie D. Coate February 6, 1995 Job #02 -95 -016 BARRIE D. &ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 A COMMENTARY ON THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES AT THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION /TRINITY PLACE SITE 20851 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD SARATOGA Purpose of This Report The purpose of this report is to offer information about the health, structure and usefulness of the 120 trees which meet or exceed the trunk diameter controlled by ordinance of the City of Saratoga, or are otherwise significant. Background The site is located at the southeast end of an area bordered by Pontiac Avenue on the west and south, by Trinity Avenue on the east, and by Saratoga Hills Road on the southwest. Soil in much of the site, except in the old orchard areas, is a very dense, sticky, yellow clay, which inhibits root growth of those species which require well drained soils. The current developer, Trinity Development Company of Campbell, California, would like to develop the site into ten lots. A seasonal stream wanders through the site, primarily from the south in Lot 6 to the north in Lot 8. A family of deer have made this protected area their home and are seen frequently wandering through the property. The property is quite steep in the western portion, primarily in Lot 7, but slopes gently toward the east in the rest of the property. The majority of the trees on site are older apricot trees which occupy approximately one -third of the total property in areas currently defined as Lots 3, 2, 1, 10, 9 and part of 8. The majority of the rest of the trees on the property are a broad mixture of species, most of which were planted here and are not indigenous to the sight. 1 0 A COMMENTARY ON THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES AT THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION/TRINITY PLACE SITE 20851 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD SARATOGA The few indigenous specimens include California Bay, Umbellularia californica, Valley Oak, uercus lobata, and a few Coast Live Oaks, Quercus agrifolia. Other species native to California but not indigenous to the site are Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens, Giant Sequoia, Sequoiadendron gi ang teum, Incense Cedar, Calocedrus decurrens, Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuea menziesii, and Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata. The remainder are a broad mix of exotic species, the names of which are listed on the enclosed chart. A double row of Chines Pistachios is seen on the south margin of the property. Most are poor specimens as individuals. The dominant species of the non - native ones on site is Italian Stone Pine, Pinus ip nea, of which there are several large specimens. In the upper portion of the property, in Lot 7, there are numerous Eucalyptus low, Tasmanian Blue Gum. The next most dominant tree on the site is Deodara Cedar, Cedrus deodara, many of which may be seen in Lot 7. Condition of Trees The indigenous species are performing well where sufficient light is accessible for their canopies. Some fine, healthy Valley Oaks and several very healthy California Bays may be seen on this site. By examining the health and structure ratings on the enclosed charts, on can assume that of the most of the Deodar Cedars, Monterey Pines and Incense Cedars are in very poor condition, due to the combination of low light levels and very poorly drained soil. The Redwoods are primarily a dense grove on the north side of the site on Lot 8. Construction Damage Control/Prevention When it comes time to deal with location of specific building footprints on the site, specific tree preservation detail will have to be defined. 4 PFF • w A COMMENTARY ON THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES AT THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION /TRINITY PLACE SITE 20851 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD SARATOGA The trees of greatest value which deserve the greatest protection are probably trees #11 and 12, large Valley Oaks. These trees should be protected from activity in any area beneath their canopies and should have remedial steps taken to improve their health and structure. Any Italian Stone Pines which might be retained, such as trees #34 and 35, will require extensive pruning, cabling and remedial structural work to make them structurally safe. California Bays, such as #13, are notoriously intolerant of adjacent construction activity and will require careful root zone protection. When the adjacent existing building is demolished, it will be essential that the demolition equipment and crews work from the inside of the house to pull the walls adjacent to trees #11 and 13 inward rather than attempting to work from the outside, directly between the trees. This is an important point which must be made very clear to the demolition contractor before he starts and for which inspections should be made as demolition is occurring. In the case of trees #35 and 36, the very large Coast Live Oak #36 would benefit from the removal of Italian Stone Pine #35, which is overshadowing the Oak and significantly reducing the Oak's value. Most of the Pines along the north perimeter of the project are in very poor condition. The majority of the Monterey Pines on site are extremely tall with foliage only in the upper quarter of the canopy height. These trees have relatively poor trunk diameter in relation to that height and, as a result, are all subject to wind throw. This problem is accentuated as surrounding trees are removed which allows higher wind velocities into the middle of a grove. For the long term benefits of the site and the community, I recommend that all of these tall, straggly Monterey Pines be removed. N 0 0 A COMMENTARY ON THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES AT THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION/TRINITY PLACE SITE 20851 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD SARATOGA I suggest that the few Coast Live Oaks along this margin, which are slightly smaller than the 10 inch diameter which we control, be retained religiously as though they were labeled trees since they will supply virtually the only screen remaining on this part of the project once the Pines are removed. This site is one of those unfortunate situations where good forestry practices would remove virtually 90 percent of the trees on the site, leaving very few trees and no doubt causing a rather severe reaction from the adjacent residents. In order to avoid that extreme reaction it will probably be necessary to keep all of the Redwoods possible toward the north of the project, keep all of the usable native Oaks, and keep a few of the larger Conifers merely to avoid leaving a stripped looking site. BDC:kc Enclosures: Charts aN in lu R ectfully sub itt d � K�7J Barrie D. Coate Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs_ -Sest/Disease Problems JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02'05'016 DATE: 2/6/95 1~BEST.6~VVORST page 7:: Chinese Pistachio 8: 8: Chinese Pistachio 10: LU z M 18: T- w P= Z w 0 0 w LU X LU >- -j 0 0ujLu<0zi.-wi,-wzw0000n OU-) < wx cr I(-n- z 8 rn 9 -1 M D LU Lij < 0 > U i2 0 M F- 3: Lu z 0 2 Ir I= 2 = cc 3:1 Plant Name 0 M1 0 1 0 -8 2: X CC , C1 0 C1 0 0- 0- !E: F- w - JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02'05'016 DATE: 2/6/95 1~BEST.6~VVORST page 7:: Chinese Pistachio 8: 8: Chinese Pistachio 10: 9 Italian Stone Pine 18: JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02'05'016 DATE: 2/6/95 1~BEST.6~VVORST page 4111 Measurements .. Condition.. Pruning /Cabling Needs_ Pest/Disease Problems No BARRIE D. COATE 1 1 1 3 3 0:: 3 0 -2 , 2 4 e? p C7 `n G w c) r AND ASSOCIATES Quercus lobata N TQ 0 N 1 Z Z� 12:: Valle Oak y _..... - �C C7 /saw w W 2 LO ' TOU - � T r N J ~Z -33 Horticultural Consultants 1 .. -2' ........ ...... _ W Umbellularia californica UE��OU Z Q F* �Zj�z�����Y U. Z }� W 0 W �wa��� 0 u- LU Q Q »� (408)353 -1052 tu- ..._. ----------- ----- - F=- Cupressus sem ervirens 15 Incense Cedar W W Qom~ 45::2 jHW 3i 1' 4 -- ----- _ --- --- _- _.___.. .. _. -. - ----- o J o 0 o C'3 i Q1rZl iu~iB� -Q� �UVV �jO�mZ)�W �UOWCUdd?�F5�� 1 6 Coast Live Oak OU¢�v= mHW0 Zccccc,cWCa 2 ; 1 [Tree #1 Plant Name - -- - - - - -- Quercus a rifolia c°n 17:: Coast Live Oak - ............... _9.... '- ........ 10 35:_27 1 2 10:; Chinese Pistachio 1 1 1 3 3 0:: 3 0 -2 , 2 4 _..... 1 1 Valle Oak - _..,.- - -- - -- - - - - - - -- : -.. _... Quercus lobata 12:: Valle Oak y _..... - 2 9:: - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- 31. --- ---- -- 5 5 64 2 2: 4' - ' 13 California Bay _... - - ......y _ .............. 13 :....... .........._..._....: - .�- 5...4� -33 1 .. -2' ........ ...... _ _... - - Umbellularia californica 14 Italian Cypress _.. : yp .......... .. .. ....._......_........... 9 - - :...... ._, ......:._......: 9...45.....6...1:2: 3 ..._. ----------- ----- - ...... ........ ... Cupressus sem ervirens 15 Incense Cedar 16. 18 45::2 7 3i 1' 4 -- ----- _ --- --- _- _.___.. .. _. -. - ----- Calocedrus decurrens 1 6 Coast Live Oak 1 5': - ..._.... ....... -45- .3 -6 2 ; 1 3 : _...... - -- - - - - -- Quercus a rifolia 17:: Coast Live Oak - ............... _9.... '- ........ 10 35:_27 1 2 3 - - __. 1 8 Valle Oak _.- y - ._..... - ;.. 31 J .....1.6 - 3 5 5 0.5 7 1 2. -....3 ........ .. - : - ....... -- -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- - --- JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2 /6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 2 Measurements Condition Pruning /Cabling Needs Pest /Disease Problems — i `� �_ lb BARRIE D. COATE '� 1 9 California Bay - 1 1 ...... C7 O 48 C7 `� G T 2 2 5 5 3 0 w N 2 ...... r AND ASSOCIATES .... ..... W a l$ Z� '� 0 N Z Z0 �j �UZw Z 3 Uj w0 r ��Ow ....?' T }Q a? �QW J G Horticultural Consultants c 2 2 Incense Cedar 1 -� 1 2 2 5::15 0 ch 2 H F W Z H O w 0 w w T J Q J>' Q H (408) 353 -1052 0 � 3 1 .. 4 _. - -- -- - -- - - .. - - - - -- _.... - -i:)0 Cedrus deodara (D 0 0 Z U O w OJZ0U,w U) C'3 Z_ — F— 6C cn <0Z�UJ Y U) azwp0000 w a: 2 » m 0 J Z) m 0 m 0 a 0 (D w = LU a cn <a:z wl—gQ m(n cc 1-000 Qa�o�ac a:c�c�Uc�o�c.)a�c�aa �nO�m��WWWa> arwQO� z�oo� > � wml— oc=n�zwwwcc Wc.�2�- ITree # Plant Name JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 3 1 9 California Bay - 1 1 ...... . 24 48 2 0 Incense Cedar 2 0 2 2 5 5 3 0 3: 2 ...... 5 ........ .... ..... - -- - _... 21': Incense Cedar 15: 1 6 50 :: 1 8 3 4 ....?' - � 1 2 2 Incense Cedar 1 -� 1 2 2 5::15 3: 2 5 - - 2 3: Deodar Cedar 1 ........ ........ -..... �. 3...6 0 1 8 3 1 .. 4 _. - -- -- - -- - - .. - - - - -- _.... - .. - Cedrus deodara 2 4 Deodar Cedar 1 3 ._...... 1 5 7 0 2 0 3 1 ......4 .._... - -- - - - - -- s 2 5 Deodar Cedar 2.�........... ' ............. �.�...� � -3.5 ...----- 1 4' _. __... - - 26'. Silver Maple . - ...... 1 3 4 1 2 244550 .. .. _ 3 3 :6 ..... . .. ..._... _ .... . ........ .. Acer saccharinum 27Jeffre Pine ............... -- y ------- _------------- - - - - -- --------------- 20_: -' - - - - -- -------- - 24 65:27 31 4 - - - Pinus jeffreyi JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 3 Measurements " Condition Needs': est /Disease Problem= BARRIE D. COATE 9 6 ....................... ........._......._._..... 1.3...25- -------- � ? ... - �.. 2 9': Douglas Fir g..... - ...... . - ............ 1 6 - ... -- -- - - -: - --- - -.... 200 70: 1 8 .. dead . .... .. . . .... - -- C7 -- - Pseudotsu a menziesii `� T '" w N M IL AND ASSOCIATES w a 0 �a o N co Z ? �j 6 Z 3 Zw wo T a? LO row Q LO r-�LU J LU J� Horticultural Consultants (408) 353 -1052 1 5 . .. . ..... . . .._- -- - .....,....... -. 1 6 6 0: 3 3 W � � = JM0Z�Z �.. O U m q� W z 0 H U W 3 w ? 3' ...__. ..._.... U. 2 Q Q i= 3 3 Coast Redwood _ o 1 1 _ o _ 0 ¢ 0 C'3 u, = a cn ¢ccz� wl—O¢ =cnO� ------------ - -- - -- - - -- ::Sequoia sem ervirens H-00 ¢a�a�a� ���� �ijOm�— wa�w¢ocmz�oo� oc���aa_ ���z0wwwQZ�j�wzHm0000 0 ocUn�zo=x1ira m w Tree# Plant Name ° 28:: Silver Maple __... P ....... - ....- 9 6 ....................... ........._......._._..... 1.3...25- -------- -3 4 ? ... - �.. 2 9': Douglas Fir g..... - ...... . - ............ 1 6 - ... -- -- - - -: - --- - -.... ..... -1 8 ............... 70: 1 8 .. dead . .... .. . . .... - -- - -- - Pseudotsu a menziesii 30 Monterey Pine ..._......... - -- y -- ------ - - - - -- - - - -- 1 -6 19 60 30 2:3: ------------------------ 5: - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - --------- Pinus radiata 31 Douglas Fir _........ 9 ....- ............. ......... .................. 1 5 . .. . ..... . . .._- -- - .....,....... -. 1 6 6 0: 3 3 4 1 ......5 -....: ..... �.. 32; Valle Oak _....._._...,._. -.. -Y .... ............. - ------ .............._ - - - -- 1 2!:. .. - -- ......_.. ..... x.4...3.5..40...1 ? 3' ...__. ..._.... -- -- _ _ --- . - .. . ... -- ......_ 3 3 Coast Redwood _..._ ...1.0 ... -.. 1 1 4 0 24 2 1 - -3 - - - - -.. ------------ - -- - -- - - -- ::Sequoia sem ervirens 34:Italian Stone Pine- .......: 27 60':60 1 3 4': ........ 1 _.. - _ -- 35Italian Stone Pine 26: -... 28 55. 5?...1.- 2 ................ - - - - -- - ---- _... 36Italian Stone Pine 32 31 40:63..2:.?- 4. ... 1 - JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 4 s Measurements '. Condition'. Pruning /Cabling Needs_ _ est /Disease Problems BARRIE D. COATE 9 .._. 10 30:: 30 U,j 3 5 ........ - - . - -- - �? -- - - - - -. - -- 38 Chinese Pistachio _.. ----------- - - - - -- ...._ --------- - - - - 8 -- - - -- ... --- - - - - -- --------- . -- _..... O p 2 - C'3 w 6: ...... I ............ ........ i ._.... 'n ' ' 9 20:30 m w 2 CV) AND ASSOCIATES - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - ---------------------------- N U w o N °,' Z Z� �j 1 0 .............. - - .....__.------ z mpw 2 5 w r 1 ......5' —0U - __ } r Sequoiadendron g ganteum �HZ J Horticultural Consultants 41 Coast Redwood 1 -4;.- _...i..- - _....;.1.5...5.5 D Z M -1 .. = W _... - w Z } Oo w O 0 LU w r w LL Q Q~ (408) 353 -1052 50..�?.. 2 1 r1J JD�Z�ZU 4 3 . Coast Redwood 1.3- ...... _...1 6...5 0 3 0 2 O�> 3 - _ .. .. JZpw1)<oz - -...- Co - -- 0 � 6 o 0 o C7 i can ¢a:Z i -81 - - - -- ►— o¢cUVV 00 �jO ��o mD �aa?�oo� — ¢> 45'. Silk Oak > 0 �wz�0000� oU)3 m :zMir 20 4 5 - IT Plant Name 3 7 Chinese Pistachio 9 .._. 10 30:: 30 2 3 5 ........ - - . - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -. - -- 38 Chinese Pistachio _.. ----------- - - - - -- ...._ --------- - - - - 8 -- - - -- ... --- - - - - -- --------- . -- _..... 1 0 - - -- -------- 2 0:.21 --- - -...- 2 - 4 :...... - 6: ...... I ............ ........ i ._.... 39 Chinese Pistachio 9 9 20:30 2 2 4 - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - ---------------------------- 4 0 Giant Sequoia ..........., - - - -- - q_. -- ......._- - - - - -- __.._........_ 1 0 .............. - - .....__.------ ::12 ......_...., 2 5 1 0 ... _.......... 4 1 ......5' ........ - __ _..... - -- - - -- - - Sequoiadendron g ganteum 41 Coast Redwood 1 -4;.- _...i..- - _....;.1.5...5.5 :27 ..2.: -1 .. 3 __. _... - 42Coast Redwood - .........`..._1 3 15 50..�?.. 2 1 3 - ............. 4 3 . Coast Redwood 1.3- ...... _...1 6...5 0 3 0 2 1 3 - _ .. .. - -- - - ...... - -...- - 4 4 Coast Redwood...... - -- 0 � 6 3 0 3 9 ...2 4 ....... 6 .. -- - - - -- - -- 45'. Silk Oak 18: 1 9 50 20 4 5 - 9 - - ' Grevillea robusta JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 5 Measurements �. Condition'. Pruning /Cabling Needs.: est /Disease Problem= 49 BARRIE D. COATE 9 __......._ 1 0 60:30 L-5 4 6 - - - z G r G T 1 8 5 0' 4 0 c 4 6 AND ASSOCIATES a i� o Z 4 8 Deodar Cedar 1 0 4 1 0 Z w 3. w0 G .3- ........5 ,n Q L9 � U? J Horticultural Consultants w 49 Monterey Pine _... . ..... Y......... - ....._........_._..........__. 14 _...... 1.5...6.5;..36 W � u— zD � � �— (now � W 13 - ............... :._ ....... ~ T r-0v O 0 __.... T - - z (408) 353 -1052 U) 1: f- ��o_ 0 -- — E= C'3 U 4 30 2 � O �O�z > � w— Z EE H 0 00[ � 0 0 � ozi. w -wf- � Q w Q z w w U) 00000 2 j Measurements _' Condition "Pruning /Cabling Needs_ _ est /Disease Problems BARRIE D. COATE 1 5 _........ -1 7 55 .4 5 ...2 L 1 - - - - -- 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 0 0 C7 w t° T} '- 5 6 Coast Live Oak Cr_ N 1 6 - M AND ASSOCIATES 1 2'•. 3 - - a ._ - - - - - -_ Q r w o 1 N — z Z �j D Z C7 //� V, w w T 0 U T � T 5 5 J F- Z 5 Horticultural Consultants � ____. - - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- w = O C7007 M U _ Q F �zw�z— w LLJ z �} H F -�fn�Y w 0 0 w w �wCr c/� w - - -- <4 �- »� (408)353 -1052 ED 0 H D 2 m o m 0 � Q o � W z 2 6— cn ��ozocZ L:u W�OQ 1 QtZQQ trUUU 59:: Montere Pine - - - -- -- .Y.. - - -- ....._- .... ......... O�Q�z�VUQOZF oCUCc �LU< Udd? c r 2 z T 00E- W Q -- O U <wwp0000 T=) 0(n3:ZlrOCQd - wW 2 W W Q Free #1 Plant Name 55 Deodar Cedar 1 5 _........ -1 7 55 .4 5 ...2 1 - - - - -- 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 6 Coast Live Oak 1 4 - - - -- 1 6 - 4 5 5 0 1 2'•. 3 - - ._ - - - - - -_ 5 7 Coast Live Oak 1 1 J 7 6 4 0 5 5 3 2 5 ............ ____. - - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 5 8 Coast Live Oak _�..5; ------- 1 1 '- ....._8.:..........4.0 4 8.2:2:...._4 ! .... J 2 ....- - - -- - ... ........ - . ....._. - ..... .... 59:: Montere Pine - - - -- -- .Y.. - - -- ....._- .... ......... -- -- - -- - 1.0... _... . 1 1...50; 1 5 1 2 3':........ _... - - 60`. Monterey ine y . 10: - .. .. .............. 1 1 55s 25 3` 3 6' .. ----------- -- ..... .- J 61 Monterey Pine 1 3 14 ..... - _...50.3 0 23 5 _.. - - 62 Montere Pine _....._.__.... -.. y...- - -- -- - - - - -- - ..... ......._-- 1 6 ............-- .....- - ........ ..............:.........__..... :18 50 30 2 4 6 ......_ _ - - J 1 _...... 63 Monterey Pine ....... - - y - -- - - - -- - - - - -_ ----- - - - - -- - 15:: - -- -------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - ------------ ::17 60:30 1::3:: .. -4 JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 7 Measurements Condition _ _ Pruning /Cabling Needs Pest /Disease Problems < - BARRIE D. COATE 13 ....... ...... - -- . 15 ......... 60:25 -------- W 3i 5 ... . - -- - U 0 0 w> `n 1 6 W 3 cry IL AND ASSOCIATES 65 Monterey . Pine.... - .. ...................... .:... 1- ..........__. u_ N -3. -- to _....:......_ o r Q> �7y Z Z 66 Coast Live Oak 7 O Z> Lu 0 `n Lo 3' C) Q T u1 -i G Horticultural Consultants H 6 7 Coast Live Oak ........ �.. r 2 5..3 N 0 Ch Q Z H Q 7C 1= (� 0 W W Z r Z *- p >S W� O U 0 LU w r W T! � H W� Z Q Q� (408)353 -1052 40::30 � 2 : 1 ; W W � -- ;.. - - :_....:......:.... - 2 F-OEzcrz zoCz U Z O >W 0�� CC(.)0 UUQ0Z 1 2 �Y 30:20 a: W�QzW00000 -WLUU� 1 3 »� ___ _- o H- M 0 m 0 Q 0 LLJ z d cn -i WPQQ 1: � (n +0c Q��� 22000U 7 0 Arizona Cypress 12:: - - - -- -- 13 O= �W U�UadZ O Qo=COC�pW��WOC z - 00� ... - -- -- - - - - -- Cu ressus arizonica O v �Z) 0cn�zol:o000a W W W WQ Tree# Plant Name 64 Monterey Pine - y ..... _ __..... 13 ....... ...... - -- . 15 ......... 60:25 -------- 2 3i 5 ... . - -- - 1 6 2 3 5 65 Monterey . Pine.... - .. ...................... .:... 1- ..........__. 3...55.: -3. -- _....:......_ -- 66 Coast Live Oak 1 0i 8 7 1 5...40' -45 ? 3' - - - -- - ----------------- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -------------------- -- - - - - -- - 6 7 Coast Live Oak ........ �.. -.6.. 2 2 5..3 5 1 2 3 _. ----- - - -. ....... . - - - - -. -- -- - 6 8 ;Coast Redwood. -------- ....._....... 1 -8< � < ..1.2.:... -- :29 40::30 2 : 1 ; 3 :............. -- ;.. - - :_....:......:.... - - - 69 Coast Redwood 1 2 1 2 30:20 2 1 3 __ -_ ___ _- i 7 0 Arizona Cypress 12:: - - - -- -- 13 50:: 1 8 3 3 -- - -. 6 ....... - ................... ... ... - -- -- - - - - -- Cu ressus arizonica 71 Deodar. Cedar. 9.!... - - .._....:..1.1....45. 1 8 3. 1 _..4':........ _ - - 7 2 Arizona C ress - ...... ......--------- - - - - -- - - -- -- - -- ------- - -_ -_- ------- - < - - -- 1 - ------------------ 11 5 5' 1 8 -- - - - - -- 3 2 - 5 ........ - -- - ----------- -- - - -- - - - -------------------------- - - - -- JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 8 Measurements Condition _ Pruning /Cabling Needs_ _ est /Disease Problems BARRIE D. COATE 1.4 - - 15 6 0 3 -5 2 i w - - -- -- ..... - - - - -. - -- -- - - - -...- - - - - � - -- - - -- U O C7 LO T r 9 < .... - -- - 5 5 .1 5 3 w 4 s ........ .. -- AND ASSOCIATES - - - -- ..... 7 5 C ress - - Cy ............ . ..................... 1 0 - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- N - 50::.2.1 - -- - - -3 ,n TW - - - - -5 `.......... - o N C7 - - - - -- Z ZQ U Q— 13:: Z� U) Z W W W T `n r 'n r0(� O Q W � Q `n r �HZ (A N W > Horticultural Consultants 5 ...... c) .... ........ w ::Eucalypt us globulus 2E— p ('jQC'3 w ll�uucnZ z ~1.2R cn OO w O Q Y w Cr W U) Q witw2 W w Q Q »CC (408) 353 -1052 m Q � J m Q m Q ¢ o U' w = Cr a U P J w�8¢ _� c� Q E z Q— Z H Cr- z P ¢oco�oc �UUU wa- oc�oc�aa- O > w— J M <Cr Z D E U W z�ooCr�0U U¢ W W¢� Q z H > ¢ H W oc�n�z��oWCa Z w m~ 00000 W 022 — Tree# Plant Name 7 3 Deodar Cedar 1.4 - - 15 6 0 3 -5 2 i 1 - - - - -- -- ..... - - - - -. - -- -- - - - -...- - - - - - -- - - -- 7 4 Deodar Cedar _....... - -- - -- ------------ ------ 8 - ............ .... - 9 < .... - -- - 5 5 .1 5 3 1 4 s ........ .. -- ':.. - - - -- ..... 7 5 C ress - - Cy ............ . ..................... 1 0 - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - - - - -- - -- 3 - 50::.2.1 - -- - - -3 -2- --- - - - - -5 `.......... - ... - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- 76 Deodar Cedar 13:: -- :15 6.0:..27 3 2 _5........ -- - - - -- 7 7 Tasmanian Blue Gum - 2.0 21 6 5'; 3 5 2' 3 5 ...... - .... ........ ...... ... ::Eucalypt us globulus 78 Tasmanian Blue Gum --------------------------- 31 .... ...........'...... 32 65:45 2 3 -5' .... ...... -- - 3 79: Valle Oak _.._ .... ........... _. 9: _ . 10 35. 30 2! 2 - ..4.'.......... - - - ............ __.<.. 80 Coast Redwood _.. _�.4..._.... 1 5 50': 1 -8 2 1 - -3 - - -- - ..... ----- 81', Valle Oak - -- --- -..... y - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------------------------------------ . 1 -2, 3 3R ?� 1 2' 3' - -; - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 9 Measurements " Condition_ _ Pruning /Cabling Needs_ _ est /Disease Problems : BARRIE D. COATE - ..- 8..... ..�.0 30. -1 8 1 ` w 3' - .. - ' ;� T U O (D 0 Oak........... 12:: `n r T 1 2' 3 w fV Cry r AND ASSOCIATES . , . N _.. o 1 0 �l 1 0 1 0 24 z 1 .3s...... Z 3 wQ r Q `n LO C Horticultural Consultants . 3 1 1 8:36 65:30. 1.. w 4:........ - r w I 00 N M U l L H� D F� jA V/ 0 W w Z U~ r U) T UL O U 0 w T T LJ r Z 2 Q Q� (408)353 -1052 ?..�..... I 45 27 1 tTj � 2 2: �U�UUU F- Eucalyptus camaldulensis z�cnZF VUQ0z�w�QZtjj00000 Y CC ��� w �2 »Q 88: River Red Gum 14: i= 5 0 30 1:3:: - 4 - ... -- - JDoz�Z -- - _. 89 River Red Gum 13: 14 45 24 1 4 �O1Z .... .... 90' Monterey Pine - y M D m m Q w a w�zQ - - _ ------ -- - - - - -- Q��� W�wQ��UwUwcc OR��awwwwcc kee# Plant Name o o 0 0 = cn =cn8ac�000 o[UO[Uaa?F��i-- U�OCn�Z�trma 82': Valle Oak __..._.. .... y ------------------------------ - - --- - - - - -- -- - ..- 8..... ..�.0 30. -1 8 1 ` 2' 3' - .. - Oak........... 12:: :13 30:: 40 1 2' 3 ....8 3.:.Valley . _._ . , . _.. 84 Tasmanian Blue Gum 1 0 �l 1 0 1 0 24 70 30 1 .3s...... 4 - - - -- - -- .. - - - -- - - - - -- --------------------- --- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- 85 Tasmanian Blue Gum . 3 1 1 8:36 65:30. 1.. -3 4:........ - ..._.. ..... ........ . `---- ---- .._ 86 Monterey Pine .............. ...... - ..Y._............_.._ ......_........... 1 1 _..__..:......,.....__... - - - -- .. .... 12 30 20 - - -- -- ......._........,. 4i 1 ! .. -5` ...... - ... 87: Red Gum ?..�..... -.i.1 2 45 27 1 3 4 ........ - - - - -- - _...... Eucalyptus camaldulensis 88: River Red Gum 14: 15 - - 1 5 5 0 30 1:3:: - 4 - ... -- - - _... - -- - _. 89 River Red Gum 13: 14 45 24 1 4 5 .... .... 90' Monterey Pine - y 8 9 - -- - -- 20 1 2 -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- 3 - -- 1 - 4 - -.. - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- _ - - - - -- - - _ ------ -- - - - - -- JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 10 Measurements ` Condition'. Pruning /Cabling Needs Problems BARRIE D. COATE - 1 1.3. 55' 24 1 2 3' ... - _. Z z Lu ' ;� T 0 r 9 2: Coast Live Oak � N 4 3 .. - � AND ASSOCIATES *0 2 0 _._.... 1 - 2 ...... 3- ---- _..:.... a -- -- o Z 6 C7 Z U 2 w 0 w r T O Q 0 Lo T T 1 J G z .3 .' Horticultural Consultants (408)353 -1052 1 0 w = //�� LL. N O F- C7 C�i 00 U� 0 Q F W z (� (n W V 35 0 W w r W Lu 2 Q Q F- _ - z oC Z� 95 Black Acacia O 6 ILI J z U a 0 Z� w H Q Z W 0 0 0 0 0 0 � _ 0 _ 0 o c7 m <a:zf- Lu 8� F-p00 �UVV��v.6. �nO mOEEU) Foo� <Z) 96 Black Acacia > o LnM oc=n3zQ�o�ta 9' 1 6 LU02Tree# 30 2 4 i Plant Name - ....... - - ------------ _._ 97: Red Gum _..... 91 River Red Gum - 1 1.3. 55' 24 1 2 3' ... - _. 9 2: Coast Live Oak 8 4 3 .. - ...... 1 1 2 0 2 0 _._.... 1 - 2 ...... 3- ---- _..:.... - - - - -- -- 93 River Red Gum 8 4 8 7 19 35: 30 .... .3 .' 4 94:: River Red Gum 10: 11 1. 35 ..? 4- . 1 2 3 .. - - _ - 95 Black Acacia 7 6 10 30 24 2 4; 6` _...... Acacia melanoxylon 96 Black Acacia 1 1 �l 10: 9' 1 6 35 30 2 4 i 6' - - ....... - - ------------ _._ 97: Red Gum _..... 8.� ' _ 7 6....... 53..27.1 > 3 4 ..__- _.... 981 River Red Gum 8 9 30 15 1 2' 3 99 Monterey Pine ............ .... y ....--------------------------- - - - - -- ...- 11' - 13 40 :24 -------------- 2 2€ 4 ... •:. - -- - - - ... JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 11 Measurements Condition Pruning /Cabling Needs_ _ est /Disease Problems BARRIE D. COATE -- -- - - - - -- 1 -.... - 1 1 30 -3 -0 1 2 .. 3 - - u? - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - C7 p C'3 'n ' T Pine 1 0 1 1 cc: w 2 7 coy AND ASSOCIATES 4 a 101 : Montere o Z �j ZZ Z wp T T TTOw ,n C Q 2 `: - T��a[w ---- ....... ------ -- .. - - -- -- ------ ------ . --- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Horticultural Consultants : 10 - - - - -- .. ....- 150 - -- --- 18 -- - - w -- 4 - - - - - -- r� = N p U co?p p U U H Q O�Zw F 21 w Z w 0 cn �' w � O � p w w � W � Q Q (408) 353 -1052 4 - -.... - ..... .... - - - - - ----------- - - - - -- -------- F- �ppZOCZ_ U E Z �Q�z > , na` Z_ � UvapzF-wf-- 9n: A7 Y I azwpp000 wmF W LLJ U) � m p m m Q C7 w a QoCZF- X000 �nO2mp�wWWQp wQO��z�[Lnw 0 pc=i��z�aWCOWCa - Wv��— Tree# Plant Name p p p p z cn =cnOoC MU) Ir oCUUUUacUO�Ua a: 0!01 -a- 100: Valle Oak _...._... y - - .... _.. -- -- - - - - -- 1 -.... - 1 1 30 -3 -0 1 2 .. 3 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - Pine 1 0 1 1 2 5. 2 7 2 2'• 4 101 : Montere - - 102: Montere Pine - y------------ - - - - -- -- ----- - - - - -- 9 l..�.0...40 1 8 ........ 2: 2 `: - 4' - -- -- ---- ....... ------ -- .. - - -- -- ------ ------ . --- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 103 Montere y Pine ..... ............ _ ........... : 10 - - - - -- .. ....- 150 - -- --- 18 -- - - - 2:2 -- 4 - - - - - -- . - - .. ----------------- ........ - - - - -- - 104: Monterey Pine _....__..; .............. Y........ - 1 3 _....... ----- -..... 1 4- - 5 -0 21 2 - 2 : -- -- 4 .... .. - -- .. - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- 105: Monterey Pine - ; - - Y -- 9 ' - . _._...... - �. 4.5. 5 2 ` 2 ` : - 4 - -.... - ..... .... - - - - - ----------- - - - - -- -------- , na` 1 1 ,/ 1 n: Q 1 3 9n: A7 1: 9 R! JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2 /6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 12 Measurements Condition ` Pruning /Cabling Needs Pest /Disease Problems ► C BARRIE D. COATE 9 - .....1 0 30 1 5 1 w -2 - -- u? O ZO 1 10 Monterey Pine 1 0: - -- - - - -- `° r 2 - - - -- ....... 1 : 3 ... - -- -- -- w - - -- -------------- - - - -- M T AND ASSOCIATES 10 - _...... .11 35:27 2':1 N 3'........ _;......... � 1 r r w o 1 N o 1 Z Z �j Z p W r *- 9 9 p O Q U r 4 1 H a Z Horticultural Consultants 10:: - - .._......._ ......... ...... W 40::25 ............... 2 ; . a: 4:: ... -._. _...... Z O 16 - ..... -- -- U M H W it - F u W Z W W z O>- U) W 00 w p W w Q LU W J 2 Q J>. Q t (408)353 -1052 W � � FUEOpO Jpp— ZoCZ_ 1.5..x.. 4`......._...:.16 ���� Z O 6 jW— OJZ_OW w— - -' - UUQ � pzH Y � W�wZF <LUW(n Q w 00 »� 0 1 16 Italian Stone Pine m p H p m p m 0 a UJ 2 cn W�pZpQ =(nOa: - �...... 1 17 Coast Redwood QQ�Q �UUU - -- 2 4 0 : 1 2 1 : W�W<Cr o�Ua:0aa?�p0E- -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - W W TWIt O �ZQW --pO (n�Z WWWIC WSW a Tree# Plant Name 109: Coast Live Oak 9 - .....1 0 30 1 5 1 -1 -2 - -- - 1 10 Monterey Pine 1 0: - -- - - - -- : 1 1 - -- - ----- -- 40 ` 2 7 --------- -- - - - - -- - 2 - - - -- ....... 1 : 3 ... - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - - -- -------------- - - - -- - - - - -- - • 111: Montere Pine _------ - -.... y 10 - _...... .11 35:27 2':1 3'........ _;......... ------- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 112: Coast Live Oak 9 9 1 3 2 5: 3 5 2: 4 6- - 113:: Monterey Pine - .... Y .............. - ........ - - ... - - -- -- 10:: - - .._......._ ......... ...... 1 -.1. 40::25 ............... 2 ; . 2 - 4:: ... -._. _...... 114Montere Pine .......... ... Y - ...... - - ..._.... - ... - 16 - ..... -- -- 17 -- ,...... 45;36 3: 2 ...._5... - - - - - -- -- - - -_ . - : 1 15: Italian Stone Pine 1.5..x.. 4`......._...:.16 ..5 0 .4 2 ...3 .3 . 6 - - - -- - - - - -- > - ............._... -- .... ...- < -- - - -- .. - -' - 1 16 Italian Stone Pine 1 2: 8 .. ....._.'.1 5 4 5 4 0 2 4 :.. - 6: - - ........ - �...... 1 17 Coast Redwood 1 -' - - - - -- - -- - -- -- - -- 2 4 0 : 1 2 1 : 2 -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 13 Measurements _ Condition Pruning /Cabling Needs = est /Disease Problems w BARRIE D. COATE 1 2 �I ': 1 0 1 0 1 6 25:: 4 5 ...1 LU 3 s .. 't? 1 19 Coast Live Oak 9 1 0 18:20 O 1 2 3- (7 .. ...... - - - 12 0 Coast Live Oak 9- r 20:20 - 1: 1 2- w N AND ASSOCIATES a w o rn Z Z= Z U p W W LO r m T p Q U `n T u� '' T J H p Z W ® r�ZN c� W F ZW LLJ Z Ow p p �wLU_j 2 <4 ~ Horticultural Consultants (408)353 -1052 w =- J��ZD:Z_ I,, O z p z U Q 9 w >JZOwW O �_ Z H L a w � LU 2 Z�pQ000 w m p J m p m¢ p o (7 w z a U) ¢cczP: wF-8¢ cn m P00 ¢aco�o� CUUU rn0 way o�UO�Uaa_ mom— ¢o�a�zFEo� WpZ�w�W ¢> >R OU�pc=i��zQ�oWCa m wc���- Tree# Plant Name 118:: Coast Live Oak 1 2 �I ': 1 0 1 0 1 6 25:: 4 5 ...1 2 3 s .. 1 19 Coast Live Oak 9 1 0 18:20 1 2 3- ... .. ...... - - - 12 0 Coast Live Oak 9- 10 20:20 - 1: 1 2- - .......... I _.. ...... JOB TITLE: Community Foundation/Trinity Place JOB #02 -95 -016 DATE: 2/6/95 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST page 14 S7,0 rat .14 99.'.r' :101 104 103 105 g 97 -0 2 9 102 li s 92:' ' 941 > 91 93 108 V is. 10919-1 88 106 69 - 0 114:,' --q , . A.,1 87." 110 13 115. 0107 ' " " ' 0., 59600 85 1 w 83 112 62 117 5 84.. 63 61 56, " 66'a� 5 ti1 0 1 %82-- 68)-� S' 66? 65 V 70 a 71 54 79 04 i 72,E 53 • Y �4- ix �20 46 9 3 4 t.*;- 45 '76P 7 51 44 77,@ 75 47 5 �43 0 4 78 Az 0 X 27 0 .3 41 28 40 A P.1 P1 3� 61 24 35 V) 25 if Cy': CM -9/ i36 15 -114 34 37, 179 9' 038 12 16 0, 4J -739 12500 SF- '10 0- k.. 18 Tree numbers correspond 9• 0 to evaluation charts. Vat 1• 7 All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. FO 61 BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES Los Gatos, Ca 95030 $1 23535 Summit Rd (408)353.1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists An Analysis of Trees at community Foundation/Trinity Plac Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Job #01-95-016 DATE:2/6/95 SCALE: NONE 19 0 5 4 --- . 1• - „G1 / I j 0 J 108 • , '' •, \ ,• �' � ' Q � ,�, 110 ' 113 fir• 115•,: ,x•116 ; I ` 62�:,r, 9 '' • ,. �I 8 .:3 � 61 �, '. t, ., �•; � �'� �' AVENUE - -- ...-- - - - -.. ,,• 60'?15 is o 83 t i` t 54.'• 'r' ', • 4' r',, 119 46 51 1 120 e: • -44 47, i`2sdii sF. 1`0 ZD 42 •.ti. i'27' 1 2500 SF_ )8•�, 41 •` 40 APN.. 503 =49 =4 0500 SF_ • 26' L in 33 • a ' N N N 25 : 36 • i 4 ;7• — - -105' 102' ' ., a 3B ' i 1 80 12 / � y •'. • 39 12500 SF- N 10' .;;• . h 2 `� '•'9RF9 r 3 13500 SF_ 0 9p. 4 2500 SF_ t• °s , 8 6 ' o ;! I � ” Qom, ; 0 .0 4 s 2 T PONT 1A C .... �` „'_•a.'' ~ L;PNnS OF `'C'HjV LANDS OF CO LEMA CETY of S ARATOGA 13777 FRUTTVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Perlin, Director of Public Works DATE: July 31, 1995 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Review (S3005B) RE: Trinity Place, SD -94 -05 Saratoga Hills Road and Trinity Avenue At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: • Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Freeman-Kern Associates, Inc.., dated July 14, 1995; and • Site Development Plan, Sheet 2 of 3 (1 sheet, 40- scale) prepared by NA Engineering, dated December 13, 1994, revision date unknown. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files and examined historical aerial photographs. DISCUSSION According to the referenced plan, the applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 5 -acre property into 9 lots. We previously provided comments and recommendations for a proposed 10 -lot subdivision on the same parcel (review memorandum dated February 16, 1995). The property is bounded on the northeast, east and southwest by Trinity Avenue, Pontiac Avenue and Saratoga Hills Road, respectively. Developed residential lots border the northwestern property boundary. Most existing structures on the property are located on proposed lots 7 and 8 in the south - central portion of the property. These include an old farmhouse, adjacent shed, split -level residence and two garages. In addition, a natural drainage course has been modified to create an enclosed pond, dry at the time of our inspection, in the central portion of the property (vicinity of proposed lots 5, 7 and 8). Although not indicated on the referenced Site Development Plan, we assume that all existing structures will be demolished and removed from the property as part of the proposed development. Larry Perlin Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS July 31, 1995 S3005B The natural topography has been locally modified by grading activities associated with farming, residential development and construction of Saratoga Hills Road. The hillsides have been modified by construction of several terraces (small benches) associated with farming activities. In addition, the eastern margin of the ridge is rimmed by a cut slope extending across the property. The northern - central segment of the cut slope was graded to allow access to the residences in the south - central portion of the property, and is 10 to 15 feet high with an average slope gradient of 50 percent. The southernmost segment was graded in order to create a flat pad for construction of two garages. This segment is cut into the nose of the ridge axis, is 15 feet high with a gradient of 65 percent, and has a 4- foot -high wood wall at the base of the slope. A minor amount of fill has been placed in the north - central and south - central portions of the property to help create level grades for vehicular access. In addition, a 5- to 15 -foot high cut slope forms the margin of Saratoga Hills Road along the southwestern property boundary. An east - flowing creek drains the canyon area located south and west of the property. This creek flows along the southern side of Saratoga Hills Road, then enters a buried storm drain across from the central portion of the property and follows Saratoga Hills Road to the southeast. Stereoscopic examination of historical aerial photographs reveal that the natural creek channel turned northward and flowed across the central portion of the property toward Trinity Avenue and Malcolm Avenue prior to creek filling on the property. Drainage in the western portion of the property is characterized by sheetflow toward the south where it is intercepted by the storm drain system along Saratoga Hills Road. Drainage in the remainder of the property generally is toward the east and northeast where it is intercepted by storm drain systems on Trinity Avenue and Pontiac Avenue. The subject property is underlain, at depth, by sedimentary bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation (semi - consolidated conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and potentially expansive claystone). Sandstone and conglomerate are exposed in the cut slope located in the south - central portion of the property. Z he bedrock is buried by alluvial fan deposits in the eastern portion of the property. Gravelly silty sand and gravelly sandy clay (slopewash and colluvium) overlie the Santa Clara Formation in the western portion of the property. Thick colluvium is present in a broad hillside swale on the south - facing slope in the western corner of the property. This area may have experienced landsliding in the past, and conditions appear to be similar to those in the vicinity of an active landslide located several hundred feet westward on the adjacent property. In addition, the old cut slopes along the southern and eastern rim of the hillside area locally show indications of surficial instability (e.g., slumps and raveling). Larry Perlin Page 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION July 31, 1995 S3005B In our. previous review memorandum, we noted that most of the property is feasible for residential development from a geotechnical standpoint. However, development locally is constrained by instability and creep of natural and artificial slopes, poor drainage conditions, and the seismic setting of the site. The referenced geologic and geotechnical report addresses these constraints. According to the geologic consultant, bedrock lithology and structure are consistent across the property, indicating that the topographic lineation in the center of the property is not likely to represent an active fault. We note that the logs of these excavations (included in the report) do not portray bedrock structure, and a representative from our office did not observe the subsurface exposures. Thus we can not independently verify the consultants conclusions. However, we agree with the consultant that there is no geologic evidence for faulting on the property. The proposed building sites appear to be feasible for development from a geotechnical standpoint. The referenced report satisfactorily addresses geotechnical conditions in the general vicinity of most of the proposed building sites, and provides general geotechnical design criteria that are appropriate for site conditions. We recommend approval of the Tentative Map with the understanding that site - speficic investigations be performed on lots 5, 7, 8 and 9 prior to Geotechnical Clearance for these lots. The site - specific investigations should be performed to define and evaluate local conditions in more detail so that subdivision -level geotechnical design criteria can be modified to reflect these local conditions: 1. Site - Specific Investigations for lots 5 7 8 and 9 - Prior to Geotechnical Clearance for developments on lots 5, 7, 8 and 9, site - specific geologic and geotechnical investigations shall be performed. As part of these investigations, the applicants' geologic and geotechnical consultants shall: (1) review the referenced subdivision report by Freeman -Kern Associates, Inc. and City review memorandums, (2) identify and evaluate areas on the lots underlain by surficial materials (fill, colluvium, landslide and fan deposits), (3) evaluate the long -term stability of slopes on the lots (including artificial and natural slopes), and (4) provide supplemental geotechnical design recommendations, as needed, for the proposed construction. The investigations should include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: • An original -, engineering geologic map and cross sections should be prepared at an appropriate scale (i.e., 1:480 or larger) for each lot. The maps and cross sections should extend beyond the lot boundaries to ensure that offsite conditions have been considered with respect to the proposed developments. Engineering geologic maps and cross sections should provide the following information: (1) extent and probable thickness of surficial earth materials (including existing fill, colluvium, landslides, and alluvium or fan deposits), Larry Perlin July 31, 1995 Page 4 S3005B (2) natural and artificial slopes and slope profiles, (3) type and structural orientation of underlying bedrock, (4) location and extent of filled creek channel, and (5) locations of existing and proposed structures and improvements. The field map created as part of the City's geologic and geotechnical review should be reviewed by consultants for general guidance; however, more detailed maps and cross sections should be prepared by the y consulting geologist for proposed developments on lots 5, 7, 8 and 9. • Specific geotechnical issues on lots 5, 7 and 8 include: demolition and removal of structures; mapping and subsurface exploration to determine the extent of buried structures and filled creek channel; and mapping and stability evaluations of the cut slopes on Lot 8. Grading recommendations, considering the proximity of the proposed structures to the buried creek channel, septic tank and well, should be provided in the site - specific reports. • Specific geotechnical issues on Lot 9 include: evaluation of the long -term stability of cut slopes along Saratoga Hills Road; characterization of the area of thick colluvium (possible landslide) in the western portion of lot; mapping. and evaluation of the cut slope in the eastern portion of the lot; and consideration of the cut slope with respect to proposed grading for the residential structure and driveway. Specific drainage and /or landscaping practices may be needed to ensure stability of the western portion of the lot. • The site - specific geotechnical conditions on these lots should be explored, and representative earth materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, artificial fill, etc.) should be sampled and tested to provide engineering parameters for foundation and retaining wall design. The geotechnical consultants should specifically: (1) determine the thicknesses of surficial materials (artificial fill, colluvium and fan deposits) on the property, and (2) document, with appropriate data, the location and extent of the buried creek channel that extends through the central portion of the property. Recommendations for drainage improvements should be provided, as well as specific recommendations for structural foundations, as needed. The results of the site - specific geologic and geotechnical investigations shall be summarized in written reports with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to'Geotechnical Clearance of lots 5, 7, 8 and 9. Larry Perlin Page 5 July 31, 1995 S3005B In addition the site - specific investigations for lots 5, 7, 8 and 9, residential developments on all lots shall include Geotechnical Plan Reviews and Geotechnical Field Inspections as follows: 2. Geotechnical Plan Reviews - Following Final Map Approval, and appropriate geologic and geotechnical investigations (reports), final plans for site - specific developments should be prepared. The project geotechnical consultants shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for each lot. 3. Geotechnical Field Inspections - The geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval for each lot. Appeal Application 08/23/95 09:42 ^V Date Received: Hearing Date: 'T -aa/g5 Receipt NO.. SHUTE, MlHALY '� Q003 AUG p 4 1995 D CITY OF SARATOG,k CITY MANAGER'S OF-FICE APPEAL APPLICATION. Name of Appellant: Friends of the Nelson Garden c/o Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Address: 196 Ppvpq St., San Francisco. Ca. 94102 Telephone: 1 1 (415) 552 -7272 rp_g15�55a - 56 11 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: T-i y t Development Com env GPA -94 -003; AZO -94 -002; SD -94 -00 and Project File Number and Address: Ne ?ative Declaration for 20551 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga, California Decision Being Appealed: Saratoga Planning Commission approval on August 9, 1995 of the general plan amendment, zoning change, tentative map and negative declaration on �r.o_ f ro t files- Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached) : See attached letter. o *Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign ntil a 1ication is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS App:.ICAT -TON MUST BE srBMI' -TE'D TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRliITvALE ^VENL E , SARATOGA CA 9 5 0 7 0 , BY 5 : 0 0 ? - Y- • iv ITFT_N FIFTEEN ( 15) CAI�EAiDAR DAYS OF TI.- DATE OF THE DECISION. 08/23/95 09:42 G SHUTE,MIHALY SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGER E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MARK I. WEINBERGER 396 HAYES STREET MARC B. MIHALY, P. C. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 FRAN M. LAYTON RACHEL B. HOOPER TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -7272 ELLEN J. GARBER TELECOPIER: (415) 552-5816 CHRISTY H. TAYLOR TAMARA S. GALANTER ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR HANK BATES SUSANNAH T. FRENCH REED W. SUPER August 24, 1995 Betsy Cory Saratoga City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 [0 00, LAUREL L. IMPETT, AIC? UREAN PLANNER ELIZABETH M. DODD Of COUNSEL D E ( L= � UV Eff DD AUG 2 4 1995. CITY Or S.A.RATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Re: Nelson Gardens Property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road Dear Ms. Cory: By this letter The Friends of the Nelson Garden appeals the Saratoga Planning Commissions's approval on Wednesday August 9, 1995 of the general plan amendment (GPA -94 -003), zoning change (AZO -94 -002), tentative map (SD -94 -005) and Negative Dac.laration for the Nelson Gardens Property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road. As further detailed in the Friends of Nelson Garden letter dated August 2, 1995, such approvals violate the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code section 65300 et seq., and the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section 66410 et seq. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $675.00 for this appeal, as set forth in Resolution No. 95 -32. Because this fee is excessive and violates due process, the attached check is submitted under protest. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER TAMARA S. GALANTER TSG:mjp enclosure as stated C06.fong.mjp I 08/23/95 09:43 G File No. SHUTE , M I HALM 1&04 AUG 2 4 1995 D CITY ()F SAR ATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING Is Friends of the Nelson Garden, as appellant on the above file., hereby authorize Engineering Data services to perform the legal noticing on the above file. Date: g - z 3 - 93 S isnature : 7.�' OFFICIAL RECEIPT CaIIo2w of o .&m&l2 CSI& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 PHONE: (408) 867 -3438 r DATE 19 L5 RECEIVED 33826 RECEIVED BY DEPT t'/ $,4 °°--. ABANDON VEHICLE (8020) 9000 98 INTEREST 9000 9810 APPEALS 9000 9545 INVESTMENTS 0001 0008 ARBORIST FEE (8501) 9000 9514 MISCELLANEOUS 9000 9890 BUILDING PERMITS 9000 9511 MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE 9000 8010 BUILDING RENTALS 4041 9812 PARK RENTAL FEES 4041 9813 BUS TICKETS 0001 1012 PLANNING FEES 9000 9514 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 9000 7550 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS 0001 1045 DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 9000 7520 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 9000 9890 ENGINEERING FEES 9000 9513 SALE OF MAPS & PUBLICATION 9000 9850 FALSE ALARM FEES 9000 9520 SALES TAX 9000 7510 FINES & FORFEITURES 9000 9860 SB 813 REASSESSMENTS 9000 7050 FRANCHISE FEES 9000 9010 SECURED PROPERTY TAX 9000 7010 GEOLOGY FEE (8502) 9000 9513 PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE 9310 9550 HIGHWAY USERS TAX -2106 9140 8060 TRANSIT ASSIST 0001 1013 HIGHWAY USERS TAX -2107 9140 8070 TRANSIT OCCUPANCY 9000 7560 HIGHWAY USERS TAX -2105 9140 8080 UTILITY USERS TAX 9000 7530 HIGHWAY USERS TAX -2126 9140 8085 VEHICLE CODE FINES 9130 9865 APPLICATION NO. OR // ADDRESS OF PROJECT- TOTAL: 33826 RECEIVED BY DEPT t'/ $,4 °°--. 08/24/95 15:35 E. CLEMENT SHUTE. JR. MARK I. WEINBERCER MARC D. MIHALY. P. C. FRAN M. LAYTON RACHEL B. HOOPER ELLEN J. CARDER CHRISTY H. TAYLOR TAMARA S. GALANTER ELUSON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR WANK BATES SUSANNAH T. FRENCH REED W. SUPER $ SHUTE , M IHALY .. __!Aq0 2 / 01 . SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERCER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFOT.NLA 94102 TELEPHONE: 1415) 552 -7272 TELECOPIER:1415) 552-5816 August 2, 1995 LAUREL L. IMPErr, AICP U"AN PLANNER ELIZABETH M. DODD OF COUNSEL City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CX 95070 Re: Nelson Gardens Property Subdivision; GPA -94 -003, AZO- 94 -002 & SD -94 -005; 20851 Saratoga Hills Road Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation on matters related to environmental review of the Trinity Development Company's ( "Trinity ") application for a general plan amendment (GPA -94 -003), zoning change (AZO -94 -002), and subdivision approval (SD -94 -005) for property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road ( "Nelson Gardens Property ") . ' The Nelson Garden Foundation is an organization formed to protect open space in Saratoga. It is our conclusion, based on a review of the project and environmental documentation, that approval of the proposed project and adoption of the current mitigated negative declaration would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (110EQA11) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et sea.), State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65300 et sea.), and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410 et sea.). The City has already granted tentative permission for early termination of the Williamson Act contract for the Nelson Gardens Property. Project applicant Trinity now seeks to subdivide two hillside parcels totaling 5.1 acres - -a substantial portion of which is on steep hillside - -into nine single - family residential building sites. The project consists,of two "phases." Phase one, the subject of the pending - ,ubdivision application and the Planning Commission's Initial Study, involves construction of seven single - family homes ranging from 3,710 to 4,050 sq. ft. in size on lots ranging from 12,500 to 15,000 sq. ft. on the lower portion of the Nelson Gardens Property. Phase two, the subject of an intended future subdivision application, would involve construction of two homes on lots of 40,000 sq. ft. minimum on the steep hillside portion of the Nelson Gardens Property. CEQA prohibits the City of Saratoga from adopting a mitigated negative declaration for this two -phase project without 08/24/95 15:35 SHUTE,MIHALY l¢j003 /014 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 2 ensuring that all potentially significant environmental effects are mitigated to a level of insignificance. California Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(1); see also l4 California Code of Regulations § 15063(b)(2)( "CEQA Guidelines "). Despite this legal mandate, the Initial Study and accompanying documentation reveal that the proposed project has many potentially significant environmental impacts which have not been identified or adequately mitigated. These include impacts on native plant species (particularly oak trees) and wildlife; subjection of people and property to geologic hazards and flooding; exacerbation of existing traffic circulation problems; aesthetic impacts; and inconsistency with Saratoga's General Plan. Compounding its error in failing to adequately analyze each of these impacts, Saratoga has impermissibly segmented its analysis of project impacts by analyzing the Williamson Act cancellation, Phase 1, and Phase 2 of the project separately. This approach ignores CEQA's requirement to analyze the "whole of the action" in one environmental document. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). The Williamson Act cancellation was a necessary prerequisite to development, and there are significant cumulative impacts of these three intimately related development phases that Saratoga ignores by dividing the project into three separate components. In addition to these substantive violations of CEQA, the City has violated CEQA's procedural requirements. CEQA mandates that a lead agency send notice of its intent to adopt a negative.declaration, together with a copy of a proposed negative declaration, "to every . . . Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by a project." Guidelines § 15073(b). The Guidelines define a "Trustee Agency" as "a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California." Guidelines § 15386. By failing to send notice to the California Department of Fish and Game, trustee of the State's fish and wildlife resources, the City has'violated this CEQA requirement. The Mitigated Negative Declaration currently proposed for the project thus fails to comply with numerous CEQA requirements. As detailed below, because substantial evidence demonstrates that development of the Nelson Gardens Property will have significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires that Saratoga prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") before approving the project. The Commission should accordingly direct the planning staff to prepare an EIR on the significant environmental impacts that may result from Phase 1 and Phase 2 of 08/24/95 15:36 $ SHUTE,MIHALY City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 3 the proposed subdivision. _ lQ_0.04 /014 Finally, the proposed project is inconsistent with the Saratoga General Plan and the relevant Area Plan, such that project approval would violate both State Planning and Zoning Law and the Subdivision Map Act. I. THE CITYPS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CEOA. -- CEQA provides that the City may issue a Negative Declaration only if "[t)here is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." California Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(1); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(2). In making this determination, the City must consider both the direct and indirect effects of the project (Guidelines § 15064(d)) as well as its cumulative effects. City. of Antioch v. City Council of Pittsburgh, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325 (1986). Both the courts and the CEQA Guidelines make clear that even when there are conflicting opinions regarding the significance of an impact, the City must treat the impact as significant. Guidelines § 15064(g)(1). The California Supreme Court has held that an EIR must be prepared whenever an agency is presented with a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if there is also substantial evidence to indicate that the impact is not significant. No Oil Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 (1974). As discussed below, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project is based on a wholly inadequate Initial Study which failed to consider the numerous adverse environmental impacts associated with this project. In addition, the project conditions seek to improperly defer consideration,of important environmental effects until after project approvA . To remedy these shortcomings, the City must prepare an EIR before further considering the project. A. The Initial study Is Inadequate. CEQA requires a government agency to prepare an EIR whenever a proposed project "may have a significant effect on the environment." Public Resources Code § 21100. Where an agency ultimately decides not to, prepare an EIR, the Initial Study must "[p)rovide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant _ti,4�J. 08/24/95 15:36 M SHUTE.MIHALY City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 4 effect on the environment." Guidelines § 15063(c)(5). .1&05/014 The Initial Study prepared for this project hardly provides such "documentation." The Study consists largely of an environmental checklist declaring all potential impacts to be insignificant, or mitigable to a level of insignificance, with barely any discussion or supporting material to substantiate its conclusions. As such, the Initial Study fails to support the Planning Commission's decision not to prepare an EIR. The courts have made clear that a checklist alone will not satisfy CEQA's requirements. In Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, for example, the court held that a checklist approach was an acceptable first step, but that agencies "must also disclose the data or evidence upon which the person(s) conducting the study relied." 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171 (1985). See also Sundstrom v. Mendocino County, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 305 (1988) (checklist initial study did not demonstrate good faith effort to comply with CEQA. The existing Initial Study's superficial and conclusory notations regarding possible project impacts do not substantially distinguish it from the initial studies rejected by these courts. Given the wide range of potential environmental impacts discussed below, such as project impacts on trees, wildlife, geology, hydrology and traffic, as well as project inconsistency with the Saratoga General Plan, the failure of the Initial Study to address such effects and to provide documentation supporting the Initial Study's conclusions clearly violates the requirements of CEQA. The existing Initial Study thus provides no basis for certifying a Negative Declaration. B. The Project Requires an EIR Because There is Substantial Evidence That it May Have a Significant Impact. The CEQA Guidelines itemize impacts norinally considered "significant" in Appendix G. Courts have repeatedly found that where a project may have one or more of the impacts identified in Appendix G, an agency must prepare an EIR. See, e.g., City of Antioch v. City Council of Pittsburgh, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1337 (1986)(extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development); Pistoresi v. City of Madera, 138 Cal.App.3d 284, 288 (1982) (growth inducing impacts); Lewis v. Seventeenth District Agricultural Association, 165 Cal.App.3d 823, 829 n.7 (1985) (increased noise levels). 08/24/95 15:37 $ SHUTE,MIHALY l 0006 /014_ City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 5 The Nelson Gardens subdivision project has several potential impacts that are specifically itemized in Appendix G as presumptively "significant," including the following: (1) The subdivision will "[c]onflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located." Appendix G(a). (2) The subdivision will "[h]ave a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect." Appendix G(b). (3) The subdivision will "[c]ause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system." Appendix G(1). (4) The subdivision will "[e]xpose people or structures to major geologic hazards." Appendix G(r). (5) The subdivision will "substantially diminish habitat for . . . wildlife [and] plants." Appendix G(t). As discussed below, the approval of the project as currently conceived will result in significant adverse environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts on vegetation, wildlife, geologic stability, hydrology, traffic flow, aesthetics, and incompatibility with the General Plan and Area B Specific Plan. 1. vegetation The Initial Study checklist contains a woefully superficial and misleading analysis of the proposed project's impacts on plant life, and particularly, potential project impacts on native trees. The checklist notes only that there "may be" a "[c]hange in the diversity of species, or number of species of plants," and states that although "some" of the 3.1 acres of native and ornamental planting will be removed, this vegetation "will be replaced with native planting and will not result in a long term adverse change in the environment." The Study fails to even consider vegetation impacts on the remaining 2.0 acres that will be affected by Phase 2 of the subdivision project. The checklist indicates there will be "no" reduction in numbers of "any unique, rare or endangered species of plants." This is emphatically not the case. To the contrary, substantial evidence demonstrates that the project may significantly impact vegetation. The subject property is home to more than 120 trees, including eight healthy Valley Oak trees. A. ninth Valley Oak is very close to the property line of proposed 08/24/95 15:38 $ SHUTE.MIHALY 007/014 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 6 Lot 6. Of California's nine species of tree oaks, the Valley Oak is described as "the monarch of California oaks by virtue of its size, age, and beauty." Bruce M. Pavlik, et. at., Oaks in California at 10 (Cachuma Press, 1991). Abundant until the 1880s, "Valley oaks have [since) been victims of widespread agricultural and residential development on prime, lowland real estate." Id. at 11. Extensive habitat conversion combined with poor regeneration rates has made Valley Oaks one of three California oak species that oak experts consider to be "oaks of special concern." Id. at 125. Today, groves of Valley Oak are scarce.enough that without aggressive oak preservation efforts, "[this) regal California heritage may soon be lost." Id. The City of Saratoga General Plan clearly recognizes the importance of oak conservation. The Plan's statement of "Goals,. Policies and Implementation Measures" for its Conservation Element states that "in the process of all new development, particular care should be taken to preserve native oaks, measuring at least ten inches in diameter at twenty -four inches above the ground." Section C.O. 2.5 at 2 -17. The plan further identifies as an "Important" goal that the City "[m]odify the Tree Preservation Ordinance to require tree removal permits for native oaks measuring 10 inches in diameter or greater." Id. Despite the critical importance of preserving California's remaining Valley Oaks, and the City of Saratoga's express embracement of that goal, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration fail to acknowledge that the project will have a significant impact on vegetation due to development of the property and associated construction. Nor do the Negative Declaration or Initial Study propose adoption of mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. The proposed project will have a significant impact on Valley Oak trees. The proposed building footprints and driveway configurations (particularly the driveways for lots 8 and 9) will result in direct destruction of oaks as well as nogative impacts associated with construction of the subdivision. 'Construction activities themselves often kill oaks. Oaks are extremely vulnerable to construction damage because 90% of their roots are found within the first three feet of soil, and up to 70% of those are found within the top 8 -12 inches..Further, landscaping typically associated with subdivisions often disturbs much of the root system and competes for available water and minerals. The Saratoga General Plan's oak policy requires that care be taken to preserve all of the subject property's Valley Oaks. Proposed mitigation measures do not adequately protect these trees -- either from removal or from destruction by 08/24/95 15:38 rd' SHUTE,MIHALY l¢J008 /014 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 7 construction activities. The vague mitigation condition in the "Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga Approving Tentative Map" to the effect that "[f]uture homes shall be sited and designed to minimize . . . the removal of significant existing native trees" is insufficient to guarantee protection of the 8 on -site and one near -site Valley Oaks, or even preservation of Valley Oaks #11 and #12, the two trees explicitly recommended for protection in the horticultural report recently prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates on which the Initial Study relied. The proposed mitigation clearly does not reduce project impacts on Valley Oaks to a level of insignificance. Any mitigation conditions should include a requirement that all Valley Oaks be preserved. In addition to prohibiting cutting of any Valley Oaks, the Planning Commission should specify how oaks are to be preserved during construction. Mitigation requirements should include, for example, erection of barriers around all oak trees during construction, no interference or landscaping within the dripline of an oak tree, no compaction from construction activities, no introduction of non - native species, preconditioning prior to construction, prevention of grade changes or standing water, and tunneling for utilities to prevent root damage. Oaks are not the only native species potentially adversely impacted by the proposed Nelson Gardens Property subdivision, however. In addition to the large native Valley Oaks, there is "evidence that [other) native species are - recolonizing the site . . . [such that] the garden is slow[ly] returning to the Coast Live oak (Ouercus aarifolia) Community found in the nearby hills." Harvey & Stanley Associates, "Nelson Foundation Property Wildlife Assessment" at 6 (1988). Thus, there is substantial evidence that the project will have significant impacts not only on oaks but on other native species. The existing Initial Study fails to identify or mitigate these significant impacts. J 2. Wildlife There is substantial evidence that the proposed subdivision will have significant effects on wildlife. CEQA mandates that where a project will "substantially reduce" habitat, the impacts to wildlife must be considered significant. CEQA Guidelines § 15065, Appendix G(d) & (t). Conversion of 5 acres of open space habitat known to contain deer and numerous other wildlife species is a substantial reduction of local wildlife habitat. 08/24/95 15:39 $ SHUTE,MIHALY ltj009 /014 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995. Page 8 The Initial Study and Negative Declaration assert that the project will not have a significant effect on wildlife. However, the Initial Study admits that there may be 11[d]eterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat." Without any analysis of possible project impacts on species diversity or on the number of individual animals, the City has no basis for concluding that wildlife impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Initial Study relied on a seven- year -old, extremely superficial biological survey (the "Nelson Foundation Property Wildlife Assessment" conducted by Harvey and Stanley Associates in 1988) prepared for a developer in conjunction with another project proposed for this site, and inaccurately characterized that assessment's few findings. The 1988 Wildlife Assessment was recently updated by the same consultants. Although the updated assessment represents a substantial improvement on the earlier version, and indicates the presence of several wildlife species on the property that were previously overlooked, the updated assessment does not correct the dubious premises of the earlier one. For example, the recent assessment, like the earlier assessment, concludes that wildlife impacts are not likely to be significant because other deer habitat can still be found in the vicinity of the proposed project. See 1995 Assessment at 16. The assessment does not discuss the possibility that deer relocation (if such indeed occurs) may cause wildlife over- crowding on other properties, so the assessment cannot support the Initial Study's statement that there will be no "[c]hange in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals" as a result of developing this 5.1 -acre parcel. Initial Study, Section II(5)(a). It is impossible to tell with current data whether there would be an aggregate change in the "numbers of any species of animals." More fundamental, however, is that deer'are not the only fauna using the site. Appendix A to the 1988 Wildlife Assessment lists more than fifty species predicted to occur on the subject property, and more than twenty -five actually observed. The 1995 study lists additional species likely to occur on the Nelson Gardens Property. Saratoga residents have observed grey foxes and their young on the Property, as well as other wildlife. Nowhere, however, are the habitat requirements for any of these other species addressed. A further, critical problem with the existing "analysis" of wildlife impacts is that treating all of Saratoga's 08/24/95 15:39 $ SHUTE,MIHALY City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 9 &10 /014 "woodland habitats" as fungible ignores the requirements for maintaining a viable ecosystem on the unbuilt portions of the subject property. As an example, Stellar's Jays, Scrub Jays and Yellow- billed Magpies - -which researchers determined probably occur on the subject property - -can be critical to oak regeneration. These are the only three California bird species that cache acorns in the ground; when they forget some of their buried acorns, these have a chance to sprout into oak seedlings. Even if nearby habitats may provide habitat for these birds (which has not been demonstrated), these species would cease to play their vital role in helping to sustain the Nelson Gardens oak community. See oaks in California, p. 85. Beyond the failure to adequately consider impacts to deer, impacts to other wildlife, and secondary impacts to vegetative communities due to ecosystem alterations, the Initial Study assessment of wildlife impacts is implicitly based on an incorrect, and indeed legally impermissible premise: that incremental destruction of habitat is not significant, so long as some suitable wildlife habitat remains. This violates CEQA's command that cumulative impacts be factored into .environmental decision making. Finally, neither the Initial Study, the 1988 Wildlife Assessment, nor the 1995 update of that assessment identifies the precise location of the supposed "deer habitat" nearby. Further, even if such currently undeveloped "habitat" still exists, unless it is dedicated open space, it too will be vulnerable to development. It is thus unclear whether other, nearby woodland will be able to provide the long -term surrogate habitat claimed. 3. Geology The Initial Study Checklist states that the proposed project will result in no "[ejxposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards." Initial Study,, Section II(i)(g). This conclusion is entirely unsupporteH by evidence, having been reached in advance of conducting a geological evaluation of the entire property involved in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project. This objection to the Initial Study's approach was raised repeatedly in the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 1995. For example, commissioner Caldwell queried how the staff could check "no" in the initial study under geotechnical sections la and lb if the Commission did not know whether the upper lots would receive geotechnical clearance, given that geotechnical impacts on the lower lots may be affected by what is found on the upper lots. Planning Commission Minutes at 23. Commissioner Patrick and Commissioner Kaplan expressed 08/24/95 15:40 '8� SHUTE,MIHALY gQ11 /014 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 10 similar concern over the "piecemeal" manner in which the entire geotechnical evaluation was being conducted. Id. This piecemeal approach is particularly troubling because earthquake hazards associated with the subject property may expose people and property to serious risk. A 1995 map produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") indicating Modified Mercalli Intensity for an earthquake of Richter magnitude 7.1 shows that the subject property would be subject to "heavy" shaking and damage in such an earthquake. See Exhibit A, attached hereto. More significant, the property is immediately adjacent to one of the very few areas in Saratoga designated as vulnerable to "Extreme" damage in such a quake. Given the ABAG map's caution that "[i]ntensities may be incorrect by one unit higher or lower," it is quite conceivable that the "Extreme" hazard area actually extends below the subject property. An EIR must be prepared to analyze the potential impacts of building a subdivision in such a geologically unstable area. Landslides, mudslides, or ground failure may also occur on the subject property as a result of slope destabilization induced by hillside construction, and /or increased surface water runoff (see "Hydrology," below). These hazards should similarly be the subject of full investigation before project approval. 4. Hydrology Landowners adjacent to the proposed subdivision property have long complained of basement flooding problems. The Initial Study admits that "[w]ater run -off will increase as a result of increased impervious surfaces associated with the development of homes, driveways, patios, etc.," but concludes this project impact is insignificant because it will be "controlled to an acceptable level by the City's lot coverage limitations." Initial study, section II(9)(b). Given the already existing drainage problems in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, however, the City has f -ailed to provide any support for its belief that this impact is mitigable. For example, runoff from lot a will drain into a drain pipe already insufficient to accommodate existing runoff. The City should accordingly require a thorough hydrologic assessment of the subject property prior to project approval. 5. Traffic When assessing the impacts of the proposed project, the City must assess not only the impacts of the individual project at hand, but also the "incremental impact of the project when 08/24/95 15:40 $ SHUTE,MIHALY Q012/014 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 11 added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b). As one court wrote: The purpose of this requirement is obvious: consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if no othe-rs existed would encourage the .piecemeal approval of several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment and disastrously overburden the man -made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment. Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed'n , Inc v County of Los Angeles, 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306 (1986). See also, Kings County, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (EIR for coal fired cogeneration facility must analyze other similar though independent projects planned in the San Joaquin Valley). The Initial Study erroneously failed to identify the proposed project's significant effect on traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity, as well as cumulative traffic impacts resulting from traffic generation from the project in conjunction with other existing and future projects. The Specific Plan for Area B, the area containing the proposed project site, is an area already plagued by congestion problems. The Area B Plan expresses concern over "through traffic in the neighborhoods which seem[s] to be a result of extensive hillside development" (id.)-- precisely the type of development currently proposed. The principal access to the subject property is via Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, a road described in the Area Plan as already having "intolerable traffic." Area B Plan at 4 -4. The Area B Specific Plan indicates that even at current development levels, "residents are concerned with the noise, pollutiop and safety hazards presented by the ever-increasing traffic "on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, and states explicitly that "[f)or this reason, there is opposition to development that will create more trips to and from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road." Id. The proposed project, by generating approximately 90 additional vehicle -trips per day (based on an average of 10 trips per day per household), would markedly aggravate these problems. The cumulative effect of this project in conjunction with traffic from existing development and other approved or pending subdivision applications in the area, such as that submitted for a 12 -unit subdivision at 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, will be 08/24/95 15:41 a` SHUM MIHALY City of Saratoga Planning commission August 2, 1995 Page 12 Q01 /014 significant. In light of the long- recognized and likely worsening traffic problem, the City must identify traffic impacts as potentially significant, analyze the traffic impacts in an EIR, and propose mitigation measures to address this project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts. 6. Visual Impacts /Aesthetics Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines states that "[a) project will-normally have a significant effect on the environment'if it will . (b) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect." A California appellate court has specifically held that the visual impact of a proposed residential subdivision can constitute such an effect. In Quail Botanical Gardens v. Encinas, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994), the court stated that "the CEQA Guidelines essentially. establish a rebuttable presumption (that) any substantial, negative aesthetic effect is to be considered a significant environmental impact for CEQA purposes." The court held that because defendant City could not have concluded (based on the record before it) that "its mitigation measures clearly would reduce impacts below a level of significance," the City erred in certifying a mitigated negative declaration. Id. at 1604. The development of the Nelson Gardens property will result in unavoidable visual impacts that the City of Saratoga has similarly failed to identify or mitigate. The Nelson Gardens Property provides acres of open space in the midst of residential development. See Exhibit B, attached hereto. Clearly, conversion of 5.1 acres of agricultural land containing more than 120 mature trees and abundant wildlife to a residential subdivision will have a negative aesthetic impact. This loss of local open space adds to the cumulative effect of subdivision approvals on Saratoga's visual character. Recent subdivision approvals for parcel 397 -16 -141 (2.96 acres) and parcel 397 -16 -6 (10.79 acres) on Douglass Lane, and the pending subdivision application for 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road if approved, are making green, open spaces a scarce commodity in Saratoga. Approval of the Nelson Gardens subdivision application will also specifically negatively impact the views of surrounding neighbors and the community as well as block sweeping views of the Santa Clara Valley and mountains beyond. The planned subdivision houses, which will have footprints considerably larger in relation to lot size than existing homes on adjacent properties, will be discordant with the layout of the area. Further, the proposed subdivision will be aesthetically incompatible with adjacent properties by allowing construction of three two -story houses (lots 7, 8, and 9) in a neighborhood 08/24/95 15:41 SHUTE- MIHALY 16 014/014 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 13 consisting almost exclusively of one -story houses. Potential aesthetic impacts have been described in correspondence submitted by and oral testimony by members of the community. For example, Gary L. Nemetz told the Planning Commission that the number of proposed parcels and type of homes the project applicant proposes would be "out of character with" and "incompatible with" existing homes to the South and East on Trinity Avenue and Pontiac Avenue, providing an "unaesthetic contrast." - Letter to the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, June 4, 1995 (appended to Staff Report). Bud Alexander, who resides across the street from the proposed development, testified that he "did not believe that the construction of compatible homes to that of the existing single family homes in terms of massing, size and styling would be possible." Planning Commission Minutes, June 14, 1995, at 27. The Initial Study fails to identify, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to adequately mitigate these aesthetic impacts. These project- specific and cumulative impacts must be considered in an EIR. ; 7. Inconsistency with the General Plan Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines provides that "[a] project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: (a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located." Because the Nelson Gardens subdivision does not comply with the Saratoga General Plan (see Section II, below), the project will have a significant effect, thus requiring preparation of an EIR. S. Construction impacts The noise and traffic from constructing nine homes in a residential neighborhood is a potentially significant impact to adjacent landowners. The increased traffic associated with transporting materials and workers to the construction site will compound the traffic congestion problem identified above. Furthermore, construction will create significant noise impacts in this quiet residential neighborhood. The City has failed to identify or mitigate either of these potentially significant impacts. 08/24/95 15:45 $ SHUTE,MIHALY City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 14 FMQOI /Oil C. Mitigation Measures incorporated Into the Negative Declaration are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence, and Do Not Reduce Impacts to a Level of Insignificance. When a lead agency relies on mitigation measures to find that project impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance, there must be substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the measures are feasible and will be effective. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; Guidelines § 15125(c); Xinas County, 221 Cal.App.3d at 726. The negative declaration for the proposed project purports to rely on a number of mitigation measures to reduce project impacts below a level of significance, but the document provides no information demonstrating why these measures would be effective or feasible. Further, the Initial Study erroneously concludes that in many categories there will be no significant environmental impacts, and thus fails to analyze ways to mitigate probable impacts. The few mitigation measures currently referenced in the negative declaration are extremely vague; and do not adequately mitigate the numerous significant impacts identified in Section I(B), above. For example, the mitigation measures state that future homes shall be sited and designed to "minimize . . . removal of significant trees," implying that some significant trees may be removed,, and further failing to identify how many trees are considered "significant." The vague condition requiring "landscape plans" for each new home application fails to address the need to make landscaping compatible with existing vegetation so as to avoid resource competition between existing oaks and new plantings. The provision that individual lot coverages "may" be reduced to a level lower than the maximum allowable for the assigned zoning district designation is too indefinite to guarantee that new houses will be compatible with existing houses. The proposed limitation on fencing does not mitigate wildlife impacts to a level of insignificance. , conspicuously omitted from consideration are the need to mitigate the potentially significant impacts on noise and traffic, and the increase in surface water runoff that was explicitly identified in the Initial Study. There is also no discussion of geologic hazards mitigation, despite evidence that this area is subject to heavy shaking in a major earthquake. Although it is doubtful that currently proposed mitigation measures could adequately address the impacts of the project identified in the Initial Study, and those that should have been identified, the Initial Study's approach suffers from a 08/24/95 15:46 'b' SHUTE,MIHALY 10002/011 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 15 more fundamental problem. CEQA requires the completion of all environmental studies and the proposal of specific mitigation measures before project approval. Guidelines section 15070(b) provides that preparation of a mitigated negative declaration is only permissible where: The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by.the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. [Emphasis added]. See also Sundstrom v. Mendocino County, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988) (needed or proposed mitigation measures must be incorporated into a proposed negative declaration and the project revised accordingly before a negative declaration is released for public comment); Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas, 24 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994) (CEQA prohibits a city from relying on post- approval mitigation measures adopted during subdivision design review process.to.validate . a negative declaration). The Saratoga City Planning Commission has impermissibly deferred both significance determinations (such as determination of any effects of hillside geologic hazards on the lower lots) and design of mitigation measures (such as requiring preservation of all oaks and protection of trees from construction damage). An additional problem with this approach, which permits post - approval study and mitigation- design, is that it undermines CEQA's requirement that there be an opportunity for public review of impacts analysis and proposed mitigation. Because the City has failed to require full pre - approval analysis of potential project impacts, and has failed to identify specific mitigation measures that will address all known and knowable potential impacts, the existing negative declaration is legally inadequate. ' D. The Initial Study Does Not Contain a Mitigation Monitoring Program. CEQA requires that agencies adopt a "reporting or monitoring program" for any mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as a condition of approval. CEQA § 21081.6(a). The Initial Study for the proposed project is legally inadequate insofar as it fails to include a mitigation monitoring program. 08/24/95 15:46 $ sHUTE,MIHALY City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 16 E. The Environmental Review is Impermissibly Segmented. 003/0 1,,1 The proposed negative declaration for the Nelson Gardens subdivision project illegally segments the City's environmental review process. CEQA defines "project" to mean "the whole of an action" that may result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). CEQA "mandates that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones - -each with a . potential impact on the environment - -which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." City of Santee v. County of San Diecxo,. 214 Ca1.App.3d 1438, 1452 (1989). By considering the Williamson Act cancellation, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development project separately, the City has run afoul of this mandate. The prohibition on project segmentation has both a spacial and a temporal dimension. Spacially, two logically related contiguous land uses must be analyzed as a single project. For example, in Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. Arcadia City, Council, 42 Cal. App. 3d 712, 736 (1974), the court held that proposed shopping center and parking lot projects.were related and should be regarded as a single project for purposes of CEQA. Temporally, CEQA requires that a project be analyzed in full at the outset, rather than in small sequential bites such that the magnitude of the project's impacts may only become evident once the project has gained irreversible momentum. CEQA thus dictates that all steps of the proposed project - -the Williamson Act cancellation, and phases 1 and 2 of site development - -must be analyzed in one environmental document for CEQA purposes, and the analysis must take place before the first step (Williamson Act cancellation) is permitted. Instead, however, the City has chopped up its analysis both temporally (considering the Williamson Act cancellation and site development as separate) and spacially (considering development of flat land ( "Phase 111) and adjacent hillside land ( "Phase 211) as separate projects) . The City Council justified failure to analyze the environmental impacts of its tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on the logic that there is no potential for a single negative environmental impact to result from such a decision, because: In this case, the project consists only of the consideration of the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. The cancellation (i.e. the project) only affects the tax status of the site and does not, in (and) of itself, approve any development of the site. 08/24/95 15:47 $ SHUTE,MIHALY 1¢1004 /011 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 17 Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director, letter to Saratoga City Council (April 5, 1995). The City planning staff then compounded the segmentation problem by deciding that Phase 1 of the development could be evaluated even before Phase 2 geotechnical studies were completed. The staff report stated that staff had "no concerns with doing this," implying that Phase 1 and Phase 2 could also be treated as separate projects for analytic and CEQA purposes. James Walgren, "Report to the Planning Commission" (June 14, 1995), p.000b88. The City's analytic approach is clearly proscribed by the City's own "Project Description" in the Negative Declaration for the Williamson Act Tentative Cancellation, however. In the Negative Declaration, the City Council describes the whole "project" as consisting of: Tentative cancellation of Williamson Act.Contract. . . in order to consider a General•Plan and.2oning Ordinance: designation amendment and subdivision.-of the.property into nine (9) residential lots. (Emphasis added.). Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not-Required ( "Negative Declaration "), March 16, 1995. Thus, the Declaration flatly acknowledged that the Williamson Act cancellation is a necessary precursor to site development, and would be granted specifically for that purpose. Similarly, In "Exhibit C" ( "Proposed Facts and Findings Under the Williamson Act Supporting Cancellation "), the City Council noted its "finding" that "[t]he property cannot be sold for residential development until the agricultural restrictions are lifted." The City's own documents and CEQA point in the same direction: because the Williamson Act cancellation, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed subdivision are integrall related parts of a process that will convert agricultural land into a residential subdivision, they may not be treated as separate projects for environmental review purposes. The question is not merely whether any one of the project components by itself has substantial impacts; it is whether there is "substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment" so as to trigger the requirement of EIR preparation. Guidelines 9 15063(b) (emphasis added). Without analyzing all project components.together, the City has no basis for concluding that the totality of project 08/24/95 15:47 $ SHUTE.MIHALY IA 005 /011. City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 18 impacts are not of sufficient magnitude to require an EIR. Indeed, as a result of the impermissible segmentation of the project, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration underestimate the totality of the project's vegetation, wildlife, geological, hydrological, traffic, and aesthetic impacts,. Furthermore, as a result of segmentation, the City will accept the Williamson Act contract cancellation as a given, and consider whether, in light of the fact that there is no longer a Williamson Act contract, a residential development is appropriate. In City of Carmel-BY-The-Sea 'v. Board of Supervisors of Monterey, 183 Cal.App.3d 229 (1986), a court stated that a zoning change to an environmentally sensitive area should not be made without a full environmental analysis, even if an EIR would ultimately be prepared for any development project, because: [a] later EIR regarding a development project on the property would treat the zoning as a fait accompli, and would not need to address either the density designation or the definition and demarcation of the wetlands. Id. at 251 -52. Similarly, in the present case the City's inquiry should have been framed comprehensively at the outset: "What will be the combined environmental effects of permitting premature cancellation of a Williamson Act contract and conversion of 5.1 acres of agricultural open space to residential development in a City that, according to its own General Plan, is already 85% developed ?" F. conclusion. In sum, the City's superficial and conclusory Initial Study checklist failed to identify many of the above - identified, potentially significant impacts as even "maybe" significant. The Study also summarily discounted the need for fundamental project redesign to mitigate the few potential impacts it,did identify. An agency cannot hide behind its own failure to identify impacts, however. Nor can it postpone analysis of potentially significant impacts until after the tentative map is approved. CEQA requires a thorough, early consideration of all potential environmental impacts before a lead agency may even contemplate adopting a negative declaration. See Guidelines § 15070(b). The City of Saratoga must thus prepare an EIR that analyzes the project's significant impacts, proposes mitigation measures to minimize those impacts, and considers alternatives to the proposed project. . 08/24/95 15:48 '$` SHUTE,MIHALY tM 006 /011 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 19 II. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE GENERAL PLAN LAW BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. The heart of State Planning and Zoning Law is its requirement that land use projects approved by a local government be consistent with that government's adopted general plan. deBottari v. Norco City Council, 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213 (1985). A city's general plan serves as the "constitution" for all future development in that City. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal-3d 531, 539-40 (1990). Thus, any subdivision or other development project that the Saratoga Planning Commission approves must be consistent with the City's general plan. The proposed Nelson Gardens subdivision is inconsistent with the Saratoga General Plan, and most conspicuously, with its recently updated Open Space Element (1993). The Element notes that through use of a community survey, "[t]he City of Saratoga has recently confirmed the community's appreciation and desire to preserve and enhance the City's existing character and open spaces in and around the City." Open Space Element at 1. The Element states that agriculture preserves under the Williamson Act "add not only to the perception of open spaces within the City, but also serve as a vital link between the modern City and its agricultural past." Id. at 6. Most significant, the Element states as an explicit "policy" that "[t]he City shall discourage the early cancellation of Williamson Act contracts." Id. at 12. Indeed, the Element contains a discussion of various "Incentives to Agricultural Land Owners" to encourage them to continue such uses. Id. at 14. Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for and development on land that includes steep hillsides is a particularly egregious General Plan violation. The General Plan states that "hillsides and the valley provide Saratoga with its prime macroscale views. Therefore, development mist include careful study of the effect on scenic open space.' Id. at 15. The Conservation Element similarly stresses the need to "[c]ontrol the density of development in hill areas . . . to protect . . . the aesthetic qualities of the city." Conservation Element at 2 -26. Given that 85% of Saratoga is already developed (General Plan at 3 -36), the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for a 5.1 -acre tract is a non - trivial conflict with the open space preservation philosophy and policies embodied in the General Plan. 08/24/95 15:48 $ SHUTE,MIHALY rA 007 /011 City of Saratoga Planning Commission August 2, 1995 Page 20 As expressed by Saratoga resident F.L. Stutzman, M.D.: The General Plan of Saratoga envisioned many small community parks. These were to be areas for the very young, for mothers with children, and for the elderly . . . We need more of these . . . . we also need more large parks or areas of open space. We, by state standards, should have three acres of park land for each one thousand residents. We have less than one half of that, and where are we going to make up the deficit? Testimony to the City Council re: Williamson Act Contract cancellation. Beyond a general desire to preserve what little open space remains in Saratoga, the community's opposition to this particular proposed subdivision stems from decades of legitimate expectation that the Nelson Gardens Property would never be developed. Frank Nelson deeded his 5.1 -acre parcel of land to The Nature Conservancy between 1971 and 1976, at which time both parties determined that the highest and best use of the property was for agricultural purposes. The Conservancy owned the property and maintained it in its. natural state until 1977, when it transferred the property to the California State Parks Foundation. That Foundation continued to own the land until 1984. During this entire period, the property was maintained as an agricultural preserve open to the public. When financial pressures induced the State Parks Foundation to transfer Nelson Gardens to the Florence Nelson Foundation, the transferee passed a resolution indicating that it would maintain and preserve the property in a manner consistent with Mr. Nelson's intentions. After more than two decades of efforts to keep this property in its agricultural preserve use, it would be a tragedy for Saratoga to allow the project applicant to undermine the preservation intent of the grantor and successive grantees. Subdivision of the Nelson Gardens Prope ;ty is also inconsistent with the Land Use element's express goal of preserving native species of plants. The Land Use Element explicitly states that "[t)he preservation of native and other vegetative species indicative of Saratoga's cultural heritage shall be given priority over development and provide for the perpetuation of such species." Id. at 15, item 12 (1993)(emphasis added). Furthermore, as already discussed above, the proposed subdivision violates key goals and policies of the City's General Plan relating to preservation of oak trees and minimization of traffic impacts. Thus, the proposed project not only violates 08/24/95 15:49 a SHUTE,MIHALY 4008/011 City of Saratoga August 2, 1995 Page 21 Planning Commission grantor Frank Nelson's initial wish to see this parcel maintained as agricultural open space, decades of stewardship of the site in this manner, and the community's desire to see this parcel protected:, it violates the letter of the Saratoga General Plan. The City should consider use of the property-as a public garden, which would be consistent with both Mr. Nelson's vision for the property and the City's General Plan. III. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. Government Code section 66473.5, a section of the Subdivision Map Act, provides that: No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan. A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan. . .'only if. . . the proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan. Because the proposed Nelson Gardens subdivision is inconsistent with the Saratoga General Plan (see Section II, above), approval of this project would violate the Subdivision Map Act. For the foregoing reasons, The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation requests that the City of Saratoga defer action on this subdivision application and request for a general plan amendment and zoning change until the City prepares an EIR that fully complies with CEQA. Yours truly, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER Tamara S. Galanter TSG:djp cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation 002.fong.djp SHAKING INTENSITY San Andreas Eq. Peninsula Segment Magnitude = 7.1 Modified Mercelli Intensitu Damage Level ■ X- Extreme IX -Heavy ` VIII- Moderate _ VII - Nonstructural _ VI- abjects Fall .- V- Pictures Move Source: ABAGP 1995 r On Shaky Ground The map is intended for planning onlU. Intensities me0 be incorrect by one unit higher or lower. Current version of map available on 0 Internet at http: // CM www.absg.ce.gov 0 ..�'� of ' >l��a�� `� f . � �I e�'' /[ej�. - •; '1 . • +�� '! � • T_ of 4'A IL a'1j � • • �j� { may � .,.�.., �Y R � of to for, � � '. • y. 'Z` '. f/��1�.. � :�,• �� •�' - .,��J• .. 111111 - �'� +:'�i i t �I�. � � !+ _f�i +7 _} � J• _✓ ; .y � '.' �fi (. � J IL. Y v.''. � '•• +, v'��•� � ,�•I►t A :.�r'. +�• -4 � 1. �• `� • �_ � .,� •� "�!!- •,`'�. �• ti��• , ti �y•:+flY • ?� ���'y '�� c' . j;/L�_hl. .• I��,. 1'� - r :• !� �s or ' ' , •.�. ► + or.. �:► •• -� `S 4. �'r AL.._ . I`- ;' .. .�I�� .., .:..j ",' •�,�•.1 �•�.;..iA. `, 1.... � J'. 1f•, nor ,.> � s -�.ti ��.•�,!► 1. lei 4 :�' .-s fir• ' op -rz Sy ,A r•'l ;! ',•�5 .`; : �•�'• Ste; I; t�J', �i '� �•'•fJ, . - !•�� �j/ +•'�?•- ••``. :����,'yi�� .,w• �r����h.,�; +.,� Tt�'; i` �` � �'•�{�� . ti ..,� 1�I fv +• ,� +��' i ,� + �, �fi. � •�y,. • • ♦ J f`jys.•' - }',• ��'�4 ?i•�`,y �'ti ,�,�j�� ••' • • 6 • .r. •'} - ?� : ' ..�� i , J;�� �r • 1 . y . !� ; r _ ��d�1'Vr.'f:1i�r.` i.•,S' !1r im IL - - � -. � f .', . 'r ` t .. � ,� a�-:- - _ ^ ¢ :Q, .., .::-ice .y'�,"' •.'�,F; ��,;r?�,° �M ' 1 • f .: ,_ '��. �!� `Y' _•' :, .b �id'. ...�� 6RSt f�,}�l'tixs •�.Si -.,..R ....1 {4. '� ., L ` �(.1 ; • � - - r •� �.,,.w�,- � . ^� � - -ILK iaia�'+�'t. '- 4J_}'a,°i*z.^c"j;! i�i� -+1"� '� •� Vii•`• , �,,,' `�`•�� � •�/••, �' ��, jiv^ .'. nnl -�s•: `,•' • :J 'y ?'�.: �� .,y �: As 10 Lk ••1 •' vv .r•.. • vow s1 • ' � V T Staff Memo and Staff Report and Planning Commission minutes dated 8/9/95 and 6/14/95 n4 ,m GB�4 Qo 0&%k9Q)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA,. CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 CoUNCM MENIBERS: Ann Marie Burner Paul E. Jacobs M E M O R A N D U M Gillian Moran Raren Tucker Donald L. Wolfe TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Walgr , Associate Planner DATE: August 9, 1995 SUBJECT: GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 Trinity Development; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Description: Request for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow the properties to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural designation to a Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density /R -1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 designation. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is also requested to subdivide the two separate parcels into nine single- family residential building sites. An environmental Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared pursuant to the terms and requirem- ents of the California Environmental Quality Act. Background: This development proposal and its accompanying environmental Initial Study was first presented to the Planning Commission at the June 14th public hearing as a two - phased project. Phase 1 consisted of the lower 3.7 acres and Phase 2 the upper 1.39 acres. The Planning Commissioners did not feel it was appropriate to hear the application in phases and continued the item until such time that both parcels could be considered together. The Planning Commission and speakers at the hearing further raised several concerns regarding inadequacies in the environmental Initial Study. Staff was directed to respond to these concerns. The June 14th meeting minutes are attached for detailed reference. Printed on recycled paper, Trinity Development; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Page Two Project Summary: The application before the Planing Commission is now for the entire 5.1 acres. Since the June meeting, the following information and /or studies have been provided to augment.the Initial Study; • H.T. Harvey & Associates have performed a new Biological Assessment of the property. Their comprehensive study concludes that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect on the area's biological resources. • The City's Geotechnical Consultant has granted all nine proposed lots a geologic and geotechnical review clearance. • The Saratoga Union School District has responded that nine single family residences would not impact the school district. • The City Engineer has responded that the total potential 90 to 100 vehicular trips generated by the proposed development would not impact Saratoga roads. Please refer to the attached Addendum to Initial Study for the actual studies and responses. Dr. Rick Hopkins, wildlife biologist and project manager of the updated Biological Assessment for H.T. Harvey & Associates, will be present at the public hearing to answer any questions which may arise regarding his firm's analysis and conclusions. Correspondence: On Thursday, August 3, 1995 staff received a letter via Federal Express from the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger. A cover letter requested that this correspondence be included in the staff report to the Planning Commission. The letter raises many objec- tions to the environmental Initial Study prepared for this project. Though staff could not respond to the issues raised in this letter by report deadline, staff does believe that the environmental analysis performed for this proposed 5.1 acre in -fill development, with a net increase of seven new homes, is adequate. Recommendation: Review the attached Addendum to Initial Study and reference the original staff report and draft environmental Initial Study and open the public hearing to take testimony. Unless new information is presented which would affect the environmental determination, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the Trinity Development; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Page Three attached Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Staff is further recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the City Council and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map by adopting the attached Resolutions. Attachments: 1. Resolutions GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 2. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. Planning Commission minutes,dated June 14, 1995 4. Correspondence S. Addendum to Initial Study 6. Letter from Tamara S. Galanter, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER 7. Plans, Exhibit "A" memo. pc \nlsngrdn REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -Application No. /Location• • GPA. -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Applicant /Owner: TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: June 14, 1995 APN: 503-49-041 & 042 Director Approval: L-0 v v v i %JGLI C1 L U l 3 Q 1 11115 nU. File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 12/15/94 Application complete: 5/24/95 Notice published: 5/31/95 Mailing completed: 6/01/95 Posting completed: 5/25/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow the properties to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural designation to a Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density /R- 1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 designation. Phase One Tentative Subdivision Map approval is also requested to subdivide the lower half of the 5.1 acres into 7 single- family residential building sites. An environmental initial study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are attached. These documents have been prepared and have been made available for public review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the staff report and draft environmental initial study and open the public hearing to take testimony. Unless new information is presented which would affect the environmental determination, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Staff is further recommending that the Planning Commission approve the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the Phase One Tentative Subdivision Map by adopting the attached Resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 3. Arborist Report dated 2/6/95 4. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Saratoga and the Community Foundation of Santa Clara County 5. Correspondence 6. Draft Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 7. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING• Current: Agricultural Proposed: R -1- 12,500 & R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Current: Open Space- Outdoor Recreational Proposed: Residential -Very Low Density & Medium Density PARCEL SIZE: APN 503 -49 -041: 3.7 acres APN 503 -49 -042: 1.4 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: APN 503 -49 -041: 90 APN 503 -49 -042: 36a PROJECT DISCUSSION: Overview: The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County (property owner) has petitioned and received from the City Council Tentative Cancella- tion of the Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract on the Nelson Gardens property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road. On November 21, 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the property owner and the City of Saratoga. The MOU provided for the processing of a series of applications relating to possible development of the property. The MOU did not guarantee development of the property, but it did allow applications to be made to consider development consistent with Saratoga's General Plan, Area B Specific Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The objective of the MOU was to allow the 5.1 acres to come out of its agricultural preserve contract early (it would expire automati- cally January 1, 2001) in exchange for payments to be made to the City for recreational open space development. The first step when considering development of the property is to establish what type of General Plan and corresponding Zoning designations the property should be classified. The current Open Space- Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural General Plan and Zoning designation was reflective of the property's status under its Williamson Act contract. File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. The applicants, Trinity Development Company, are requesting single family residential land use designations for the two existing parcels; Residential -Very Low Density /R -1- 40,000 for the upper half and Residential - Medium Density /R- 1- 12,500 for the lower half of the property. A Tentative Subdivision Map application is also included representing the proposed development configuration. An environ- mental analysis of these discretionary applications is provided pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Sheet 3 of Exhibit "A" represents the applicants proposed General Plan and corresponding Zoning designation for the property. The originally submitted 10 -lot map delineated the boundary between R- VLD and R -MD between Lots 8 and 9; Lot 8 was initially two half - acre lots. In reviewing the City's existing adjacent land use designations and considering topographical features of the land, staff felt that it was appropriate to designate the entire upper half of the property as R -VLD; 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. The applicants have agreed with staff's assessment and have revised the map accordingly. Staff can now make the following findings to recommend approval of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments: • The proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area B Specific Plan; and • The proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the existing land uses, zoning districts and development patterns in the vicinity. Tentative Subdivision Map: The proposed residential subdivision is for 9 single- family building sites. The application has been reviewed, and require- ments and conditions have been generated, by the applicable City departments and consultants and public and private utility and safety providers. Clearances have been granted from each of these responsible agencies, with the exception of the City's Geotechnical Consultants. As is normal practice for hillside land, the Geological Consultants have asked for additional studies to be performed on the upper half of the site. The applicants are preparing these and they expect to submit them for review in approximately 6 weeks. Since this review only affected the upper half of the site, the applicants have requested that their map be considered in two phases. Staff has no concerns with doing this and is therefore only considering Phase One at the June 14th public hearing. Phase One includes the 7 lower lots within the proposed R- MD /R- 1- 12,5000 designation. No Final Map may be recorded until File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. both Phase One and Phase Two have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed Phase One 7 lots conform to all applicable Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements in terms of lot size, depth, width, frontage and available building envelope. Staff has discussed with the applicants the possibility of limiting homes within the lower half of the subdivision to single story construc- tion. Again, the applicants have agreed to this restriction with the exception of Lot 7. Because of a tree they have identified as a large Coast Live Oak at the back corner of Lot 7, they would like to be able to build a two- story, smaller footprint, home on this site. The 7 proposed lots range from 12,500 to 15,000 sq. ft. in size and would allow homes from 3,710 to 4,050 sq. ft. in size, including garages. Environmental Review: CEQA requires that the City perform an environmental initial study to determine if this proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The attached draft initial study prepared by staff finds that the proposal will not cause such impacts with the mitigation measures incorporated as conditions of project approval. Tree removal on the site will be minimized and controlled by the City under the supervision of the City Arborist. The row of six Chinese Pistachios and one Italian Stone Pine which would be removed as a result of widening Saratoga Hills Rd. have been identified by the City Arborist as being largely "poor specimens ". The intermittent drainage system which runs across Lot 8 will be unaffected by the modified map; the original map would have created a building site across this feature. Based on the initial study conclusions, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment requests and both the Phase One and Phase Two Tentative Subdivision Map requests. RECOMMENDATION: Review the staff report and draft environmental initial study and open the public hearing to take testimony. Unless new information is presented which would affect the environmental determination, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Staff is further recommending that the Planning Commission approve the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the Phase One Tentative Subdivision Map, with conditions, by adopting the attached Resolutions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 10 - structure visible from this property was located across to the west where there is an enormous pool house. She stated that she did not see a problem with the incompatibility issue. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not see a concern with the use of the cottage . She indicated that she could not support the design of 100 feet adjacent to the Frenches project without being stepped down with some recognition being given to the hill as well as some consideration being given to bulk. She would therefore vote against the proposal. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not feel that the applicant addressed the neighbors' concerns. He felt that the proposed design would impact the neighbors located to the south and west. Therefore, he would not support the proposal. Chairman Murakami stated his appreciation for the softening of the design. He indicated that his main concern was that of the accessory structure and felt that it should be removed. However, he was inclined to allow the cottage to remain after hearing staff's explanation of a second unit versus an accessory structure. He was satisfied with the location of the garage, especially after seeing the large house with the large pool structure across the way. As far as the placement of the house, even if it was only moved 4.5 feet, he could not see it being moved - -. further to the west without destroying the existing trees. He felt that the driveway configuration was reasonable at this point for the reasons as explained by the other Commissioners (noise). He indicated that he could approve the application. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -95 -019 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE LIMITED MONDAY - FRIDAY, 7:30 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M.; AND 2) THE REMOVAL OF THE TEMPORARY TOOL SHED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, SIEGFRIED, MURAKAMI; NOES: ABSHIRE, PATRICK; ABSENT: ASFOUR AND CALDWELL. 7. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, SD -94 -005 - TRINITY DEVELOPMENT CO. Request for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow the properties to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural designation to a Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density/R -1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 designation. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is also requested to subdivide the two separate parcels into 9 single - family residential building sites. An environmental Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared (cont. from 6/14/95 to expand Initial Study; application expires 1/31/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger challenging both staff's decision procedurally to pursue a mitigated Negative Declaration, specifically challenging the individual components of the initial study in terms its true impact on area traffic, biological resources, tree protection and habitat protection. He informed the Commission that staff has not responded to the letter as staff received the letter late last week. He indicated that staff was prepared to answer questions that the Commission may have regarding this submittal. He indicated that staff still feels that the initial study and the mitigated Negative Declaration are PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 11 - appropriate and that with the City's horticultural consultant report, the City's geotechnical clearance report, the updated biological report and all the other transmittal and correspondences that have been received from public and private utility providers and safety providers, that the environmental review performed to date and that the documents presented to the Commission were accurate. Staff finds that the General Plan and zoning ordinance amendments proposed are consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan for this area. The request is consistent with the land use patterns that occur in this area and that there are sufficient protection measures included in the attached resolution to ensure compatibility of future development with the development in the surrounding area. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the General Plan amendment and Zoning Ordinance for the proposal as stated, that the Commission approve the tentative map subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, and that the Commission adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration. He informed the Commission that present at tonight's meeting were Public Works Director Perlin to address off -site improvements and drainage issues that may be raised; City Attorney Faubion to address legal issues that may be raised regarding staff's procedural review of the applications; and Dr. Rick Hopkins, wildlife ecologist and project manager with H.T. Harvey and Associates to address the biological assessment of the property and to answer any questions which may arise. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the letter from the law firm had been included in the Commission's agenda packet and was not distributed to the Commission this evening. However, staff has not had the opportunity to respond to the letter. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this proposal should have been submitted to the Department of Fish and Game during the 21 day review period? Community Development Director Curtis responded that staff made the initial finding that the proposal would not have a significant impact on wildlife and that staff did not feel that it was necessary to forward the proposal to the Department of Fish and Game as there were no impacts. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter from the law firm appears to be out of date procedurally as the project is no longer going to be a two phased project. She felt that the Commission needed to hear from the City Attorney as to what the impacts of a law suit would have on the Commission's evaluation. City Attorney Faubion indicated that she was not aware of any litigation being filed but that she was informed that there may be an initiative regarding the General Plan amendment. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that litigation was initiated by some neighbors following the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract taken by the City Council. In his discussion with the City Attorney, it was determined that litigation would not have an affect on the deliberation of this project because it was a separate issue and that the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract was not required to be addressed by the Planning Commission. He indicated that the Planning Commission could proceed with its review of this proposal. Commissioner Kaplan asked Public Works Director Perlin as to the water situation as there seems to be a great deal of concern by the neighbors with flooding of the property surrounding Nelson Gardens. She felt that development of the property would capture the natural runoff that is occurring in the City's runoff system, alleviating the drainage problem. Public Works PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Director Perlin indicated that he was not aware of any unusual flooding or drainage problems that exists in this part of town. He indicated that the Public Works Department has not received any inquires or complaints about drainage in the vicinity nor any inquires regarding drainage problems emanating from this site or properties surrounding this site. Regarding the comment as to whether the development can aid in solving drainage problems, he stated that it was a true statement. However, he was not aware as to what the problems were. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that individuals have stated that S€ pumps are being installed .;;:........... in some areas. She requested that staff investigate the situation. Director of Public Works Perlin stated that there are storm drain systems in the area and felt that there was more than adequate drainage facilities in the area. He informed the Commission that drainage and grading plans are required to be submitted with the submission of the improvement plans for the subdivision which are reviewed and approved by staff. Chairman Murakami asked Public Works Director Perlin to elaborate on traffic and the traffic studies for this subdivision. Public Works Director Perlin responded that a traffic study was not prepared for this subdivision as it was not warranted for a project of this size. He indicated that anywhere from 90 to 100 additional trips can be expected to generated along the street system __... __. that would serve this site if the site was fully developed. He felt that this was such a small number of trips that it did not warrant a special traffic study and felt that the street system in that area can readily accommodate that number, of trips. He did not feel that the subdivision would create any detrimental traffic impacts and would not require any mitigation improvements to be constructed to accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated from this project. Commissioner Abshire inquired as to who was the City's geotechnical consultant. Public Works Director Perlin informed the Commission that William Cotton and Associates was the City's geotechnical consultant. He informed the Commission that the City's geotechnical consultant visits the site as well as reviews the geotechnical reports prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultants. Commissioner Abshire inquired as to who would prepare a detailed site study? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the detailed site study would be performed by either the same firms that did the initial work up to this point or by new firms that may be brought in by individual lot owners in the future as they come in to build individual homes on each lot. It was his opinion that the Commission can take the advise of the geotechnical consultant that all the lots are buildable. Commissioner Siegfried asked when did William Cotton and Associates prepare the original mapping of the hillside. Public Works Director Perlin responded that there were a series of three studies prepared beginning in the late 1970s and culminating in the late 1980s and that it was his belief that the study for this property may have been prepared in the 1970s. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this site or this area was included in the detailed mapping study that was completed. He inquired if there have been any failures due to landslides of the homes that were built subsequently to the completion of the mapping studies. Public Works Director Perlin responded that there have been problems in the hillsides with individual structures built that have exhibited some significant damage as the result of landslide movement and seismic PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 13 - shaking. However, homes that have been constructed since 1985 have been little, if any, significant damage to the home structures. Commissioner Kaplan asked where the map entitled "Shaking Intensity" came from and what information it contained. Public Works Director Perlin noted that the map was a study prepared by ABAG and that the information was probably a culmination of a survey, region -wide (i.e., San Francisco Bay area) and that it was a study that estimated what the maximum credible earthquake might be in different locations around the bay area of how much shaking one might expect from earthquakes of certain magnitudes. He felt that it was useful reference information and should be shown to the general public. However, when it comes down to building on a specific lot, it does not provide assistance. Commissioner Kaplan asked how one specific building site can be identified in an area photograph. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that the study was at a macro level and that the site was at a micro level. He did not believe that this property could be identified on the map. Commissioner Siegfried noted that all the studies prepared by William Cotton and Associates in the early 1980s were considered mapping of the hillside. However, while they were not identified as potential problems, it was used only as a point of reference. Once you get site - - specific, a special study would need to be prepared. Public Works Director Perlin indicated studies prepared by the City were the most detailed and accurate studies that have been done on the Saratoga hillsides up to this point. These studies would represent the foundation for when one develops on the hillside. Commissioner Patrick asked how old the existing surrounding homes were? It was Public Works Director Perlin's belief that the existing homes were constructed approximately 20 -25 years ago. Commissioner Abshire indicated that this was the first proposal that has come before him that the City had a substantial economic stake and asked if he should recuse himself from this proposal. City Attorney Faubion stated that Commissioner Abshire spoke to her earlier this evening and that although he indicated that he was not present at the June 14 meeting when this item was considered, he has reviewed the record for this project. Regarding his question as to whether he should recuse himself from this project, she stated that as a Planning Commissioner, it was their job to consider the General Plan amendment, the rezoning and the subdivision and determine the appropriateness of the proposal as it relates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She did not believe that the Commission should preclude itself from discussing this proposal. Chairman Murakami asked what was the difference between an EIR and EIS. Community Development Director Curtis stated that an EIR was a California Environmental Quality Act Study and that an EIS was a National Environmental Policy Act Study. NEPA is used to evaluate federal projects. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that this was a new procedure to her in terms of considering a General Plan change and asked what is her role. Community Development Director Curtis PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 14 - responded that the Commission would be dealing with a land use change to the General Plan. The Commission would review the proposal to determine if it is appropriate and whether it would meet the goals of housing for the area. The Commission would primarily be determining if the general plan amendment was an appropriate change and consistent with the area. He stated that the General Plan was a general guide as to how an area should be developed in the future (a guide to plan infrastructure needs) and that the zoning ordinance implements the general plan. He further stated that zoning would need to be consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there were levels of expectations of what individuals thought would be developed in the future and whether it would be outside the expectation of homeowners that the area would remain as it was planned. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it would be an expectation of an individual that the general plan would generally indicate what is to develop in an area and that the General Plan would not vary significantly from the overall development patterns in the area. City Attorney Faubion explained that the General Plan consisted of a map /diagram depicting land use and also includes text and policies. The expectations can be reviewed in the map. She indicated that you can have different uses in an area under certain circumstances. She noted that -..- . -. the General Plan Policies would need to be reviewed. In reviewing a project such as this one, it has to be determined if it is a map or policy change. In this case, it is a map change and as such, the Commission would need to look at the General Plan Map to determine if the change is an appropriate one. Then the policies would need to be reviewed to determine if the amendment it consistent with City goals and policies. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Alan Pinn, Pinn Bros. Construction, indicated that earthquake faults were not found in the two geologic reports that were prepared for this site and that it was found that the soil contained bedrock, the best conditions that one can build on. Regarding the concern that there is leakage of water in the foundation in the area, he stated that the City's geologist did not find any leakage in any foundations. He felt that irrigation and badly designed grading contributed to the geologic hazard. He addressed the wildlife and plant habitat. He noted that the City's arborist recommends that 90% of the trees be removed as the site was overgrown. He indicated that eleven trees were to remain and that there would be an elimination of the dead orchard. Further, he indicated that all the trees located at the top of the hill were to remain. He addressed the community goals and inquired if the community goals were for Saratoga or just for this area. He indicated that open space could not be provided for the City's enjoyment. This project paid into a park fund so that open space can be spread throughout the community. Regarding the comments in the letter from the law firm relating to negative aesthetic affects, he felt that the Commission could address aesthetics at time of design review. Planner Walgren noted that there were more than a 100 trees on the site and that the green dots shown on the plan depict native trees. He indicated that one coast live oak tree on lot 1 is located in the area of the proposed driveway. He recommended that the tree be retained and that it be required that the driveway be shifted to the east. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Abshire asked what the steepest slope for the driveway would be for lot 9. Mr. Pinn indicated that a two level home is proposed on lot 9 and that it would be difficult to access but that he was not sure as to the steepness of the slope. Dr. Rick Hopkins, wildlife biologist, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have regarding wildlife. Chairman Murakami asked if any of the wildlife identified on the site would be considered as being endangered in the future. Dr. Hopkins indicated that there were both state and federal processes to designate wildlife species as endangered species. In response to Chairman Murakami's question, Dr. Hopkins explained that there were over a 150 deer herds in California. He indicated that reproductive efforts are not dependent on urban deer. He noted that approximately 10 deer per square mile is standard and stated that this area represents a small portion of the deer herd in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It was his belief that this site would not support habitat for five deer. Commissioner Patrick asked what would happen to the animals that move through this area? Dr. Hopkins stated that it was important to look at the site. He noted that one half of the site was surrounded by intense development. He noted that the site has gone through several changes to where you no longer have a functioning natural habitat. He stated that development has a tendency to displace species. However, it has been determined that the impact of development of this area would not be significant and that deer would continue to wonder on the site as they currently do throughout the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick asked if specific measures should be required to mitigate impacts. Dr. Hopkins noted that there currently exists development and that the residents would complain if wildlife destroyed landscaping. He did not believe that there would be a significant amount of land to support wildlife. He noted that there were no deer routes in this area. The orchard area would be lost to the deer and that the deer may shift to the other two parcels. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, indicated that she has reviewed the documents prepared by planning staff. She felt that the new negative declaration did not address the deficiencies as outlined in the letters submitted. She felt that approval of General Plan Amendment, zoning and subdivision applications would violate the City's General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. She felt that not addressing the deficiencies would be a violation of CEQA. As the project has changed, she felt that a new negative declaration would need to be prepared. She addressed the significant impacts of drainage and soil stability and that failure to address the significant impacts would be in violation of CEQA requirements. She requested that tl a large oak tree be addressed. She felt that the proposal became a new project because two projects have been combined. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, addressed the comment that was made that there was an indication that "bedrock" was found on the site. He noted that all faults consist of bedrock. He felt that this issue should be studied. Regarding the water problem on the lot, he noted that an artisan spring exists on the site and that artisan wells come from underground aquifers, not from PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 16 - over watering. The water that the neighbors have are due to the artisan wells that still exist when the water table becomes high enough. The artisan wells will become active if wet years continue and recommended that these issues be investigated. Mr. Pinn addressed the geotechnical report for lots 5, 6, 7 and 8. He indicated that three studies have indicated that there were no faults located on the site. He did not feel that a spring should be the reason to deny the project as development would assist in diverting spring water to a storm drain system. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:18 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he was familiar with the work done by Mr. Cotton and the procedures that need to be undertaken with the geotechnical review. He felt that if one was to look at the old San Jose Water Company site and the kind of studies were completed that are required with this subdivision, there would have been many sites that would not have passed the initial test of being a buildable site. However, in that case, lots were emanated as the sites were reviewed during the Commission's study sessions. He felt that the study presented this evening __.. _. indicates that there are nine sites that could be built upon and that there is nothing that suggests that they cannot be built upon. There may be specific problems that may cause the relocation and the use of retaining walls. However, he did not remember from this stage forward where specific sites were subsequently rejected. He did remember many instances where sites did not make it to this point because of all the underlying studies. He indicated that he was satisfied with the work that the geologist has done. He felt that the Commission was well advised to do what it did two months ago (i.e., the Commission was not going to approve a negative declaration until it was satisfied that the entire project meets this first threshold test). To go any further than that would be essentially to ask for a final design of a project. He felt that the City has gotten to the point where any potential problems have been identified and any potential mitigations will be affirmed as the result of specific tests which he did not believe would be major at this point in time. He felt that the City has all the information necessary contained in the geotechnical report. He indicated that faults have not been determined on this site. He felt that the study on fauna and vegetation was very complete and accurate. He felt that the question regarding traffic has been adequately addressed by the Public Works Director based on his expertise and belief that this project would not have any significant or substantial impact. He felt that the Commission has been provided through a variety of documents with more than sufficient information to adopt a Negative Declaration. He did not believe that there was any additional information that a focused EIR or a full EIR could provide than what has been provided. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she was satisfied with the reports provided and that she had some knowledge of the area. She felt that an area is being reviewed that has been developed all around it. She felt development of the existing homes have also impacted the neighborhood. She indicated that she was familiar with the deer population and that it was her observation that there were more deer per acre than indicated. She did not feel that this project would cause a substantial impact to wildlife and that she would support the adoption of the Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Abshire stated that he has to rely on the advice of the experts and that the experts have indicated that there are nine building sites. He recommended that lot 9 not be built upon because it was more suitable for the animals. He regrets the process that has taken place thus far because it was late in getting the Planning Commission involved in this process. He felt that a lot of issues have been brought up and that the Commission has had very little input on this project. He indicated that he felt guilty with the fact that the City has taken money away from a non - profit organization in order to allow development. He stated that he would hate to see the City doing this sort of thing and that it was not, in his view, as being fair. Commissioner Kaplan agreed that the land use issue and mitigated negative declaration have addressed all the concerns and that she would support them. Chairman Murakami indicated that his main concern was related to environmental issues. He noted that there was development surrounding this site, therefore, it was not a pristine piece of land. He stated that he did have some concerns in terms of procedural questions that have been raised about CEQA. However, he felt that for the most part, staff has answered his concerns. Therefore, he was ready to adopt the Negative Declaration for this project. _. _. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATIONS GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, AND SD -94- 005. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. Community Development Director Curtis clarified, at Commissioner Siegfried's request, that the Commission would be forwarding its recommendation to the City Council regarding the mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan and zoning amendments. The recommendation regarding the GPA and Zoning Amendments would not stipulate the number of lots that would be developed on the site. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA -94 -003. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO -94 -002. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she focused on the EIR and the mitigated Negative Declaration. She stated that she did not focus on the tentative map. Therefore, she indicated that she was not ready to act on the tentative map. Commissioner Patrick asked if the proposed nine lots were approved and that in the future, the geotechnical staff determines that one lot is basically unbuildable because there is an artisan well or another. problem associated with construction, does that mean that the lot is a buildable lot because the Commission approved the lot or was the Commission approving the subdivision contingent upon the approval of the various expert's reports? Planner Walgren responded that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 18 - approval of the tentative map would be giving tentative approval to that building site based on the preliminary geotechnical reports that have been prepared and reviewed to date. At that point, the applicant would need to meet those individual conditions in order to file and record the final map. Commissioner Patrick asked if there would be any conditions which would occur that would not allow building on any of the approved lots? Planner Walgren responded that the tentative map should not be approved if there was still a concern. Approval of this tentative map application would be for nine lots. He indicted that the City's geotechnical consultant felt that enough studies have been performed to ascertain that these are nine buildable lots. Granting approval of this tentative map would be granting approval of nine single family home sites. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she has reviewed the tentative map and that her review indicated that one legal lot of record currently exists. She felt that the lower lots can be built upon. She indicated that she was prepared to approve the tentative map. She felt that the resolution contained enough conditions to satisfy her concerns. Planner Walgren responded to the Commission's request to focus on the conditions of approval. He noted that the majority of the conditions, particularly from the City Engineer's office regarding the public improvements and all the geotechnical review conditions, are standard conditions applied to any hillside subdivision. - -These standard conditions are identified in conditions 1 through 10. He noted that the only thing that was unusual in this particular case was condition 1. That being the fact that each individual home application, whether it was a single story or two story home, would have to come back through a public review process and that they would be further reviewed by the City Arborist in order to protect the significant oaks that have been identified on the property. A finding would need to be made which stipulates that the homes be compatible with the existing homes (a standard design review criteria to be considered in the public hearing review stage). Condition 5 limits lots 1 through 6 to single story construction not to exceed 22 feet in height. This condition is not normally placed on a new subdivision and is governed by existing zoning standards in other areas. In this case, staff felt that the condition would be appropriate to ensure compatibility with the existing homes in the surrounding areas. Condition 6 restricts the fencing of lots 8 and 9 to a maximum of 4,000 square feet which is consistent with what is used in the hillside districts. Condition 8 references the Memorandum of Understanding. The subdivision construction hours are being limited to Monday- Friday. Commissioner Siegfried felt that staff's emphases on condition 1 was important and supported its language. Also, the language in Condition 4 is important to make sure that the home was compatible in terms of scale and size with existing structures. He felt that these conditions address his concerns. Community Development Director Curtis asked Planner Walgren to describe what the range in house size would be for this development. Planner Walgren responded that the lot area for the lower seven lots would be from 12,500 to 15,000 square feet size and could have 3,700 to 4,000 square foot structures including the garages and accessory buildings. He noted that the range in size would be higher for the upper two lots being that they were one acre and larger in size. He recommended the addition of the following conditions: 1) "Every effort should be made to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 19 - realign the driveway to retain oak tree 119 located on lot 1; and 2) "The City Arborist to review and provide any recommendations for any trenching work, any new curb and gutter, etc. " Commissioner Siegfried stated that he preferred the language as contained in condition 4 because he was concerned with the original proposal (Memorandum of Understanding) between the City and the property owner relating to the maximum square footage that would be allowed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD -94- 005 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) "ALL EFFORTS ARE TO BE MADE TO PROTECT TREE NO. 119 LOCATED ON LOT 1 TO KEEP THE TREE PROTECTED FROM THE DRIVEWAY AND TO IMPLEMENT THE STEPS NECESSARY TO PROTECT SAID TREE. THE CITY ARBORIST IS TO BE CONSULTED AND HIS RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREE(S) RELATING TO TRENCHING, FENCING, ETC." THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. City Attorney Faubion pointed out that in order for this tentative map to be valid, the General Plan Amendment and the zoning amendment would need to be approved by the City Council. Community Development Director Curtis .further explained that the General Plan and zoning change are a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council and that the tentative map was a final approval by the Planning Commission unless appealed within 15 days from the date of approval to the City Council. 8. DR -95 -033 - LARSON /HOUSTON; 14810 SOBEY ROAD Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing residence and construct a new 5,765 sq. ft. two -story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1. 11 acres and is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:41 p.m. Jerry Houston, applicant, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she liked the design of the house and was glad to see that it was not another Mediterranean stucco design. Mark Lundy, 14750 Sobey Road, requested that construction be limited to Monday- Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. unless there is activity that is not a noise pollutant. He stated that he was surprised to receive notification of just over a one week prior to this hearing date. He noted that the notice did not have a date as to when it was mailed. He also noted that the adjacent neighbor did not receive notice and that he was not aware if the neighbors were aware of the Commission's public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSI, MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 22 - individuals could be restricted from using public streets. She had a concern about privatizing something that was rather public. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she agreed with Commissioner Patrick in many ways. She indicated that she has listened very carefully to the opposition tonight and reviewed the information submitted. She indicated that she had spoken to Mrs. Dorsee previously without making a commitment. The comment by Commissioner Patrick about keeping people out was one that was on her list. She submitted that the presence of Highway 85 through the community could probably bring criminal activities to the community. She did not believe that the guests would create any more of a risk to the property and to security. She felt that part of the problem was that the language that being used by both sides was imprecise. The term "homeless shelter" has been used but that this was not a homeless shelter program. The Prince of Peace Church has been instrumental in her thinking as this program currently exists in the community and notices that it has worked. She felt that the community can make a contribution to a problem that it did not necessarily create and reach 15 individuals on a one to one basis and turn their lives around. She indicated that she would support the use. Chairman Murakami stated that he resides close to the churches and that he was familiar with the area. He noticed that there was a physical difference between this neighborhood and the other churches who run this program. He was concerned that the one incident which may occur was a fact that should be considered. He stated that he had mixed emotions regarding approval of this request. He sees a breakdown with the community and the church in its communication with each other. He felt that the residents felt that this use was being forced upon them and that they had no choice in the matter. Commissioner Caldwell commented that Chairman Murakami and Commissioner Siegfried brought up a good point about the break down in communication. She felt that it may be a matter of education and that she did not feel that the education has occurred. She did not know if the Commission should force a use on a neighborhood that was not ready for it. She suggested that action be deferred to allow the Church to work with the neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried stated that based on the comments as presented by Commissioners Patrick and Kaplan he has been swayed to support the use. He felt that this was the kind of use that should be implemented to solve problems and based on the history of the program in other communities, he would vote to support the use. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. TUP- 95 -001 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE RESOLUTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: CALDWELL, MURAKAMI; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR. 9. GPA -94 -003- Trinity Development Co.; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd., request for AZO -94 -002- Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two hillside - parcels totaling 5.1 acres into 9 single - family residential building sites. A General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change are requested to allow the properties to be rezoned from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural PLANNING COMMISSI, MINUTES NNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 23 - designation to a Residential /R -1- 12,500 and R- 1- 40,000 designation. An environmental Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration will also be presented. These documents have been prepared and have been made available for public review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that the tentative map would be for phase 1 (the lower 7 lots) and that phase 2 would be reviewed at a later date once that part of the subdivision receives geotechnical clearance from the City's consultant. He stated that the subdivision was tied to the map as a whole and that no final map could be recorded until both phase 1 and phase 2 are decided. In response to Commissioner Patrick's question, Planner Walgren indicated that the geotechnical report has not been completed for upper parcels 8 and 9. Commissioner Patrick asked if the geotechnical issues have been resolved for the lower lots or whether the geotechnical report would address any impacts. She expressed concern that the project was not being reviewed as a whole. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City was still reviewing the project as a whole in terms of drainage, tree protection, utilities, safety, and other issues. He indicated that the lower seven parcels have been cleared by the City's geologist. However, the upper two parcels with the stepper terrain have not yet received geotechnical clearance. While staff anticipates that the clearance would be granted within the next four to six weeks, it has not occurred as of yet and that if for some reason the geotechnical clearance was not granted, than those building sites would not be guaranteed as shown on the tentative map. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with the piece -meal approach being taken with this project. Commissioner Caldwell asked what would happen if the City establishes that the geotechnical review of the upper portion requires that some mitigation measures be undertaken that may involve the lower .lot lots. Planner Walgren responded that a condition in the resolution stipulates that phase I is contingent on phase II and that a final map cannot be recorded until clearance has been received for phase 2. Commissioner Caldwell asked how staff could check "no" in the initial study check under the geotechnical sections la and lb if the Commission does not know with respect to the upper lots whether it will receive geotechnical clearance. She indicated that the Commission may not know the geotechnical impacts on the lower lots because they may be affected by what is found on the upper lots. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern about going into this process without having the environmental review completed. She indicated that she was not in support of any piece -meal consideration and that she wanted to have the entire project presented as one packet with all the pertinent information being reviewed and evaluated. Commissioner Caldwell commented that she had a fundamental concern under CEQA in handling this project in this manner. She felt that there was an initial study that involved an entire property with unknowns that may involve the lower parcels. Under CEQA, case laws states that you cannot break up a project in the hopes that some future study is going to analyze PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 24 - the problem and that the problem would be understood better then that it would be understood at this time. She felt that now was the time to consider all information so that the public and the Commission can understand and evaluate the environmental impacts. Planner Walgren clarified that the entire property has gone through the first level of geotechnical investigation and that the consultants are anticipating that the two upper lots would receive their clearances. In the consultants' preliminary review, they have not cited anything that would prevent them from granting clearances. Thus, the basis for proceeding in this manner. He made it clear that the City was processing this phased map at the request of the applicant and that such a request is provided for in the city code. If the Commission feels that it is more appropriate to review it as a whole, staff could separate the tentative map from the other General Plan and zoning applications this evening. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she had fundamental concerns regarding zoning changes and what that would imply for some of the environmental impacts that could occur on this property. She noted that this project has been fallow for a long period of time. She felt that a lot has happened since 1988 when the last biologist looked at the property. She indicated that she was very uncomfortable with separating out individual decisions that collectively leads the City to one end. She was concerned with making a piece -meal decision about zoning and then making a decision on the tentative map at a later date. By the time the Commission gets to the last piece of the puzzle for this development, the City has led itself down a path where there are not a lot of options left. Planner Walgren stated that he understood Commissioner Caldwell's concerns but that those controls were built into the resolution but that if the Commission felt more comfortable with dealing with this application as a whole application, that can be done. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she had several concerns with the initial study that she was willing to provide input on this evening but that she was not comfortable with moving forward without the completion of the geotechnical clearance and the report being provided to the Commission for its review. She felt that the City holds a huge responsibility under CEQA to make sure that the City looks into the impacts associated with the project. Commissioner Patrick commented that given what has been seen in hillside development and the instability of the hills in Saratoga, she expressed concern with not looking at the project as a whole, especially given the high level of concern with the hillside parcel. Planner Walgren commented that it would be helpful if the Commission address its concerns with the initial study so that these concerns can be addressed while the Commission awaits the completion of the geotechnical report. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the Commission should open this item to public hearing as the public has been waiting a long time this evening for this item. He felt that enough concern has been raised by at least three of the Commissioners on procedural questions. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 11:25 p.m. Allen Pinn, Pinn Brothers Construction Company, 1475 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, builder /developer for the Trinity Development Company, stated that he would reserve his comments until comments are received from the public. He informed the Commission that the PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES NNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 25 - geotechnical report was not completed due to rains. Community Development Director Curtis commented that procedurally, this was the time for the applicants to present their project instead of waiting to hear the public comments and then respond to the comments. Mr. Pinn responded that he was in concurrence with the staff report and that he would prefer to respond to comments made by the public in the interest of time. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, commented that the City Council and the proponent of the project have made a decision that was totally out of plan. That decision being that in exchange for a 9 lot subdivision, the applicant would pay the City $600,000 for a park. Having made that decision, he felt that the Commission was stuck with the City Council's decision with what they are going to do. He provided the Commission with photographs which would help describe the property and the lands instability. He indicated that he served on the 1960 Master Plan Committee and believed that everything that can be done should be done to retain what is left of Saratoga's fast, disappearing open space. He supported the fostering, wherever possible, small neighborhood parks. He felt that this parcel was general planned as a neighborhood park. He was distressed to see the current trend for more subdivisions, larger homes on small lots. He felt that the San Jose syndrome was affecting this community. He strongly believed that the _ Nelson property should not be subdivided but should be retained as a demonstration garden as was originally intended by the owner, Frank Nelson. Since the City Council has allowed the property to be withdrawn from the Williamson Act and allowing the development of the subdivision, his comments relate to the manner of proper zoning and the public interest. He recommended that the lower three acres of the Nelson Garden be reconsidered as to how it should be modified and built. He felt that the upper two acre parcel was unstable and that it was a steep slope that presents a serious problem during earthquakes and at time of flood activities. He felt that there would be extreme removal of trees and the unnecessary disturbance of land and wildlife. He recommended that the Commission take its time to study the issues by visiting the area and to allow review the written report of the Ad Hoc Committee which studied the land use of 1988. He recommended that this item be continued because this was a difficult and serious matter. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, stated that he was a concerned Saratoga resident who wishes to see some of the ambiance that made Saratoga a desirable residential area preserved instead of impacting it. He felt that the area demands an EIR for the following reasons: the parcel is designated as a high impact earthquake area of the ABAG Map issued in 1995 and that the upper area of this parcel is extremely rugged and he questioned the accuracy of the slope density as submitted. He suggested that an independent survey of the area be undertaken because the upper area is reportedly to be of fill material and would be subject to sliding not only due to the unstable fill but the underlying slate, which when wet, has a tendency to slip. The past history of the site includes a natural spring on the hillside which indicates a potential serious building problem and that erosion would occur with development. Another aspect would be the affect of the loss of the major number of mature trees and shrubs, many of which are rare and irreplaceable. The adverse affect on birds and native wildlife would be totalled. Once homes are built and the ecosystem destroyed, the original residential creatures would be excluded. An impact would be made to the history of Saratoga by destroying the last remaining apricot orchard. The neighborhood would be deprived of one last chance for a small community park PLANNING COMMISSI 'MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 26 - and garden. This would ignore the original intent of the General Plan for such parks. The lots and park site would not be compatible with the neighborhood nor would it be in keeping with the community's expectation for how this land should be developed. He felt that the mitigations proposed were inadequate and would expedite the desires of the developer. He noted that no adequate penalties were included in the mitigations in the event that these projected consequences would ensue. He felt that this parcel should not be approved as two separate entities because what happens in the lower area could be closely related to the upper areas. Should a massive earthquake occur during a rainy season, he felt that a massive mud slide could shift the greater portion of the upper parcel onto the lower parcel, resulting on one individual parcel. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, requested that the Commission not take any action on the Nelson Garden project until the following problems are considered: the issue of an up to date study as to how development would comply with CEQA laws; it appears that the developer was trying to split the property into flat lands and sloped area, dealing with the geotechnical problems with the slope at a later date; the geologic study that the developer is relying upon is an eight year old study, prepared by the former development company that wanted to develop Nelson Garden; the City needs to complete an independent study and not rely on the developer. She noted that a study has been prepared to look at the negative impacts on the riparian population. She concurred with Dr. Stutzman that the mitigation studies have not been prepared and that the reports were not adequate. She felt that an environmental report needs to be completed. She pointed out that there has been a recently released study with photos prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). She noted that there was a photo in the study that indicates that there is a high shaking amplification area that exists next to the Nelson Garden and that the project would be a liability to Saratoga if allowed to develop. Paul Griffith, 13878 Malcolm Avenue, informed the Commission that he resides in the flat area, four houses away from the property and that his neighbor across the street has been involved with extensive foundation problems as it has sunk down a foot due to improper drainage. He recommended that this project be reviewed as a complete parcel instead of two separate parcels. He was uncomfortable with the way that this project was proceeding. He stated that there appears to be a contract or Memorandum of Understanding between the City Council and the applicant. He noted that there was not a change in zoning and yet the developer was in a contract with the City Council without benefit of review. He felt that once the City reviews the facts, that it may be decided that it may not be in the best interest of Saratoga to develop this property. He did not agree with the funds exchanged between the developer and the City Council. This property was zoned under the Williamson Act for preservation of the land. He stated that he did not want any more monies placed towards Congress Spring Parks because it was not an appropriate park in its location because it was unsafe and located adjacent to the railroad tracks. He recommended that the City look at alternative parks. He requested that the Commission review the original intention of the land and review the 1988 study referred to by Dr. Stutzman. Bud Alexander, 20760 Trinity Avenue, indicated that he resides across the street from this development. He read the Negative Declaration that states that an EIR study was not needed. He indicated that he could look out of his window and see steep, unbuildable land. He was concerned because the economics of this proposal would create large homes across the street PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 27 - from him if this project goes forward. He did not believe that the construction of compatible homes to that of the existing single family homes in terms of massing, size and style would be possible. He also noted that Foothill School was in the vicinity and that the initial study indicates that there would be no impact to schools. He felt that there was an impact to the school as he is not able to register his granddaughter into Foothill School because it is too crowded. He recommended that a full EIR be prepared for this project before the City moves forward with the request, understanding that it may be tough with the $600,000 being dangled in front of the City Council. Mr. Pinn addressed the concerns that were raised by the adjacent residents. He noted that the only change that would occur would be the loss of orchard trees which appear to be dead. The arborist report concludes that 90 percent of the existing trees should be removed. He does not propose to do that. He informed the Commission that two new homes would be located where the existing houses are located. He did not believe that anyone would see these two homes because they would be buried within the existing trees. He indicated that as many trees that can would be preserved. He addressed the compatibility issue of the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that all of the lots are to be as big or bigger than the lots located across the street. The homes proposed on these lots would be in conformance with the City's Design and Zoning Ordinances and would be less than 3,000 square feet and would all be single story homes. Comparing this size to that of the houses located across the street, the argument would be small. Regarding the soils problem, the City has one of the toughest geologist in the area and that a consultant was retained by the applicant to prepare a report to provide the City's geologist. These two geologist concur that there are no geologic problems associated with the bottom portion of the project. He anticipated that the reports would be completed in two to three weeks but that it would take the City's geologist three full weeks to a month to research the issues. Therefore, it would be a six week review process for the two geologists to review the reports. He felt that the zoning would be compatible and consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan for the area and that the homes would be compatible with the homes located across the street. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the initial study was based on the 1988 study? Planner Walgren responded that the study was used to a degree but was not relied upon heavily. The 1988 study was included as an informational item and that it was based on the City's horticultural consultant, the City aborist's assessment and was based on part by the geotechnical consultants and staff's on -site and project evaluation as well as the Biology study of 1988. He felt that the specific environmental concerns appear to be the soils stability, geotechnical stability, preservation of significant on site trees and the protection of the existing significant natural habitats and environment. Commissioner Caldwell felt that Planner Walgren's comments indicate that a focused EIR should be required. She felt that a mitigated Negative Declaration was one of the most controversial items that the City uses and that the City needed to be very careful if it was going to rely on mitigated Negative Declarations. She felt that the mitigations would need to be spelled out in detail and noted that they were not. She noted that the mitigations were broad, conceptual statements about complying with Design Review and getting compatible housing and that it was not on the level of detail that would be expected from a mitigated Negative Declaration. She PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES NNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 28 - requested that staff go back and think about this because she felt that the mitigated Negative Declaration approach was an. inappropriate vehicle to base its decision on. She indicated that she wanted to make sure that whatever development goes in was appropriate and contained appropriate mitigations. The Commission would not know what appropriate mitigations should be applied until it is known what the potential impacts are. Community Development Director Curtis stated that staff has heard the comments as expressed by the Commission and that staff would reevaluate the project once the geotechnical information was received. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to have a better sense of the total geotechnical concerns on the property before proceeding with these applications. He did not believe that, there were many other concerns that could not be dealt with as recommended by staff once he was satisfied with the geotechnical review and that he wanted to get a better sense on the whole piece of property. He wanted to know the advantage in proceeding in this manner. Planner Walgren stated that he was not sure of the advantage to the applicant by requesting action on Phase I other than the fact that the applicant was getting a reading from the Planning Commission on the proposed land use configuration. He noted that no building or activity could occur could until the applicant received final map approval. Commissioner Caldwell stated that CEQA case law states that a City cannot approve a project through the tentative map contingent upon further analysis that has not been contemplated up this point. Commissioner Kaplan asked at what point would the city need to commit the number of lots that would be approved. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the number of lots would be determined when the Planning Commission is satisfied that this is an appropriate subdivision of the property. Commissioner Kaplan stated that there may not be a buildable lot on a portion of the property. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the evaluation and analysis has been completed for the bottom portion of land and that the only issue that remains would be what would happen up above if it is found that the land is not stable. He indicated that the preliminary information that staff has states that is not the case. Staff does not feel that any new information would come in that would affect the environmental evaluation of the bottom part of the parcel. It was his believe that enough information has been provided on the lower portion of the parcel, environmentally, that has led the process where it is today. Commissioner Caldwell read from the Sunstrum versus the County of Mendicino Case. She felt that a quote from this case talks about how the County relied on a mitigated negative declaration without the preparation of an EIR. The quote states that "The City's asserting that it could find no fair argument that there would be any potentially significant environmental impacts rests in part in its failure to undertake an adequate environmental analysis. CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than on the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impacts and that they are based on the limited facts on the record, deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of this argument by amending a logical plausibility to a wider range of emphasis. " She felt that the case study was talking about what she was concerned about where staff indicates that it is possible that PLANNING COMMISSI 'MINUTES NNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 29 - there will not be any impacts but yet, staff has not heard the concerns she was about to raise. It is being indicated in this phase of public testimony that individuals are saying that they believe there are impacts that need to be looked into (i.e. riparian community; the reference made in the 1988 Biologic Survey). She felt that the City needs to be careful about remaining ignorant about the environmental impacts by stating that if there are some environmental impacts, the City would create exclusive mitigations. She did not know how it could be determined if there were going to be any environmental impacts unless it is looked into. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the purpose of the initial study was to identify the information. He indicated that staff's decision on the mitigated Negative Declaration would not change but that if through the public hearing process, if new information was provided, it would be taken under consideration. Staff has identified that a riparian corridor exists. He indicated that staff was aware of the information that was available. The initial study was completed and a mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared based on the information that was available for the lower part of the property. Staff would not be ignoring any additional information that would be provided. Commissioner Caldwell identified the following concerns: item no. 1 - geotechnical report needs further reviewed; item no. 3 which deals with water, she did not see any. recognition of the drainage area that borders the upper half and lower half of the property which was referenced in the 1988 Biological Survey. and that it was clearly evident when she conducted her site visit. She further indicated that she disrupted two deer that were bedded down on the property and that public testimony has been received discussing the issue of vegetation on the property. She felt that it was more than just an issue of removing vegetation but was also an issue of the ramification of the removal of the vegetation and what happens to erosion control when that happens, what does that do to the wildlife habitat that presently exists on the property. Item 5 that deals with animal life, she felt that it was inappropriate to rely on a 1988 survey that was conducted for another developer and was not conducted under the City's direction. She felt that this survey may be temporarily invalid because that property has been reclaimed by wildlife over the last decade or so. It is not known what variety of wildlife may be on this property. What areas ares used by the wildlife on a regularly basis may dictate where you would locate fencing to accommodate wildlife. Instead there is a blanket statement in the proposed mitigation that limits the property of 4,000 square feet but that the mitigation does not indicate where that 4,000 square feet was to be located. Furthermore, the 1988 study did not contemplate this project but contemplated the project proposed in 1988. She felt that there needs to be sensitivity regarding construction noise that the nearby residents will need to endure. The mitigations that should be prepared need to be sensitive as the site is virtually surrounded homes. She felt that the City and the developer should be sensitive about the construction phase of the development and to think about the details. Land use - there is a proposal to change the General Plan and zoning designation and felt that the change may have some ultimate impacts. The area will be turned from a piece of land that has been reclaimed by wildlife to 9 homes. Natural Resources - this relates to the riparian community referred to by staff. Item 13 - Transportation and Circulation, she felt that it seemed to be standard procedures for the City to interpret that one home generates approximately 10 trips per day. If there are potentially 9 homes times 10 trips per day per home, that would result in 90 trips per day extra in this neighborhood. She could not believe that there would be no consideration associated with the increased traffic to be generated, PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES NNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 30 - particularly with the one blind corner located on Pontiac Avenue. The issue raised about schools in terms of public services by a member of the audience was a point well taken. She noted that "Aesthetics" was marked "no" in the initial checklist and yet was a continuing concern from the neighbors and felt that the concern was an appropriate one. She felt that if the City was going to be serious about the conditions that are to be placed on the structures that are to be built on this property, the parameters /mitigations need to be spelled out at this point. She had some general comments regarding her concerns regarding the piece -meal approach, and that the Commission has agreed to deal with this issue responsibly by keeping all the applications together and await the completion of the geotechnical information, keeping all the environmental impacts together. She expressed concerns with delegating any environmental analysis to another day. She felt that the Commission needs to deal with all the environmental analysis all together, at one time. In a case like this where there is significant public controversy, she felt that it was appropriate to require a focused EIR. She submitted to the City Attorney a quote about when it is appropriate to go to an EIR where there is public testimony (page 166 of her Lexis readout, 248 Hal Porter, 352 at 360). Planner Walgren informed the Commission that an EIR would require going out to bid for proposals if that was the route to be taken. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not feel that this process was to that point yet. He recommended that staff consider the comments expressed and return in two weeks addressing the issue of the EIR. He stated that he was not ready to move forward without the geotechnical information. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that this item be continued for six weeks so that staff has the benefit of the geotechnical review in determining the scope, of an EIR. She recommended that other Commissioners affirm some of her concerns if they are in agreement with her concerns or that other legitimate concerns which it may have be addressed this evening. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that Commissioner Caldwell addressed some of the issues she had. She stated that she was concerned with the animal life issues. She noted that the 1988 report concludes that the deer would go somewhere else and that she wanted to know where they would go. Also, she felt that Item 8 was a land use issue that needed to be addressed. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 TO THE AUGUST 9, 1995 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THE INTERIM, STAFF RECONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RAISED. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not sure if there would be a need for other types of documents to be produced by staff. He did not have a comfort level with the documentation without the geotechnical information. He did not know if there would be a need for a focused EIR but that he felt that there was a need to address and contemplate some of the issues a little more in detail. Community Development Director Curtis asked if it would be the direction of the Commission PLANNING COMMISSI(. MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 31 - to update the 1988 Study. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would support the update of the 1988 study if it was conducted under staff s direction. Commissioner Patrick felt that the Commission was looking at a two part document. She felt that impacts would need to be reviewed in its totality rather than two separate reviews. She noted that Mr. Coate's report seemed to raise some concerns about things that she noted that were not apparent concerns. She also expressed concern regarding the seasonal stream and the deer and that these concerns were not discussed in the mitigation measures. She indicated that she would like to review the total package versus review of a piece -meal approach. Chairman Murakami stated that he would want to see the final piece of the puzzle. He felt that an updated version of the 1988 study would be helpful and indicated that he would like to review these applications as an entire project. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that.. it has been a past practice of the Commission to cancel its second meeting in August. He asked if it was the Commission's intent to cancel the August 23 meeting. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CANCEL ITS AUGUST 23 MEETING. Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission that the July 4 work session would not be held and that it would be held on July 18, the first hour being spent with the Heritage Preservation Commission. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he would not be present at its June 28 meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS - continued 2. DR -94 -052; Heritage Oak Subdivision, 20018 & 20026 Saratoga Ave., Request for building pad elevation modifications. As this item was continued earlier by the Commission to its June 28 meeting, Commissioner Kaplan asked if staff was aware if there were any individuals present to address this item. Planner Walgren indicated that he spoke to the neighbors that came to the office to review the request and that their only concern was that the approved drainage plan not be changed. BY CONSENSUS THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMUNICATIONS Written TO: City Council City Hall Saratoga, Ca 95070 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL: FROM: F. L. Stutzman 1-5195 Park Drive Saratoga, Ca 95070 �12-D V - I regret that a long - planned journey prevents me from bringing you this message in person. I am opposed to the approval by the City for the development of the Nelson Garden property on the following basis: 1) The cancellation of the Williamson Act on the Nelson property was illegal, violating all of tree requirements set down by the state for cancellation of such a contract. 2) The acceptance of the Memorandum of Understanding by the City to the Community Foundation was nothing more than a quid pro quo bribe, and, in a legal 'sense, constitutes a conspiracy. 3) The negative environmental report was a boiler plate document, which totally failed to address the pertinent issues which exist on that property. 4) The data supplied by the developer's engineers, plus that of the consultants on the city payrolls, are suspect. Mr. Coi-ton, a consulting engineer, has erred in the past in favor of developers. He certified a slope as being 29 per cent on my neighbor's property; an independent engineer found it to be 63 per cent. It would be wise for the Council to resurvey the Nelson property, using an engineer with no financial. ties to the developer or to the City. 5) Sinking a few earth bore holes does nothing to verify a fault area. Trenches have to be dug at right angles to any suspected fault. 6) Blaming underground water seepage on the use of lawn sprinklers by persons living above on the slope is a farce. There has been, since Frank Nelson's time, a spring on that property. No sprinklers were used at that time. Neighbors down slope have to use sump pumps. 7) The wild life will be totally disrupted. Even dead trees on the property serve as food and nesting sources for birds. 8) That hillside is unstable, and development will lead to erosion and potential slides. This decision, if approved, will be hasty, ill- advised, and motivated only by greed. 'The needs of the community for open space, a quiet park, and historic preservation, all of which were touted by the Council as their vision for Saratoga, will be totally ignored. If carried through, this may well come back to haunt you for some time to come. ' OV !�n F.L. Stutzma , Park Drive, Saratoga I! I 'w Donald S. Macrae 20679 Reid Lane Saratoga, California 95070 City Council City Hall Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Realizing that this Council has already determined to allow the withdrawal of the Nelson property from the Williamson Act protection, and has agreed to allowing the development of up to 10 lots and houses on the property, I will proceed, in good faith, to make my presentation. 1. I believe the removal of the property from the Williamson Act protection at this time is inappropriate and improper. 2. I believe the property is not free and clear to be developed. 3. C.E.Q.A. provisions have not been properly followed in determing a Negative Declaration when considering the preparation of an EIR. a. Respondents failed to.require preparation of an EIR when substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the subdivision could have significant adverse environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, the following: Aesthetic impacts, including an impact to the viewshed on the hilltop from which one has a sweeping view of the Santa Clara Valley and the mountains beyond. Impacts to the existing vegetation species, including Valley Oaks, an apricot orchard and Chinese Pistachio trees imported to the property from the Sacramento Valley by Frank Nelson and his wife in 1940. Impacts resulting from the subdivision's destruction of five acres of park land in a city that meets less than half the requirements for the state standard for acreage devoted to parks. Impacts resulting from the displacement of wildlife. Geological impacts resulting from the development of houses on a steep hillside, and in an area subject to severe earthquake damage. Traffic and noise impacts occcurring during the construction of the subdivision. Mayor and City Council Page 2 Hydrological impacts resulting from additional impervious surfaces and the diversion of flowing ground water from hillside property above the Nelson Garden, water which is now absorbed by the roots of the trees in the orchard and the pine forest. Impacts resulting from the Williamson Act Cancellation and the subdivision's inconsistency with the Saratoga General Plan. Respectfully, '`" r GrYUx��67 r Donald S. Macrae 'U.6� &A September 13, 1995 City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, & SD -94 -005 Nelson Garden Property subdivision 20851 Saratoga Hills Road Dear City Council Members: This letter is to address the appeal request on the Planning Commission's decisions related to the environmental review of the Trinity Development Company's application for a general plan amendment (GPA -94 -003), zoning change (AZO -94 -002), and subdivision approval (SD -94 -005) for the property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road ( "Nelson Garden Property) . In addition, this letter also addresses the issue of the City of Saratoga's early termination of the Williamson Act contract for the Nelson Garden property. The project applicant, Trinity Development, seeks to subdivide two hillside parcels totaling 5.1 acres into nine single- family residential building sites. This can only be accomplished by obtaining an early termination of the Williamson Act contract on the property. Based on a review of the project, the procedural events, and the continuing lack of environmental documentation, it is our conclusion that approval of the project and adoption of the current mitigated negative declaration continues to violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . As stated in a previous detailed letter by our attorney, Ms. Tamara S. Galanter, "CEQA dictates that the City of Saratoga may not adopt a mitigated negative declaration for this.... project with out ensuring that all potentially significant environmental effects are mitigated to a level of insignificance." The City has failed to do that. In addition to the previously listed violations of CEQA, Ms. Galanter specifidally pointed out that the City has violated CEQA 's procedural requirements. "CEQA mandates that a lead agency send notice of its intent to adopt a negative declaration, together with a copy of a proposed negative declaration, 'to every... Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by a project' ". The City has failed to do that. Compounding the above two errors, there is an even more profound flaw in the City's procedure. All of the City Planning Commission's decisions discussed above have been based on the assumption of an established approval of an early cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. However, the City's action, early cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on the Nelson Garden Nelson Garden Page 2 property, is in litigation and unsettled. Consequently, continuation of decisions by both the Planning Commission and the City Council is illegal. Continuing to make decisions on a subdivision of land that is not clearly out of the Williamson Act is illegal. We are insisting that the City Council table any further development decisions until the legality of the previous Williamson Act early cancellation decision can be evaluated and definitively established in court. For the above reasons, we request that the City of Saratoga defer action on these appeals concerning a subdivision application and request for a General Plan amendment and zoning change for the Nelson Garden project. The legality of the early cancellation of the Williamson Act has not been established, so subsequent subdivision decisions are not legal. In addition, setting aside the legality issue, the Planning Commission's decisions have not complied with the CEQA rules. SincerelyL�/P- ,����• Ann Waltonsmith The Friends of The Nelson Garden CC: Tamara S. Galanter Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2,5 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 5, 199 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager SUBJECT: Local Governments for Superfund Reform; Request for Support Recommended Motion(s): Receive and File. Report Summary: Council continued this item from its meeting of June 21, 1995, to allow staff time to seek opinions from the National League of Cities (NLC) and the League of California Cities (LCC) on the legislative reform being advocated by LGSR (Local Governments for Superfund Reform. To this end the City Manager contacted Carol Kocheisen at NLC and Yvonne Hunter LCC. Neither organization has come out in support of LGSR or its specific proposal for Superfund reform. The LCC has not taken a position on Superfund legislative reform. The NLC has. A copy of its policy on Superfund is attached. Regarding the issue of liability, NLC states that municipal liability for cleanup costs must be clarified. NLC feels the interim Dolicv adopted by the EPA is an inadequate response to the concerns of municipalities because it does not protect transporters and generators of municipal solid waste from lawsuits by private parties for cost recovery and contribution to the clean up costs at Superfund sites. NLC supports legislation which would eliminate local government liability for disposal of ordinary municipal waste, provide expedited de minimis settlements for hazardous materials generated by local government operations, exempt municipalities from cleanup liability resulting from ownership and /or operation of a facility, cap cleanup liability for municipal transporters and generators of municipal solid waste, enable municipalities to recover response costs and costs for damages to natural resources, and reauthorization of Superfund at an adequate level of funding. NLC is concerned that any effort to limit the retroactivity of standards and to relieve responsible parties from liability for past activities could shift the expense of cleanup to states and local governments, require substantially increased Superfund taxes, or unfunded (and therefore not cleaned up) entirely. Fiscal Impacts: None Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: None Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The LGSR would not have the support of the City of Saratoga before the United States Congress. Fbllow Up Actions:If the Council supports the LGSR then the City would send notice of its support to the LGSR Grassroots Effort. If the Council does not support the LGSR then no action would be necessary unless the Council wishes to communicate to the LGSR why it is not supportive of their efforts. Attachments: Information from the LGSR previously received on 6/21/95. NLC Superfund Policies M f14i inspection, and maintenance of the property as well as re- sponsibility for any remedial action that may be necessary due to the hazardous wastes or materials disposed on such property. Y 12. E'co►iomk, C - version (Reuse 1-i Abandoned /Defunct Industrial Areas) Abandoned or defunct industrial and commercial sites in many of the nation's cities are, because of past practices, frequently impaired by environmental contamination. In many instances these areas - but for their environmental condition -- have the potential to contribute to the economic revitalization of the area or the city of which they are a pan. The Nationai League of Cities calls on the federal government to develop a program of economic revitalization and environ- mental restoration in coordination with states and local governments to assure that these currently unused resources can again serve a viable economic purpose. Congress should enact legislation addressing and resolving the disincentives created by potential liability to facilitate reuse of those properties. Such legislation should provide for a waiver or limitation of liability for non - contributing current or future o(vnem op;..rawi ,_m ..ave been ee4&,;,:: zs Lit: itt a,i-ainion, C;ong. provide financial assistance for environmental cleanup of these leas. Cleanup standards for these areas should be based on the level and type of contamination and the purposes for which the area is intended to be reused. 13. Federal Facility/Site Conversion With the downsizing of the nation's military structure and its coawersion to civilian use, XLC believes Congress and the ad:,ainistration should adopt the following environmental cleanup policies: standards sufficiently stringent to permit reuse of the facility or site in accordance with locally generated land use plans and to obviate the need for additional cleanup costs by the affected local governments or the private sector. Cleanup standards for these areas should be based on the level and type of contamina- tion and the purposes for which the area is intended to be reused; b. ensuring the ?ctive involvement -)f ?meal government officials in all phases of the environmental cleanup, including site evaluation and selection and implemen- tation of cleanup remedies; c. allowing parcelization of federal facilities or sites, where feasible, to permit prompt redevelopment of uncontaminated portions of the property; 16 d. coordination of timetables for environmental impact statements, parcelization, and prioritization wk ci- vilian reuse plans. F. Superfund Policies Z 1. Superfund Trust Fund Congress should reauthorize the Comprehensive Enviroturen- W Response, Compensation and Liability Act (also known as Superfund) for at least five years so that existing hazardous waste disposal sites can continue to be identified, evaluated and controlled. Congress should increase the size of the Hazardous Substance Response Trost Fund which supports the Superfund program to one that is $9 to $12 billion so that it will be adequate to clean up the sites already on the National Priority List (NPL) as well as any additional sites added to the list. Trust Fund revenues should be derived from the following sources: by doubling the fees imposed on feedstocks used in the production of hazardous materials and us: d by hazardous waste generating industries or importers of hazard- ous materials; by eliminating some of the current exemptions from the fee; by levying feedstock fees on some of the new chemicals deemed by EPA to be hazardous; by establishing a broad based tax (such as an ad valorem tax, an excise tax, or corporate surcharge); and by maintaining the current contri'ru- v�l rq�mtn rn the 'Tny�, F;�+ z. )randuA and Deadlines EPA, the states, and responsible parties have been hampered in site cleanup decisions by the lack of site cleanup standards. To rectify this problem, the federal government should man- date that Superfund sites be cleaned up to standards sufficient- ly stringent to permit reuse of tt,e facility or site in accordance with locally generated land use plans aad to obviate the need for additional cleanup costs by the affected local governments or the private sector. In order to ensure expeditious cleanup of Superfund sites, Congress should statutorily establish timetables for cleanup of sites already on the National Priority List and separate dead- lines for the identification, evaluation and cleariap of new sites added to the NPL. The EPA and other federal agencies involved in hazardous waste site cleanup should increase their economic and admin- istrative commitments to the problem, and make better and more rapid use of the money already available for cleanup. NLC should work with appropriate federal agencies to support . improved hazardous waste cleanup. 3. Sta1^ and .Local Roles in Superfund The Superfund program can be made more efficient if states and localities are given greater decision-.making responsibili- ties under the program than they have currently. States and localities should have the option to assume full responsibility for planning and implementing Superfund response actions. Such responsibilities should include undertaking preliminary assessments, remedial investigations /feasibility studies, pre- liminary- engineering,, selecting contractors, performing re- moval, remedial and cost recovery actions. Furthermore, local and state governments that are engaged in Superfund site cleanup should be exempted from oversight cost responsibilities to the FP.?.. "....:: costs are more properly borne by those parties who are liable at a site but have chosen not to participate in remediation. In order to further the efficiencies and increased effectiveness attainable through local management of site remediation efforts, CERCLA should require that EPA enter into agree- ments with local governments that give lead responsibility for site remediation and for cost recovery and other enforcement activities to qualified and willing local governments. Such agreements should recognize the local government's unique qualifications to effectively administer longer term land use restrictions and other institutional controls. Furthermore, the definition of the term "state" in the Act should be amended to include local governments. Superfund affords the federal government, states and Indian tribes a special status in remediation cost recovery, The law is not clear whether local governments engaged in the same type of cleanup work have the same special, cost recovery status. 1,ocal governments engaged in Superfund site cleanup should the same sjatus and ngl.ts.asr Oe stare.;, ur= . :,rd' Indian tribes for cost recovery anti rC,atiec ,pu�� Superfund. 4. Liability . Municipal liability for cleanup costs under the federal Super - fund statute must be clarified. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognizes that municipal solid waste (including both garbage and sewage sludge) contains only insignificant amounts of hazardous constituents and in its Interim Municipal Settlements Policy provides that EPA will identify local governments as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at hazardous waste sites only in exceptional circum- stances. The Interim Municipal Settlements Policy, while a laudable first step, is an inadequate response to the concerns of munic- ipalities. First, the Policy applies only to (public and private) transporters and generators of municipal solid waste, bur not to municipal owners and operators of Superfund sites. Second, the Settlements Policy does not protect transporters and generators of municipal solid waste from lawsuits by private parties for cost recovery and contribution to the clean up costs at these sites. To assure that municipalities will not be held responsible, through private party litigation or otherwise, to assume full financial responsibility for clean up costs, NLC supports enactment of legislation which would: a, eliminate local government liability under Superfund for the disposal of ordinary municipal waste, both 17 ii 4L,0 } l i.j,' :'l garbage and sewage sludge; b. provide expedited de minimis settlements for hazard- ous materials generated by local government opera- tions; c. exempt municipalities (as defined in the Clean Water Act) from cleanup liability res;rltinp from ownership and /or operation of a facility in fulfillment of a public responsibility. d. cap cleanup liability for municipal transporters and generators of municipal solid waste. e. strengthen local governments' ability to protect and restore the environment by enabling them to recover response costs and costs for damages to natural resources; and f. reauthorize Superfund at an adequate funding level so that cleanup of existing hazardous waste sites can continue. While NLC policy reflects the reed to expedite the cleanup process, reduce transaction costs, and increase funds for cleanup while maintaining a level of fairness, any effort to limit the retroactivity of those standards and to relieve responsible parties from liability for past activities would be '.` a r..hinaae in liaN1.1ty ro"Id. .,: .;._ .... , -„ �. r :.I��pr ., .. � �. •�iJ }�;% �1�$t�J�ti :.o iU.. 'I P�1 _.: state and municipal expenses, funded through substantially increased Superfund taxes, or unfunded (and therefore not cleaned up) entirely, 5. State Response Funds In order to ensure that states have adequate resources to both respond to hazardous waste emergencies and to execute their broad responsibilities under Superfund, states should have the authority to establish state -level hazardous waste response funds. Congress should amend CERCLA to repeal the current preemption of state authority to develop state hazardous response funds. 6. State and Local ,Watching Share Currently, CERCLA requires that states entering into cleanup agreements with the federal government, local government owned and /or operated sites are subject to a 50 percent cost sharing requirement. The current state matching requirements under CERCLA are too burdensome, hampering intergover- nmental agreements and cooperative efforts which would speed up and improve cleanup efforts. Congress should require states to pay only 10 percent of total cleanup costs at publicly owned and/or opercted'Superfund sites. Additionally, Congress should liberalize conditions under which states may generate credits which can be used to offset the state matching requirements. This could be accomplished by crediting states for past cleanup actions, reimbursing states that have already expended more than 10 percent of costs at Superfund sites they owned and/or operated, or crediting a state's administra- ij- J�ri��l 11. j 1i,1(i j= 1 _ r lilii _I J tive expenses toward its matching share. i. Maintenance and Operating Costs Funds from the Hazardous Response Trust Fund should be used to support long -tern operation and .maintenance activi- ties, such as cleanup of groundwater contamination at Superfund sites, after cleanup actions have been take.,. could be accomplished by requiring that states and localities pay a matching share for maintenance and operating expendi- tures that is comparable to the matching share required for cleanup actions. 8. Post - Closure Liability The Post- Closure Liability Fund which was established to provide assistance for monitoring, maintenance and long -tern: care at RCRA- permitted hazardous waste sites, should be -,authorized. The fund should continue to be supported by a tax on hazardous wastes that are disposed of in RCRA - permitted facilities. However, in order to adequately finance post - closure activities, Congress should remove the $200 million ceiling on the Fund's unobligated balance so that more revenues can accrue in the Fund. Additionally, Congress should amend current law to extend the liability period for owners or operators from five to fifteen ,years after closure in order to ensure that RCRA sites are properly maintained in 9. Enviranmental !impairment Liability Insurance Congress should continue to examine the nature, scope and causes of the problem of scarce environmental impairment liability insurance and should take action to improve the availability of that insurance. As a first step, Congress should amend the Products Liability Risk Retention Act to facilitate the creation of interstate risk sharing pools. Congress should change the liability standards of CERCLA only with great caution. 10. Right -to -Know Congress should enact federal community right -to -know legislation in order to establish a more uniform means of planning for and responding to emergencies caused by the release, of hazardous substances which may present an immi- nent and substantial danger to public health. The legislation should pertain to owners and operators of facilities, including federal facilities, at which inventories of hazardous substances are maintained in quantities of 6,000 kilograms or more. The legislation should cover acutely and extremely volatile hazardous substances which may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health, as determined by the Administration of the EPA. The legislation should require the owner /operator to report to designated state and local agencies annually on the type of hazardous substances on -site, the present and anticipated amounts of the substances during a given year, and the location of the waste inventory. Additionally, legislation should require each state to appoint a statewide emergency response planning commission to play 18 a coordinating role in emergency response planning. if a state fails to act within a specified time period, then EPA should establish such a commission, or should designate a state agency on behalf of the state. Participation by local govern- ment representatives in the state commission should be man - datory. The statewide commission should be responsible for "r-veloping statewide plans, for responding to on -site releases of hazardous substances, for assisting the local governments in developing their own plans, and for coordinating local plans with each other and wit!,. the state plan. The costs of developing state and local emergency response plans should be borne by the federal government. The federal legislation should also preempt different or con- flicting state and local right -to -know and emergency response requirements. However, states and localities should be al- lowed to seek a waiver from the preemption if they can demonstrate that they have a unique safety or health circum- stance which necessitates passage of a right -to -know or emer- gency response requirement inconsisteni, . with the federal requirements. IL Deferred Listing Congress should carefully examine the impact of a deferred listing approach as a means of better managing the Superfund sites. S-Z ME"' W!'!, �tt7p vi lv-�.'.'.:� .',! ?''+'^iLlIP ^�c, shn'.:... ^�f. _.. An. allowed to petition EPA to defer certain sites. State petitions should be required to show that the state has consulted with and secured the concurrence of local governments involved in the site, and has provided reasonable notice to the public of its intent to petition. Provisions should be made for public participation in the remedy selection process. 12. Accounting Procedures and Cost Study To ensure that adequate accounting data is obtained and reported, EPA and other federal agencies should be required to provide detailed accounting data as to the costs they have incurred under CERCLA. Further the Comptroller General should undertake a "Costs Study" to carefully examine the efficiency and efficacy of the current EPA oversight process. 13. Alternative Dispute Resolution The existing Superfund program has been greatly criticized on the basis of too much litigation and too little cleanup. The use of alternative or non - litigation dispute resolution proce- dures, excluding the use of binding arbitration for local. governments, should be examined and incorporated more effectively into the Act. 2.05 Water Quality And Supply A. Problem It is becoming increasingly apparent that no section of the country is immune to the problems associated with both natural and man-made water pollutants. Urban stornwater and LGSR Local Governments for Superfund Reform The Honorable Annie Marie Burger Mayor City of Saratoga 3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Burger: Dom' I, ,I,G G11A,4�v ,Zo cS.QQ.. assroots Effort — 1- 800 - 207 -6927 June 9, 1995 Any public official who has had experience with the federal Superfund program knows the adverse consequences that Superfund liability can have on a local government's economic vitality. We certainly do. As public officials in communities which have been seriously affected by significant Superfund liability, we have witnessed first -hand the disastrous effects of being swept into Superfund's unfair and inefficient scheme for raising cleanup funds. To combat these flaws with the Superfund program, we have led an effort over the last several years to reform comprehensively the Superfund law and its unfair liability system. Three years ago, we started Local Governments for Superfund Reform (LGSR), a coalition of municipalities -- cities, counties, towns and schools -- which has sought Superfund reform in Congress. LGSR now has over 75 members around the country, and our active work in Washington has made us a key player in the Superfund reform debate and helped draw attention to Superfund's liability impact on local governments. On April 27, LGSR testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works' Superfund Subcommittee. We are pleased to inform you that, partly as a result of our work, the prospects for eliminating Superfund's retroactive liability scheme have never been better. However, we still need your help. You can help pass a Superfund bill that will: Cleanup toxic sites much faster; Reduce the costs and end delays caused by lawyers; Repeal the unfair, retroactive liability section of Superfund. Retroactive liability says that any party (including, potentially your city) can be liable for previous actions at a site, that may have been 100° legal at the time, and adhered to all federal, state and local permits and regulations. As an example of the unfairness of this provision, if your locality placed batteries from city vehicles into a dump site, 100% legally at the time, but that site is now on the Superfund list, your city would be liable for cleanup costs -- which could be financially staggering. Please take just a few minutes to review the enclosed six minute video, and read our materials. Should you have any questions, please call me toll free at 1- 800 - 207 -6927. There are just two simple steps we ask you to take now, to help us win for local government: Read and return the "Local government petition to Congress for Superfund reform." 2. Join and add your name to those of other cities that are part of LGSR -- we'll keep you fully informed of what is happening on this important legislation. By joining LGSR, you will also automatically become a member of the unique Superfund Reform '95 Coalition (SR95). SR95 was created this year by a number of different Superfund stakeholders, including LGSR, to galvanize broad -based support for retroactive liability reform. SR95's strength is in its diversity. -- Its members include small and large businesses, national trade associations, local governments, insurers, environmental professionals and others. The legislative battle is about to be joined. This is a historic opportunity to pass legislation that could directly impact your city's well being. Please act NOW! Sincerely, j 0 ip loney Regional Director Grassroots Effort Enclosure rA Yes! Please add my name, title, and city to the petition to Congress below and add us as a member of LGSR. Please keep me informed of any further developments. A PETITION TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR SUPERFUND REFORM (LGSR) For fifteen years, Superfund has failed in its effort to clean up the nation's most dangerous hazardous waste sites. The endless battles over cost allocation and remedy selection have diverted significant resources away from cleanup and have shifted the program's focus from protecting human health and the environment to fundraising. LGSR has offered broad changes to Superfund which will allow it to achieve its original goals. The important cornerstone of these changes is the elimination of retroactive liability. Our municipality supports LGSR's principles for reform because they will help clean up America's hazardous waste sites more quickly and effectively. We urge Congress to give these principles immediate consideration. ❑ Yesl Add my name and organization onto the petition and add us as a member of LSGR. Name Title Municipality Address City /State /Zip Phone Signature Please rp int the following information: Fax Please return this petition to: Fax: (800)999 -1812 LGSR Grassroots Effort 1 101 17th Street, NW - Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 (800)207 -6927 Date LGSR Local Governments for Superfund Reform Grassroots Effort 1- 800 - 207 -6927 WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR SUPERFUND REFORM S (LGSR) IS IMPORTANT TO YOU LGSR is a coalition of local governments across the nation, committed to fair and reasonable reform of federal Superfund legislation. Four common themes unite: 1. Satisfying the public's need to cleanup the sites in a timely manner 2. Protecting the local tax base and economy 3. Returning polluted land to productive, taxable use -- and that means jobs in your community 4. Controlling costs at those sites Direct liability may force local governments to choose between increasing taxes or suing local businesses for financial contributions, which in turn has serious implications for the community's employment rate, tax base and general well being. LGSR Local Governments for Superfund Reform Grassroots Effort 1- 800 - 207 -6927 SUPERFUND'S IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS a Direct Liability for Local Governments The most direct way local governments get ensnared in Superfund is as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at a site, which means they have direct financial liability for the cost of cleanup. Local government entities (cities, counties, townships, school districts, hospitals, etc.) can become PRPs under many circumstances, including: • Arranging for the disposal of municipal solid waste. Liability results from the hazardous materials contained in the waste, such as batteries, cleaning solvents and waste oil. • Owning or operating a landfill, utility, recycling facility, incinerator, airport, or ground transportation system. Liability results from contamination at the facility itself or from the disposal of hazardous items or substances like transformers, generators, ash, oil, fuel or other materials. • Acquiring property that is already contaminated. Liability can result even if the local government had no knowledge of the contamination and did not contribute to it in any way. • Constructing or demolishing municipally -owned buildings. Liability can result from disposing of the construction waste, old electrical fixtures, furnaces, asbestos or septic tanks resulting from this work. Broad Effects of a Superfund Site in the Community Superfund liability can put a stranglehold on a local economy. Direct liability often forces local governments to choose between increasing taxes or suing local businesses for contribution. In some cities, this can have serious implications for the community's employment rate, tax base, and general economic well- being. Unfortunately, the Superfund process can take so long and be so pervasive and costly that it often threatens the vitality of communities that have no direct liability. For instance: • Banks won't lend money to companies with real or perceived contingent Superfund liability, halting growth of important businesses in the community and leading to economic stagnation in some areas. • Communities with potential liability can have difficulty getting development loans, either directly from banks or by floating municipal bonds. • The value of real estate around Superfund sites often plummets as fears about contingent liability grow, and new companies and residents may decide not to locate in the community with the site. 7T • Valuable real estate at and around a Superfund site can be tied up for years or decades as fights over liability and cleanup plans rage on in the courts, often seriously curtailing community development. • Citizens living near a Superfund site must deal with the uncertainty and anxiety of continued contamination at the site. LGSR Local Governments for Superfund Reform Grassroots Effort 1- 800 - 207 -6927 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR SUPERFUND REFORM RETROACTIVE LIABELM Summary Hazardous Waste Sites Are Not Being Cleaned Up ■ After nearly 15 years and over $20 billion, only 5 percent (67) of some 1,355 sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) have been listed as completely cleaned up and removed from the NPL. ■ In addition, at least another 11,000 sites are being evaluated for possible addition to the NPL. Only The Lawyers Are Cleaning Up ■ Enormous amounts of time and money have been spent, not on actual cleanup of hazardous waste, but on the high cost of determining who should pay for cleanup. ■ At some Superfund sites, nearly half this money has been spent on litigation and other transaction costs rather than cleaning up the waste. The Superfund Retroactive Liability System Is Unfair ■ Under the doctrine of retroactive, strict joint and several liability, a single party can be held liable for 100 percent of the cleanup cost of the entire site, even if hundreds of other parties contributed waste to the site, and even if the single party contributed only a very small part of the total waste. ■ Numerous small businesses whose garbage was routinely collected and taken to official town dumps have been found liable under Superfund. ■ Large companies have been found liable for cleanup of landfills that were built many years before Superfund was passed, even though the companies sent their waste to those landfills with the knowledge that they were doing the right thing at the time. Retroactive Liability Summary Page Two ■ In some cases, businesses have been held liable for cleanup of landfills which were Licensed by the state government, and to which the state government actually ordered the companies to send their waste. ■ Companies such as garbage collectors, trucking companies, and railroads whose only action was to pick up waste from another company and transport it to a legal landfill, are retroactively liable for cleanup. The Superfund Liability System Increases Cost ■ Identifying the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP's) at a site is extremely time consuming and expensive. Litigation is often the only way to force the PRPs to become parties. ■ Allocating shares of cleanup cost at a site can be very difficult. Time and money must be spent in determining how much and what kind of waste was sent to the site over a long period of time. Records are often nonexistent or incomplete, resulting in expensive debates over the allocation of liability. ■ Facing potentially ruinous costs for cleanup, PRPs challenge Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup decisions throughout the investigation and remediation process in order to protect themselves. PRPs are forced to retain their own consultants, investigators, engineers, and lawyers to match those of EPA, the states, and other PRPs. ■ Because the EPA needs to produce evidence strong enough to withstand court challenges, its site investigations are elaborate and expensive -- much more so than they would be if the agency were concerned only with cleaning up. ■ Superfund's provisions for unlimited liability discourage PRPs from cooperating in cleanups, thus adding yet more expense. NAR'Tfa pd cou A 1 P. n i Needed and within reach: By JOHN WEICIISEL ast month, "Jeopardy," the popular television program, asked, "Of the money spent by this government program to clean up toxic waste sites, more than one - quarter goes to legal fees." The correct answer: "What is Superfund ?" Congress created Superfund in 1980 to clean up the nation's toxic dumps like love Canal, but as the "Jeopardy" question suggests, the only ones cleaning up are the lawyers. President Clinton John Welehnel is turvn manager of Southington and vice chairman of Local Governments fur Superfund Reform. amore sensible law exaggerated just a little when he said to 1993, "The Superfund has been a disaster. All the money goes to lawyers, and none of the money goes to clean up the problems that it was designed to clean up." Actually, of the $4.14 billion spent annually on Superfund, about $1.3 billion goes to legal fees. Worse yet, because file program is bogged down in lawsuits, the nation's toxic -waste durnps are not being cleaned up. I low bad is it? Only 67 of the 1,309 sites on the Environmental Protection Agency's priority list have been cleaned and removed from the list. On average, it takes 15 years and costs $30 million to clean just one Superfund site. About half of the EPA's 1,000 lawyers work on Superfund liability issues. More than 15,000 businesses, hospitals, cities and towns— including my-town of Southington — have been tagged by the EPA as "polluters" and are being held responsible for cleanups, whether what they did was legal at the time. Southington, for example, operated a landfill from 1920 to 1967. This 10 -acre site was used by hundreds — if not thousands — of people during its 47 years of legal operation. In 1984, it was named a Superfund site. The EPA found that the groundwater, soil and surface water were contaminated with "volatile organic compounds" — such as solvents. degOreasers and fuel. ur town of 38,000 was named a "Potentially Responsible Party" by the EPA simply because we operated the landfill. As a PRP, under Superfund's imbecilic legal system, Southington could be forced to pay for the entire cost of cleaning up this site, even though the site was closed 13 years before the Superfund law was enacted and even though we did nothing wrong. Because the bill Ald amount to many millions of dollars, and because — 1 repeat — we did nothing illegal, we are vigorously fighting the EPA in court. Since 1487, we have spent more than $3 million on lawyers and consultants, and not one ounce of dirt fins been cleaned up. The town is facing a possible cost of $1 f; trillion to cap the dump and a potential addi0onal cost of $50 million to $80 million to clean the underlying groundwater to drinking -water quality — the EPA Superfund: Fix it now Continued from Page D 1 standard under the law. But this year, we have a good chance to win fundamental reforms of this unfair, ineffectual, and punitive federal program. Southington is part of a broad - based national coalition called Superfund Reform '95. Composed of local governments, large and small businesses, insurance organizations and other groups, it is urging Congress to correct Superfund's fatal flaws this year. SR '95 supports the repeal of retroactive and Joint and several liability, which is at the heart of the problem with Superfund. Cleanups for legal disposals that took place before 1987 would be paid by the Superfund Trust Fund and financed by existing Superfund taxes on businesses. For disposals that took place from 1987 onward, when accurate records were required and kept, cleanup costs would be distributed proportionately among the responsible parties. By ending the costly and often futile hunt for " otentilly responsible parties" at old dump sites, most of the lawsuits, waste and delays would be eliminated and cleanups would finally start. In addition, SR '95 proposes using realistic cleanup plans that tackle the worst sites first (as opposed to the easiest to clean), and eliminate actual risks to human health and the environment — not attempt to restore sites to a pristine, almost prehistoric, state. Under one proposal, state and local governments, working with affected citizens, would develop common -sense cleanup plans for each site to protect human health and the environment and take into account the future uses of the site. It i just doesn't make sense to clean up a landfill so that it could be used as a drinking -water reservoir. No doubt the more extreme na- tional environmental groups will oppose an perceived relaxation of Superfund's cleanup standards. Do they really think that citizens and local officials closest to a site would agree to a cleanup plan that lwould jeopardize their own health and thatof their children and grandchil- dren? Innocent businesses, taxpayers, landowners, developes, cities and towns will clearly benefit from Su- berfund reform. But the biggest eneficiaries of all will be the ap- proximately 70 million Americans Who live within four miles of a Su- I perfund site. After 15 years and $20 billion, we've wasted enough t 6 and money. It's time to gets rf nd working. �� Y Copyright 1995 Plain Dealer Publishing Co. The Plain Dealer March 4, 1995 Saturday, FINAL / LAKE SECTION: METRO; Pg. 1B LENGTH: 717 words HEADLINE: $30 MILLION LATER, CREEK STILL AWAITS CLEANUP EPA BYLINE: By JOHN C. KUEHNER; PLAIN DEALER REPORTER s DATELINE: PAINESVILLE BODY: More than $30 million has been spent on studies and legal fees since the U.S. EPA named Fields Brook in Ashtabula a Superfund site in 1983. But nothing has been cleaned up along the heavily polluted five -mile creek. "The only material removed is what's been analyzed for samples," said Rick Brewer, business development director for RMI Environmental Services, a division of RMI Titanium, one of 21 businesses ordered to clean up the stream. In 1986, Environmental Protection Agency officials estimated that studies would cost as much as $5.8 million; in reality, they have cost $20 million and remain unfinished, said Rick Mason, director of environmental affairs for RMI Titanium. Legal fees for the 21 companies top $10 million, which Mason called a "conservative number." Fields Brook is a complicated site because it is a moving stream and hazardous chemicals - PCBs, solvents and some heavy metals - have settled into its bed after being dumped, starting as far back as the 19408. It is the kind of Superfund bill Lake County elected officials and businesses say they want to avoid with the Diamond Shamrock Corp. site. The U.S. EPA is considering naming 1,300 acres of the former industrial site in Painesville Township and Fairport Harbor to the national hazardous substance list. Even though it has not yet been named, the Ohio EPA is exercising its authority under state law to proceed with enforcement and negotiations to clean up the site. Last month, 33 potentially responsible parties were notified that they could be held liable for the cleanup. The Painesville Township Board of Trustees is one such party. The board owns 19 acres on the site, which the township used as a dump from the 1960s to the 1970s. Like others, township officials question why they are included and fear legal fees, studies and litigation costs could cripple their community. "We want to stop it before it gets started," Trustee Jeanette Crislip said. "Any amount, with a small government and a $3 million budget, we don't want to spend money unnecessarily." The Lake County commissioners own a 4.8 -acre site within the 1,300 acres that had been a water pump station serving nearby businesses. The county hired environmental consultants who took water and soil samples from the site that showed they were below EPA standards. "We're drawn into a major expense that's not warranted," said Gary Kron, the county's Utilities Department director. "We probably already have spent $30,000 J or $40,000 to show that there's nothing wrong with that 4 -acre piece, and we're still in it." Fairport Harbor Mayor Thomas Coffman said costs could potentially bankrupt his village, which owns 15.22 acres within the EPA's proposed boundary. That property is also a closed landfill site. "We want everything fixed right," Coffman said. "But we don't want people running around and scaring the community and effectively choking the life out of it. ' Opened in 1912, the plant produced soda ash for the glass industry. It later branched into chemical manufacturing until it closed in 1977. z For more than two years, EPA officials reviewed historical records, property titles, aerial photos and other data to set the site boundary and to determine who could be responsible for cleanup, said Frances Kovac, an Ohio EPA staff lawyer. The site, which would be one of the largest Superfund locations in Ohio, includes known or suspected waste areas, known industrial areas and adjoining areas that need investigation. Records indicate three known vast, open -air waste lagoons, where many production chemicals were pumped and allowed to evaporate. But old records indicate that there was a fourth waste lake, which has not been found, Kovac said. An area not included could still be investigated if contamination has migrated, Kovac said. Negotiations will begin next week. The goal is to reach an agreement by the May 22 deadline to investigate the site and determine the extent of contamination. Seventeen of the 33 named parties have formed one group headed by Maxus Energy Corp. of Dallas, which has environmental liability for the site. Maxus wants to avoid the Superfund listing because cleanup can be cheaper, more effective and quicker if done by the private sector instead of through the government. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL IDA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z S / AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Sept. 20, 1995 CITY MGR. ' ORIGINATING DEPT. Community Development SUBJECT: Assignment of City Vehicle to City Codes Administrator Recommended Motion(s): Authorized assignment of a City vehicle to the City Codes Administrator. Report Summary: As part of the budget process and departmental reorganization in 1992, the Building Codes Administrator's title was changed to City Codes Administrator. With the change in title came the new responsibility of managing the Code Enforcement Division and the City's complaint management system. Previously, the Building Codes Administrator managed only the Building Division, utilized his private vehicle and was compensated $2400 annually. These new responsibilities require the Codes Administrator to respond to numerous types of routine field situations, problem cases and emergencies in addition to conducting periodic construction inspections. There has been no modification to the annual compensation. Additionally, the recent budget cuts reduced the Code Enforcement Division staff from 2 to 1.6 officers leaving only one Community Service Officer on duty for Monday, Thursday, and Friday of each week. This necessitates additional participation by the City Codes Administrator. It is important that field responders vehicles be properly equipped with the necessary equipment to safely perform their duties and to protect the public. Official markings, radio communications, lighting and emergency equipment are essential requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Codes Administrator be assigned City vehicle #56, a 1987 Chevrolet. The vehicle is equipped with the essential necessary equipment to preform the Codes Administrator's duties. The vehicle was recently replaced and will not reduce the number of vehicles in the car pool. In consideration for this use, the Codes Administrator will forfeit the $2400 annual compensation fee for the use of his private vehicle and be placed on 24 hour call to respond to City needs. Fiscal Impacts• The Public Works Department estimates that there will no-fiscal impact to the City. The forfeited annual monies will compensate for fuel and maintenance. a �o Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: None required. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Not acting on the recommended motion will compromise the safety of staff and the public. Follow Up Actions: Advise the Public Works Department to assign vehicle. c: \wpdocs \vehicle.sum Y SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-5 (F AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Recommendation from Bicycle Advisory Committee for adoption of a Citywide Bicycle Network Plan Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the recommendation of the Bicycle Advisory Committee to adopt the proposed Citywide Bicycle Network Plan and direct staff to incorporate the Plan into the Circulation Element update. Report Summar The Bicycle Advisory Committee has been working for over the past year to finalize a Citywide Bicycle Network Plan. After conducting a final public hearing on the proposed plan on June 19, the BAC adopted the attached plan and recommends approval of it by the City Council for incorporation into the Circulation Element update. The proposed plan identifies a network of Class I, II, and III bikeways, (bike paths, lanes, and routes) throughout the City. It addresses residents' concerns about parking along those streets where bikeways are proposed, and is integrated with the Countywide Bicycle Plan. Adoption of the Plan will allow the City to compete for funding to implement the Plan. Various state and federal funding sources are now available to complete bicycle related projects. Fiscal Impacts: None initially by adopting the Plan. In the future, the Plan may be used as the basis to secure funding to implement bicycle related projects. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Noticed public hearings were previously conducted by the Bicycle Advisory Committee. 01C Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Plan will not be adopted and incorporated in the Circulation Element update. The Council may modify the Plan or send it back to the BAC with direction for additional work. Follow Up Actions: The Plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element update where it will again be available for public comment during future hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council on the Circulation Element update. Attachments: 1. Proposed Bicycle Network Plan with attachments. 2. Minutes of June 19, 1995 public hearing held by the BAC. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� AGENDA ITEM / MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: ` SUBJECT: Recommendation from Public Safety Commission to retain the right turn on red prohibition from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the recommendation of the Public Safety Commission to retain the right turn on red prohibition from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Report Summary: As directed by the City Council on July 26, the Public Safety Commission has reconsidered the right turn on red prohibition from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The Commission discussed the matter at their August 10 meeting and evaluated whether the reduced traffic volumes on Saratoga -Los Gatos and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Roads, and the recent decrease in the posted speed limit on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, were sufficient justifications to eliminate the turn prohibition. Based on staff's analysis of the physical characteristics of the intersection, the Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to retain the turn prohibition. Essentially, staff concluded that there is insufficient sight distance beyond the curvature in the road past the corner of the Fire Station to safely allow right turns on red when compared to the approach speed of vehicles on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road towards the intersection. The mathematical calculations suggest that there is less than half the sight distance necessary to safely allow right turns on red according to the criteria in the Highway Design Manual. Looking at it another way, the approach speed would need to be reduced by almost half, down to approximately 15 mph, before right turns should be allowed. Additionally, staff has concerns about conflicts between driver habits and pedestrian activity at the intersection which further complicate the right turn on red movement. As noted in the August 10 report to the Public Safety Commission, staff will be improving the situation for motorists wishing to turn right during those times when there is little traffic at the intersection. This will be accomplished by extending the signal detector loop towards the curb, where motorists turning right stop and wait, to detect the presence of those vehicles so the signal turns to green. However, it is acknowledged that this will do little to reduce the delay for motorists wishing to turn right during periods of normal or heavy traffic. Fiscal Impacts• In the long run, retaining the turn prohibition may increase revenues from traffic fines as violators of the restriction are cited. The one -time cost to extend the detector loop is estimated to be between $500 and $750 and will be paid for out of Activity 33 (Traffic Control) , Account 4530 (Repair Services) , where sufficient funds are budgeted to cover this expense. Eliminating the turn restriction could create unknown liabilities for the City in the event of future accidents to which the City is found to have contributed. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Public Safety Commission's recommendation will not be approved. The City Council could vote to eliminate the turn prohibition. Follow Up Actions: The additional improvements at the intersection will be completed. Attachments: 1. Staff report to Public Safety Commission dated August 10. uguw @2 0&iR&UQ)(B& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 TO: Public Safety Commission FROM: Public Works Director COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Mane Burger Paul E Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe SUBJECT: "No Right on Red" - Saratoga Ave. /Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. DATE: August 10, 1995 RECOMMENDATION: Retain the current right turn on red prohibition from Saratoga Ave. onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. DISCUSSION: At the adjourned City Council meeting on July 25, the Council directed the Public Safety Commission to reexamine the right turn on red prohibition from Saratoga Ave. onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. in light of lower traffic volumes due to the opening of Route 85 and the recent reduction in the posted speed limit along Saratoga - Los Gatos Rd. Staff has performed two calculations of sight distance at the intersection using the criteria set forth in the Caltrans design manual. In the first calculation, the existing critical approach speed of 33.6 mph on Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. towards the intersection was used to determine the recommended safe sight distance for a motorist waiting to turn right from Saratoga Ave. The critical approach speed was determined from recent speed data supplied by Caltrans. In this calculation, the recommended sight distance is computed to be roughly 370 feet which is more than double the existing sight distance up Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. from Saratoga Ave. of 165 feet. In the second calculation, the approach speed along Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. towards the intersection corresponding to the existing sight distance from Saratoga Ave. was computed. This turns out to be roughly only 15 mph or again, less than half the current approach speed. Based on the results of these calculations, and earlier concerns expressed about conflicts between pedestrian activity and driver habits at the intersection, staff cannot recommend removing the right turn on red prohibition. Printed on recycled paper. Instead, staff will pursue improving the traffic signal's ability to detect the presence of a vehicle on Saratoga Ave. at the intersection since this has been a common complaint ever since the turn prohibition was enacted. Currently, motorists on Saratoga Ave. who wish to turn right during low traffic volume times, wait for lengthy periods before they get a green light. This causes frustration and disregard for the turn restriction and many of these motorists simply turn right on the red light. The operation of the signal will be improved to correct this problem by either increasing the sensitivity of the loop detector, or by extending the loop detector to where vehicles turning right wait at the intersection, either of which will cause the signal to cycle to green on a demand basis. Additionally, the signage and striping at the intersection will be improved to eliminate any confusion about where to stop while waiting for the green light, as well as to satisfy the Sheriff's concerns about their ability to enforce the turn prohibition. Larry I. pe 11n Attachments: 1. Location map with sight distance criteria. AOL% OAK O th'O i � I /lov VV yPa sq v x 7. 5 sec. 33.6 se 7- 9 fro.n KCl 4V. Use -T-770' It Whoa d c ✓c / 6 MPH ,V 3 Crit;ca/ Approach .:Peen SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z E 140 AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Award of construction contract for citywide concrete repairs Recommended Motion(s 1. Move to declare Valley Concrete, Inc. of San Jose to be the low bidder on the minor concrete repair program. 2. Move to award a construction contract to Valley Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $12,277. 3. Move to authorize staff to issue change orders to the contract up to an amount of $4,000. Report Summary: Each year, the City lets a minor construction contract for the repair of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks throughout town. The work is scheduled to occur slightly ahead of the Pavement Management Program work. Because of the relatively small amount of funds involved, the work is bid using the informal bidding procedures prescribed in Article 12 -15 of the City Code. This year, three contractors submitted bids for the minor concrete repair program copies of which are attached. Valley Concrete, Inc. of San Jose submitted the lowest bid of $12,277. Since the bid is responsive to the City's solicitation for bids, and since this firm has successfully worked for the City in the recent past, staff recommends that the Council declare Valley Concrete, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the minor concrete repair program and award the construction contract to this firm in the amount of their bid. Additionally, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to approve up to an additional $4,500 worth of work to the contract to perform extra work that has been identified since the bids were received, or which may be identified after the work begins. Assuming Council concurrence with staff's recommendations, the work should begin during the week of September 18 and be complete by the end of the month just prior to the start of this year's Pavement Management Program work. Fiscal Impacts: The adopted FY 95 -96 budget contains $18,000 in Activity 32 (Sidewalks & Trails), Account 4530 (Repair Services), for the minor concrete repair program. This is sufficient to cover the amount of the bid items of work plus the full recommended change order authority. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The contract will not be awarded to Valley Concrete, Inc. The Council may make certain findings to award the contract to one of the other bidders, or it may choose to not award a contract at all. Follow Up Actions: The contract will be let and the contractor will be authorized to proceed. Attachments: 1. Memo from Street Maintenance Leadworker. 2. Bids received (3). MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 1995 TO: Larry Perlin FROM: Bryan McQueen SUBJECT: 95/96 Annual Concrete Repair Contract We have received three (3) bids for our annual sidewalk, curb and gutter repairs. They are as follows 1. Valley Concrete $12,277.00 2. Antuzzi Concrete $12,720.00 3. California Concrete $13,793.95 Valley Concrete was low bidder this year. This company was awarded the contract for our 94/95 concrete repairs and did an exceptional job. i 1:020 RUFF DRIVE STATE LIC. #603078 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 oncrete, n IN BUSINESS SINCE 1978 ��: SOURCE (408) 287 -Mi 4 PAX (4W) 287 -6ons INVOICE CUSTOMER City Of Saratoga ADDRESS .13777 Fruitvale Avenue TRACTOR AND TRUCK YES NO JACKHAMMER YES NO DISPOSAL LOAD YES NO CONCRETE SAWING YES NO FACE OF STEPS EXPOSED YES NO EXPANSION JOINT YES NO TYPE DEEP Remove and Replace 33 In. ft. rolled curb and REDWOOD YES NO TYPE / SIZE #4 13293 Quito Rd.' FINISH YES NO ROCK YES NO TYPE / SIZE #5 12350 Radoyka Dr. CONCRETE MIX YES NO SACK b) Remove and Replace sidewalk 20'x3}' _ LAMP BLACK YES NO NO. PINTS PER YARD Remove and Replace 2gln. curb and gutter = WIRE MESH YES NO OTHER INSTRUCTIONS: a) Remove and Replace sidewalk 25 }'x5' b) Remove and Replace sidewalk 10 }'x5' c) Remove and Replace sidewalk 20'x5' _ $1,736.00 #8 20700 Verde Vista Ln. CROSS STREETS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY IN- GROUND UTILITIES/IRRIGATION LINES ** NOT RESPONSIBLE CRACKS ** AUTHORIZATION TO START WORK DATE TO START (WEATHER PERMITTING) APPROVAL HM. PHONE I WK PHONE 1 867 - CRY LP I DATE DIAGRAM This estimate is for city sidewalk, curb and gutter repairs for the city of Saratoga at 12 locations. ail 13929 Camino Barco Remove and Replace 19 In. ft. curb and gutter = $ 475.00 #2 19070 Portos (Harleigh Dr.) Remove and Replace 331 In. ft. curb and gutter Cut out and replace asphalt 4'x23' _ $1,297.00 #3 13339 Fontaine Dr. Remove and Replace 33 In. ft. rolled curb and gutter Cut out and replace asphalt 2'x8' _ $ 905.00 #4 13293 Quito Rd.' Remove and Replace 19j In. ft. of rolled curb and gutter Cut out and replace asphalt 19 1/3'x2' _ $ 682.00 #5 12350 Radoyka Dr. a) Remove and Replace sidewalk 24'x3}' b) Remove and Replace sidewalk 20'x3}' _ $ 954.00 #6 18909 Westview Dr. Remove and Replace 2gln. curb and gutter = $ 500.00 #7 Across street from 12327 De Santa Ave.(Blue Hills School) a) Remove and Replace sidewalk 25 }'x5' b) Remove and Replace sidewalk 10 }'x5' c) Remove and Replace sidewalk 20'x5' _ $1,736.00 #8 20700 Verde Vista Ln. Remove and Replace sidewalk 30' }x4' = $ 756.40 #9 20686 Verde Vista Ln. Remove and Replace sidewalk 86)'x4' = $2,145.00 #10 14718 Aloha Ave. Remove and Replace 401 In. ft. curb and gutter= $1,012.00 #11 14690 Aloha Ave. Remove and Replace 30 In. ft. curb and gutter = $ 750.00 112 19245 De Havillane Remove and Replace 421 In. ft. curb and gutter =$1,062.50 Total footage of sidewalk replacement 902-Sq. Ft. Total length of curb and gutter replacement 238 Sq. Ft. FOR JOB SCHEDULING OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CALL 287 - 8091 EXTRA CHARGE FOR CONCRETE REMOVAL THICKER THAN 4' OR STEEL REINFORCED TOTAL BALANCE DOWN PAYMENTS *COD BALANCE DAY OF POUR � 1 1020 RUFF DRIVE STATE LIC. #603078 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 IN BUSINESS SINCE 1978 luncreId, 1i C. SOURCE (408) 287 -6091 4 PAX (408) 287 -6095 INVOICE CUSTOMER City of Saratoga RDDRESS TRACTOR AND TRUCK YES NO JACKHAMMER YES NO DISPOSAL LOAD YES NO CONCRETE SAWING YES NO FACE OF STEPS EXPOSED YES NO EXPANSION JOINT YES NO TYPE DEEP REDWOOD YES NO TYPE ! SIZE FINISH YES NO ROCK YES NO TYPE ! SIZE CONCRETE MIX YES NO SACK LAMP BLACK YES NO NO. PINTS PER YARD WIRE MESH YES NO OTHER INSTRUCTIONS: CROSS STREETS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY IN- GROUND UTILITIES /IRRIGATION LINES HM. PHONE CITY ZIP DIAGRAM WK. PHONE DATE Valley Concrete will cut and remove these areas of sidewalk and curb and gutter. We will cut and remove the tree roots that are under these damaged sections. Replacement will meet city specifications using a 5 sack mix with 1 lb. of lamp black per yard. As we where informed, we.will cut back and replace asphalt along edge of curb and gutter just enough to set forms, except for numbers 2, 3, and 4, where we will remove , cut roots in road and replace asphalt using state class B, 3/8' asphalt. All labor and materials are included in the total cost of $ 12,277.00 Thank you for considering Valley Concrete and please call me with any questions you may have. Jeff Lemons * Valley Concrete uses a vacume system that will keep any water we use out of the storm drains. ** Not Responsible Cracks ** AUTHORIZATION TO START WORK DATE TO START (WEATHER PERMITTING) FOR JOB SCHEDULING OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CALL 287 - 6091 EXTRA CHARGE FOR CONCRETE REMOVAL THICKER THAN 4- on STEEL REINFORCED TOTAL BALANCE DOWN PAYMENTS }COD BALANCE APPROVAL I I DAY OF POUR J.A. ANTUZZI CONCRETE CO., INC. 541 W. JUMNSTREET SAN JOSE, CA 95110 LICENSE #641598 PHONE (408) 287 -0775 FAY (408) 287 -0789 DATE: 8 -18 -95 TO: CITY OF SARA TOGA 13777 FRUITVALEAVE. SARATOGA,CA. 95070 ATM.• BRYAN MC QUEEN JOB: CITY OF SARATOGA I•REblOVE AND REPLACE920 SQ. FT. OF4 " THICK CITY SIDE WALKROO TING INCL UDED, ,4T LOCATIONS SPECIFIED BY BRYAN MC QUEEN. $6,210.00 REMOVE AND RE PLACE 254 L. FT. OF BOr l ROLLED C& G .4.iYD- S.TANDARD C& G A T ' VARIO US LOCI TIONS ROOTING INCL UDED. $3,810.00 3• RWOVEAND REPLACE 178 SQ.FT. OFASPHALTAT VARIOUS LOCATIONS ROOTING INCL UDED. $2,700.00 .9 L'T HORIZED SIGNA ACCEPT,4NENO TOT,QL BID PRICE: S .12, 720.00 {NTUZZI CONCRETE CO. INC ATE: Bid From the Desk of J. G. WINSLOW Bid # Date Location 6A r Fi E.� )--t 0- a e z. e-T S�.v- ..v�..�DE,✓T /3777 A ?- v Address 'P yaLC, R y -. A-m� bq Approved By: t It Gc,),*l-K F�WKorkuded Amount of Bid: A. u� �`' / 7�i'`<r r� GrJ� <L l3 e Za" �eFe 7- r% 4LL o s o�% : rw�Lu�E� �i✓ �i� , T3 6 /,A) Total Bid