HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAs e (d)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL �j
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I I !I AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 16, 1996 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Adoption of CDBG County /City Contract for Fiscal Year
1996 -97
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS(s): Adopt contract and authorize City Manager
to execute.
REPORT SUMMARY: Through a Joint Powers Agreement, the City of
Saratoga participates with nine other small cities and Santa Clara
County as Urban County recipients of Community Development Block
Grant funding. The federal government requires every participating
jurisdiction to annually execute a contract specifying each party's
responsibilities and obligations. All recipients of CDBG funds in
the Santa Clara Urban County utilize the same contract format for
services. Attached to this common contract is a list of Saratoga's
specific projects and the budgeted amount for this year.
The contract was revised last year from its earlier format to
include an addendum to Exhibit G. The revisions focus on specific
insurance levels required of cities and non - profits when major
construction projects are undertaken. The addendum to Exhibit G
simply formalizes the current insurance requirements that are
practiced in most Urban County Cities. Other than the changes
mentioned, the contract formalizes the existing operation of the
program and does not impose any new obligations on the City. The
City's balance as of July 1, 1996 for FY 1996/97 is $534,110.58.
FISCAL IMPACTS: None
ADVERTISING. NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of Agenda.
CONSEOUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON THE RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
City will not be reimbursed for projects eligible for CDBG funding.
FOLLOW -UP ACTIONS:
Staff will send signed CDBG County /City Contract for 1996/97 to the
County.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CDBG County /City Contract for 1996/97
2. List of projects for FY 96/97
PROJECT ANALYSIS
CDBG CITY /COUNTY
FY96/97 AVAILABLE BALANCES
AS OF OCTOBER 10, 1996
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
INITIAL
TRANSFER
PRIOR YEAR
ADJ FY96
CURRENT YEAR
ENDING
NUMBER
ALLOCATION
<FRM>/TO
EXPENSE
ALLOCATION
EXPENSE
BALANCE
SARATOGA:
HSG DEV FOR LOW INCOME
SA -88 -11
44,440.56
0.00
43,675.68
764.88
0.00
764.88
HSG DEV FOR LOW INCOME
SA -92 -11
62,417.00
(58,548.97)
0.00
3,868.03
0.00
3,868.03
HSG DEV FOR LOW INCOME
SA -93 -11
49,957.00
(25,000.00)
0.00
24,957.00
0.00
24,957.00
ADA COMPLIANCE
SA -94 -41
12,500.00
0.00
8,810.00
3,690.00
0.00
3,690.00
CITY -WIDE CURB CUT PROG
SA -94 -42
112,500.00
0.00
0.00
112,500.00
0.00
112,500.00
HOUSING REHAB ADMIN
SA -94 -52
4,642.00
10,000.00.
6,452.12
8,189.88
0.00
8,189.88
ADA COMPLIANCE - ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER REMOVAL
SA -95 -41
124,000.00
0.00
0.00
124,000.00
0.00
124,000.00
LOW INCOME HOUSING FUND
SA -96 -11
50,000.00
0.00
0.00
50,000.00
0.00
50,000.00
EHC RECEPTION CENTER
SA -96 -14
10,000.00
(10,000.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
EHC MONTEREY GLEN INN
SA -96 -15
3,000.00
0.00
0.00
3,000.00
0.00
3,000.00
TIMPANY CENTER REHAB
SA -96 -16
5,000.00
0.00
0.00
5,000.00
0.00
5,000.00
GENERAL ADMIN
SA -96 -91
15,000.00
0.00
6,859.21
8,140.79
0.00
8,140.79
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council
SA -97 -31
35,625.00
35,625.00
35,625.00
Tri -Aegis Residential Services
SA -97 -41
50,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00.
Housing Rehab Administration
SA -97 -52
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
Urban County Rehab Services
SA -97 -53
15,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
Emergency Housing Consortium
SA -97 -54
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
Fellowship Plaza- Gas Valves Retro -Fit
SA -97 -55
14,560.00
14,560.00
14,560.00
Innvision - Commercial Street Inn Rehab
SA -97 -56
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition
SA -97 -57
34,815.00
34,815.00
34,81 5.00
General Administration
SA -97 -91
15,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
SARATOGATOTAL•
$ 683,456.56 $
(83,548.97) $
65,797.01
$ 534,110.58 $
- $
534,110.58
0
�✓ 10/10/96
Prepared by: Larry Perez Page 1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
2ICtc)
AGENDA ITEM ~%
MEETING DATE: October 16, 1996 CITY MGR. �/,
ORIGINATING DEPT. Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City M nager?o
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution for Solid Waste Management
Services
Recommended Motion(s):
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Saratoga City Manager
to execute an amendment to the cooperative agreement with West
Valley Cities for Solid Waste Management for the period July 1,
1996 and continuing for as long as the City of Saratoga elects to
participate.
Report Summary:
The West Valley Cooperative Agreement provides for a Solid Waste
Management Program within the West Valley Cities of Campbell, Los
Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga. Saratoga has participated in the
program since November 1990. The Agreement authorizes the city
managers of the four jurisdictions to implement solid waste
management activities and provides for hiring staff with oversight
and general direction by the West Valley Rate Review Committee
(staff representatives from each jurisdiction).
The Program's "host" city from July 1993 through June 1996 has been
the City of Monte Sereno. Administrative and fiscal
responsibilities of the host city are defined in the agreement and
include: preparation of annual solid waste management budget and
quarterly reports, accounting for all program funds, and contract
employee supervision.
Although each city continues to have a staff person assigned to
monitor the Solid Waste Management Program, the host city takes
leadership in supervising the Solid Waste Program Manager, Ms. Vera
Dahle- Lacaze, hired to administer the program. The Program
Manager's scope of work focuses on AB 939 - related issues. AB 939
was comprehensive legislation passed several years ago which
established, amongst other things, aggressive recycling goals and
requirements for waste disposal and is referred to as the
Integrated Solid Waste Management Act.
Fiscal Impacts•
Funds to offset the cost of this program are collected through
refuse collection fees. The fiscal year 1996 -1997 budget is
$120,940; the City of Saratoga's share is $35,738. Costs are
budgeted in the Environmental Services Program 2026.
Solid Waste Management Agreement
October 16, 1996 Page 2
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Posting of the agenda.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The Solid Waste Management Program would not be able to be provided
to the City and no oversight of contractual compliance or
compliance with federal, state and regional laws and regulations
would occur.
Follow LTA Actions :
Staff will forward a copy of the resolution to the West Valley
Solid Waste Program Manager for filing with the other
jurisdictions' resolutions of same.
ttachments•
Attachment I: Resolution pertaining to Solid Waste Management
Services
Attachment II: Agreement to Provide Solid Waste Management
Services to the West Valley Jurisdictions
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
� F,7
AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase replacement air compressor
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to authorize the purchase of a replacement air compressor
from Ingersoll -Rand Equipment Sales in the amount of $12,149.89.
Report SummarX:
The adopted budget contains $16,000 in Activity 82 (Equipment
Operations), Account 6795 (Fixed Asset Replacement), to replace
the air compressor unit. The air compressor is used in virtually
all aspects of the public works maintenance functions; streets,
parks and facility maintenance. The current compressor has
reached the end of its useful life, and parts and servicing are
becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to acquire.
The Street Maintenance Superintendent solicited quotations from
three equipment supply companies to provide a replacement 185 cfm
unit. His memo summarizing the quotations received is attached.
The low bidder, Ingersoll -Rand Equipment Sales, is offering a
replacement compressor for $11,276 plus tax, which staff believes
will be a reliable unit meeting the Department's needs now and
into the future. Consequently, it is recommended that the
Council approve the purchase of the replacement air compressor
from Ingersoll -Rand at the quoted price.
Fiscal Impacts:
The recommended purchase is $3,850 less than what was budgeted.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Authorization to purchase from Ingersoll -Rand will not be
granted. The Council can direct staff to purchase from one of
the other vendors, or simply not authorize the purchase at all.
Follow Up Actions:
A purchase order will be issued to Ingersoll -Rand.
Attachments:
1. Memo from Street Maintenance Superintendent dated October 7.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 7, 1996
TO: Larry Perlin
FROM: Gary A. Enriquez Sr. �
SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase New 185 cfm Air Compressor
ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to purchase (1) New 185 cfm Air
Compressor
BACKGROUND: The FY 96/97 Equipment Operations Budget (8082 -6795)
includes $16,000.00 for the purchase of a new air compressor.
Bids were solicited from area companies that could provide this
type of equipment. Three bids were received via fax. Ingersoll -
Rand submitted the lowest bid.
Bid Summary:
Ingersoll- Western West Coast
Rand Traction Compressor
185 cfm
Air
$11,276.00
$11,980.00
$12,494.00
Compressor
Tax $873.89 $928.45 $968.29
Freight -0- -0- -0-
Total Cost
to City $12,149.89 $12,908.45 $13,462.29
1. Ingersoll -Rand Equipment Sales
1944 Marina Blvd.
San Leandro, Ca. 94577
(510) 357 -9131
Fax: (510) 483 -7287
2. Western Traction Company
1333 Atlantic Street
Union City, Ca. 94587
(510) 487 -3100
Fax: (510) 475 -9027
3. West Coast Compressors
1305 Elmer Street
Belmont, Ca. 94002
(415) 592 -2855
Fax: (415) 592 -2693
OCT -07 -1996 09:15 INGERSOLL —RAND
INGERSOLL-RAND
CONSTRUCTION d MINING
Gary A. Enriquci
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga_ CA 95070
Dear Gary,
510 483 7287 P.02i02
Sales - Service - Rentals
Ingersoll -Rand Equipment Sales
1944 Marina Boulevard
San Leandro. CA 94577
(510) 357 -9131
Fax: (510) 483-7287
October 7, 1996
Thank you for the opporait -dty to quote Ingersoll -Rand machinery for your equipment needs. Our price
Of 511,276.00 is for a 185 c.f.m., 100 p.s.i. portable air compressor including all standard features as
well as:
2.31" Ball Hitch
4 Tail Lights with Standard 6 Wly Male Plug Connector
3rd High Brake Light
voluneter
Fuel Lever Gauge
Engine Oil Pressure Gauge
Engine Temperature Gaugc
Tachometer
Discharge Air Temperature Gauge
100' Double Hose Reel with 50'x3/4" Hose Each Reel
1 Quart Mounted Oiler
The delivery is 6 to 8 weeks from day of order placement. If you have any questions please do not
hesitate to call me at the branch (510) 357 -9131 or on my mobile (408) 859 -1570. I look forward to
hearing from you.
Siriccrcly,
Timothy P. Hurst,
Sales Representative
Ingersoll -Rand
ALL AGREEMENTS CONTINGENT UPON STRIKES. ACCIDENTS AND OTHER CONDITIONS BEYOND OUR CONTROL,
ALL CONTRACTS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, QUOTATION$ SUBJECT TO CMANOE WITHOUT NOTICE.
TOTAL P.02
From: Rich Radoycis To: Mr. Gary Enriquez Date: 1014196 Time: 12:06:39 Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 4, 1996
TO: GARY E\rRIQUEZ
CITY OF SAR ATOGA
FRO \I: Western Traction Compan%,
Lisa R. \Ic Kissick
SUBJECT: ATLAS -COPCO AIR COMPRESSORS - PRICLNG ND A'v : (LABILITY
Thank you for your inquiry about our excellent air - compressors. For your consideration we have the
following model available that meets: exceeds your specifications:
1AS9C) D (1S5 cfm) S11.9Su"
This unit has the John Deere engine and is manufactured in the USA. It is an extremely reliable unit.
As you are probably aware. one of the reasons these units are so reliable is that :alas -Copco holds the original
patent to the screw type air copressor in all its various sizes (110. 130 1 S5, etc.) and what other companies do
is they purchase the patent rights for one or two compressor sizes and step the engine up or down. causing
excess wear on their engines. Ours are made to exacting specifications for the proper size compressor. with no
need to step the compressor up or down (again, .=alas- Copco, the inventor of the Screw -Type :fir Compressor.
holds the patents). The best in the business!
Evan if you have any questions. please feel to call me at (51C1.) 40 -3100 or you may page me at (510) 659 -
3_554. Thank you for your consideration.
"T"ote: All prices are f.o.b. Union City. California and do not include applicable tax or licensing.
I
COAST COMPRESSOR 415 592 2693 10/01/96 07:25 �J :01/03 NO:127
WEST COAST COMPRESSOR
.1305 Elmer Street, Belmont, CA 94002
Phone (415) 592 -2855 Fax (415) 592 -2693
September 30, 1996
Gary Enriquez
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Gary,
Page 1 of 3
ph (408) 867 -3438
fax(408) 741 -1049
After speaking with you on the telephone this morning, West Coast Compressor is
pleased to make the following proposal.
Manufacturer
Model
Price
P.K. Lindsay Co., Inc.
185 -QD
$12,494.00
Gary, once you have had a chance to examine the two pages following this, please
give me a call so that we may discuss the details and your options.
Sincerely,
West Coast Compressor
Steve Vikfors
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
2VT
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1996
AGENDA ITEM 6"&Y
CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Declaration of Surplus Property and Authorization to
Dispose of same
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to declare Vehicle No's. 58 and 79, and the Air Compressor
Unit, as surplus property and authorize their disposal by the
City Manager as recommended.
Report Summary:
My attached memo to the City Manager dated
detail why both subject vehicles should be
property. Additionally, a related item on
recommending authorization to purchase a r
compressor unit, if approved, would render
compressor unit as surplus property too.
August 23 explains in
declared as surplus
your agenda
eplacement air
the currently owned
Municipal Code Section 2- 45.170 requires City Council
authorization to dispose of surplus property having a value of
more than $500. As all three items have values which exceed that
amount, it is recommended that the City Council declare each of
the assets as surplus property. Disposition would then occur in
the manner described below.
Fiscal Impacts:
Vehicle No. 58, the dump truck, was appraised for $13,300. At a
recent auction, the high bid received was $10,500. Although the
bid is $2,800 under the appraised value, staff recommends
accepting the bid as there are no other viable ways to dispose of
this vehicle which staff believes could realize a better return.
Vehicle No. 79, the patch paving truck, was appraised for
$22,500. At auction, a bid for $26,000 was received. However,
since then, staff has negotiated a sale price of $26,250 with the
paving contractor working for the City on the 1996 Pavement
Management Program. Other paving contractors who expressed some
interest in the vehicle would not bid more than $25,000.
Therefore, staff recommends accepting the negotiated price of
$26,250.
Also at auction, the air compressor unit received a bid for
$1,100, about all that staff believes it is worth based on
discussions with the three companies who solicited quotations for
providing the City with a replacement unit.
In summary, the sale of the two vehicles as recommended would
realize $36,750, or $950 more than their combined appraised
values. Adding in the sale of the air compressor unit brings the
total amount due the City for these three items to $37,850. This
would be booked as revenues to the General Fund under Account No.
9820 (Sale of Property). The adopted budget includes $17,700
from this revenue source, although the budget did not assume the
sale of the patch truck this year. At this time, staff
anticipates recommending future programming of the excess
revenues received to purchase a replacement unit for the patch
truck as described in the attached memo.
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Depends on Council's action. One or all of the three items would
not be declared as surplus property.
Follow Up Actions:
The three items would be disposed of as recommended.
Attachments:
1. Memo to City Manager dated August 23.
2. Municipal Code Section 2- 45.170.
9
C�
o�
S ►A IR�9
�O
CITY f B10 ' ATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burner
TO: City Manager PaulEJacobs
Gillian Moran
FROM: Public Works Director Karen Tricker
Donald L. Wolfe
SUBJECT: Large Vehicles in the City's Fleet
DATE: August 23, 1996
This is to confirm that as of October 1, 1996, I will be retiring
Vehicle No's. 58 and 79 from'the City's fleet. Both of these
vehicles exceed 26,000 pounds GVW and if retained in the City's
fleet, would necessitate implementation of a drug and alcohol
testing program for departmental personnel in accordance with
federal Department of Transportation regulations. Additionally,
these are the only two City vehicles which require a commercial
drivers license to operate.
Vehicle No. 58 is a 10 year old eight yard dump truck used
primarily by the Street Maintenance crew for hauling large loads of
debris and /or materials. It is not utilized very often and in
staff's opinion, can be downsized to a smaller, more versatile unit
similar to the two flatbed cab and chassis units acquired last
year. I recently had the vehicle appraised for $13,300 and am
recommending that it be turned over to the City's auction company
for disposition at the next auction in September.
Vehicle No.. 79 is a 4 year old five yard dump truck fitted with an
oil distributor and related equipment for street repair activities.
It has very low mileage and was also recently appraised for
$22,500. Before releasing the vehicle for auction, staff is
pursuing other options for disposal such as checking with local
paving contractors and possibly advertising in Western Cities or
similar publications. Ultimately, it is recommended' that this
vehicle be replaced with a similar, but smaller unit.
Unless I hear otherwise from you, I will proceed to have both
vehicles formally declared as surplus property and proceed with
their disposition as recommended. In any event, both vehicles will
be removed from the City's fleet by October 1. If you have any
questions about this, please let me know.
Printed on recycled paper.
2- 45.130
of bid opening until the contract has been awarded by
the City Council.
(d) Rejection of bids. If, in the opinion of the City
Council, none of the bids is satisfactory, the Council may
reject all bids and either purchase the supplies or services
in the open market or readvertise for new bids.
(e) Award of contract. Except as otherwise provided
herein, a contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsi-
ble bidder, taking into consideration the criteria listed
in Section 2- 45.090 of this Article.
(f) Tie bids. If two or more bids received are for the
same total amount or unit price, quality and service being
equal, and if a delay for readvertisement would not be
in the public interest, the City Council may accept the
bid it chooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation
with the tie bidders at the time of the bid opening.
(g) Performance bond. The City Council may require
that a performance bond be furnished before entering into
a contract with a successful bidder. The form and amount
of such bond shall be satisfactory to the Purchasing Officer
and in compliance with the contract specifications.
(h) Waiver of irregularities. The City Council may
waive any minor irregularities in the bids, based upon
a determination that the same have no material impact
upon the bidding process or other bids submitted.
(i) No bids. If no bids are received in response to
the notice inviting bids, the City Council may proceed
to purchase the supplies or services without further com-
petitive bidding.
2- 45.140 Request for proposals.
(a) The City Council may utilize the request for
proposal method of purchasing supplies or services upon
a determination that competitive bidding is not practical
or advantageous to the City because:
(1) Quality, capability, performance or qualification
is overriding in relation to price; or
(2) Delivery, installation, service, maintenance, reliabil-
ity or replacement is overriding in relation to price; or
(3) In the opinion of the City Council, the marketplace
will respond better to a solicitation permitting a range
of alternative proposals or evaluation and discussion of
proposals before entering the contract.
(b) Proposals shall be solicited in such manner as
directed or approved by the City Council. The identity
of persons responding to the request for proposals and
the content of proposals submitted to the City may be
kept confidential during the process of negotiation and
until a contract is awarded.
(c) The request for proposals shall state evaluation
factors. Discussions may be conducted with responsible
26
offerors and revisions to proposals, based upon such dis-
cussions, may be accepted.
(d) The contract award shall be based upon the propos-
al determined by the City Council to be most advantageous
to the City, taking into consideration price and the evalu-
ation factors set forth in the request for proposals.
(e) The City Council may reject any and all proposals
if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interests of
the City. The Council may thereupon direct that proposals
be solicited or utilize any other purchasing method set
forth in this Article.
2- 45.150 Inspection and testing.
The Purchasing Officer shall inspect, or cause to be
inspected, all deliveries of supplies or services to deter-
mine their conformance to specifications set forth in the
purchase order or contract. The Purchasing Officer shall
have the authority to require any tests necessary to deter-
mine quality and conformance with specifications.
2- 45.160 Joint purchase with other agencies.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article,
the Purchasing Officer may issue a joint purchase order
together with any other city, county, or public agency
in the State for the purchase of supplies or services,
provided the specifications for such supplies or services
have been approved by the Purchasing Officer if the cost
thereof is less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars, or by the
City Council if the cost thereof is Fifteen Thousand
Dollars or more, and provided further that at least one
of the other agencies has solicited or advertised for bids
in a manner similar to the applicable procedures set forth
in this Article.
2- 45.170 Disposal of personal property.
The Purchasing Officer shall have authority to dispose
of personal property of the City which cannot be used
by any department or has become obsolete or worn out.
The disposition may be accomplished by negotiated sale,
public auction, exchange or trade in for other supplies
or, upon a determination by the Purchasing Officer that
the property has no commercial value, by abandonment,
destruction or donation to a public body or a nonprofit
charitable or civic organization. The disposition of any
property having a value of Five Hundred Dollars or more
shall fast be authorized by the City Council.
14
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z W-) AGENDA ITEM �� 3
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Minor Concrete Repairs - Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Motion(s
1. Move to declare Valley Concrete, Inc. of San Jose to be the
lowest responsible bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a construction contract to Valley Concrete, Inc.
in the amount of $7,186.
3. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract
up to $1,000.
Report Summary:
Proposals for the annual minor concrete repair work were solicited
using the informal bidding procedures prescribed by Article 12 -15
of the Municipal Code. This year's proposed work involves the
removal and replacement of 149 linear feet of curb and gutter at
four locations, and 421 square feet of sidewalk at three locations.
Three local contractors responded to the City's solicitation for
bids as follows:
1. Valley Concrete, Inc. - $7,186
2. J. A. Antuzzi Concrete Co., Inc. - $7,243
3. California Concrete Co. - $7,544
As the low bidder, Valley Concrete, has successfully worked for the
City on a number of previous occasions performing similar work, it
is recommended that the City Council declare Valley Concrete, Inc.
to be the lowest responsible bidder for the work and award a
standard construction contract to this firm in the amount of their
bid, $7,186. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize
staff to execute change orders to the contract up to an amount of
$1,000 to cover any unforeseen circumstances which may arise during
the course of the work or to expand the scope of the work as may be
necessary.
Fiscal Impacts:
Sufficient funds for this work, including the recommended change
order authority are programmed in the adopted budget in Activity
No. 32 (Sidewalks & Trails), Account No. 4530 (Repair Services).
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
valley Concrete Inc. will not be declared the lowest responsible
bidder and a construction contract will not be awarded to that
firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare another
bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the
bids and direct staff to re -bid the entire project. However, staff
does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re- bidding
the project due to the fact that only three contractors bid the
project and the all three bids are within $358 of one another.
Follow Up Actions:
A standard- construction contract will be executed and the
contractor will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Work will most
likely begin in two weeks and last through mid - November.
Attachments:
1. Bid Proposals.
09/30/1996 09:05 4082876095 VALLEY CONCRETE PAGE 03
1020 RUFF DRIVE STATE LIC. #603078
SAN JOSE, CA 95110 i IN BUSINESS SINCE 19-18
Concr f 184 1 "C.
SOURCE. (408) 287.8091 • FAX (408) 287.8095 INVOICE
CUSTOMER
1
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
WIRE MESH
YES
NO
OTHER INSTRUCTIONS:
CROSS STREETS
FOR JOB SCHEDULING OR ANY OTHER
QUESTION, CALL 9117- 6001
x
AUTHORIZATION TO START WORK
DATE TO START (WEATHER PERMITTING)
APPROVAL
HM. PHONE
C"y L►
Swrarngw
DIAGRAM
WK. PHONE
GATE
All York will be to city specifications. All
materials used will be to city specifications,
vich includes a 6 sack concrete mix and using
Class B 3/8" asphalt.
All labor and materials are included in the
above estimated repairs at the cost ,
Thank you for considering Valley Concrete.
Please call we vith any questions you may have.
Jeff Lemons
er v
_/0
q NOT REBPONBIBLE FOR CRACKS. TOTAL BALANCE 96 do,
4) NOT RESPON819LE FOR ANY IN-GROUND
UTILITIES,IRRIOXtION LINES OR SPRINKLERB.
3) TMERE WILL BE AN EXTPA CHARGE FUR DOWN PAYMENTS
CONCRETE REMOVAL THICKER THAN a•
OR @TEEL AEINFORCEMENT. BALANCE
•)NOT RE8PONVIBLE COO SLOTCHINE88
I HAVE AM AND UNDEAGTAND THE ABOVE.
BALANCE DUE DAY OF POUR INITIAL x
INITIAL x
09/11/1996 12:17 4082876795 VALLEY CONCRETE PAGE 02
1020 RUFF DRIVE &ncrea
SAN JOSE, CA 95110 STATE IJC. #803078 I IN BUSINESS SINCE 1678 J'
nc.
SOURCE (408) 267.6091. FAX (408) 207.8086 INVOICE
TRACTOR AND TWXK
YES
NO
JACKHAMMER
YES
NO
DISPOSAL LOAD
YES
NO
CONCRETE SAWING
YES
No
PAGE OP STEPS EXPOSED
YES
NO
EXPANSION JOINT
YES
NO
TYPE DEEP
REDWOOD
YES
No
T(PE I SIZE
FINISH
YES
NO
ROCK
YES
NO
TYPE / SIZE
CONCRETE MIX
YES
NO
SACK
LAMP BLACK
YES
NO
WIRE MESH
YES
NO
OTHER MBTAMTIONS:
Ulm sTREErs
POR JOB SCNEMA.INO OR ANY OTHER
tI JMION. CAIN MY- 001
O A AM Pa3 t /
Attention: Gary Euriques
This estimate is for curb and gutter, sidewalk and
some asphzit repairs at the five locations listed
below.
1111. 12568 North Hampton Court
Saw cut. remove and replace 29 Ln Pt of rolled
curb and gutter.
Saw cut and replace asphalt along gutter
29'X4'- 116 Sq Pt 1 1,740.00
/2. 19201 Harleigh Drive
Saw cut, remove and replace 5 Ln Ft of curb and
gutter. 1 150.00
13. 18407 Moutpere Drive
Remove and replace 31 3/4 Ln Ft of curb and gutter
Remove and replace asphalt along curb and gutter
1'X31 3/4' $ 1.190.00
14. 12381 Radoyka Drive
Saw cut, reanve and replace 32 Ln pt of curb and gutter
and replace sidewalk 4'X32, totalling 128 Sq pt.
1 1.856.00
05. 12260 Country Squire
Remove and replace 81 Lo It of curb and gutter, no
asphalt replacement vu estimated. $. 2, 150
,r
r
Q
J. A. ANTUZZI CONCRETE CO., INC.
333 NORTH MONTGOMERY ST.
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
LICENSE #641 S98
PHONE (408) 287 -0775 FAX 008) 287_0789
TO: CITY OF SA RA TOGA
ATTN: BRYAN
PROPOSAL
DA TE: SEPTEAfBER 2.5, 1 996
JOB: VARIOUS
1) 12260 COUNTRYSQUARE LANE
REMOVE AND REPLACE 81 L. F. OF CURB AND GUTTER.
S2,430.00
2) 12381 RADUM DR.
REMOVE AND REPLACE 155 SQ. FT OF CITY SIDEWALK
51,046.00
REMOVE AND REPLACE 32 L.F. OF CURB AND GUTTER_
5.750, 00
3) 19201 HARLEY DR.
REMOVE AND REPLACE S L.F.
5375.00
4) 18407 MONT PERE DR.
REMOVE AND REPLACE 31 L.F. OF CURB AND GUTTER.
REPLACEA /C 1'X 31'.
S.7 75. 00
S275.00
S) 12368 N. HAMPTON DR.
REMOVE AND REPLACE 150 SQ. FT. OF CITY SIDEWA LK
SAWCUT, REMOVE AND REPLACE 116 SQ. FT 29'X 4' A /C.
S/.01700
S580.00
TOTAL BID PRICE. $7,243.00
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE• JA. ANTUZZI CONCRETE CO..IN(.
ACCEPTANCE.• DATE.•
09/26/1996 08:43 408295602 CREATIVE
10500 Crothers Road PROPOSAL and CONTRACT
San Jose, California 95127
LICENSE NO. 319707
NAMI
Subject to Terms and Conditions printed on back hereof.
Which are referred to and hereby made a part of this Proposal and Contract.
CALIFORNIA CONCRETE COO
BUS: (408) 259 -6277
9 -7904
PAGE 01
OWNER
JOE PEREIRA
ADDRESS �!�/ / l �1 VI-IV0.i.e
CITY_ YX�,,� �7.1 DATED:
PHOtJE (HOME) 0Ci� 3"i
/�—!6} i� - mapA) ID W5 nF:
The customer has three days In which to CANCEL THE CONTRACT IN WRITING without charge. However. the customer
agrees that f for any reason the fob is canceled. he (the customer) will pay to California Concrete Company the sum of
within 30 days, for any plans drawn by the contractor and signed by the cuAtom`er.
e �
Q
v e� 123 (�� 40A44 , <f)r
i W 7 W44 P-Qrc '�)c.
. 12381 �c� o�i�.s �•
o ` 7S� 4
CONTRACTORS ARF. RPOHIRFn RY I AW TO BE LICFNSED
AND REGULATED BY THE CONTRACTORS' STATE
LIGENSE 60ARD ANY UUESTIONS CONCERNING A
CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR
OF THE BOARD WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD
1020 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
CONCRETE CARE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE.
'UNDER THE LIEN LAW. ANY CONTRACTOR. SUBCONTRACTOR.
LABORER, SUPPLIER OR OTHER PERSON WHO HELPS TO
IMrrinvF Ynun PnorirnTY SHT IS NOT PAID FOR HIS WORK
OR SUPPLIES, HAS A RIGHT TO ENFORCE A CLAIM AGAINST
YOUR PROPERTY. THIS MEANS THAT AFTER A COURT
HEARING, YOUR PROPERTY COULD BE SOLD BY A COURT
OFFICER AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE USED TO SATISFY
THE INDEBTEDNESS. THIS CAN HAPPEN EVEN IF YOU HAVE
PAID YOUR OWN CONTRACTOR IN FULL, IF THE
SUBCONTRACTOR, LABORER, OR SUPPLIER REMAINS
UNPAID.'
Unless otherwise contrected, all accounts Arm due and payable on
the 10th of the month following date of Involea. Finance charge of
t 1/2% per month which Is an annual percentage rate of 10% Is
charged on all past due accounts_
I CERTIFY, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, Terms of Paymelus
THAT THE JOB ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE IS II,�`tlhG�(1 l
NOT HOMESTEADED IN ANY WAY.
COU TERSIGNED:
CALIFOR IA CONC E IPOMPAN Y
By By
Date Date q
Carefully read Terms and Conditlons on revers side
V
SARATOGA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.2 % Q p �
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM: YA
MEETING DATE: October 16, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community D elopmen eic"i
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Hillside Preservation Strategy Final Report
Recommended Motion:
Review and accept the final report.
Report Summary:
Over the last eighteen months, staff representatives of the Cities of
Monte Sereno, Cupertino, Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos and the County
of Santa Clara have been meeting to formulate a strategy for minimizing
future development impacts in the unincorporated hillside areas.
Earlier this year, the City Council and Planning Commission reviewed a
draft outline of the Hillside Preservation Strategy and discussed, in
concept, the establishment of long term growth boundaries for the City
of Saratoga.
More recently, project staff has been meeting with the Santa Clara
County Planning Commission to evaluate the various issues and related
actions needed to successfully implement the draft Hillside Preservation
Strategy.
Attached is the final report for this project. This document contains a
list of recommended strategies, actions and proposed implementation
measures. The significant recommendations of this report are as follows
(The page numbers on which these measures are described is in
parenthesis):
a. The adoption of Joint Planning and Land Use Principle for the
West Valley Hillside Area (page 5 and Appendix A).
b. The establishment and recognition of the West Valley cities long
term growth boundaries and specific policies relating to these
individual boundary areas (page 6 and Appendix B).
c. The application of design review, through rezoning, to the
portion of the hillsides that are visible to the valley floor (page
7) .
d. The adoption of revised residential development standards for
the West Valley hillsides, including reduction in house height,
limits on house size and objective evaluation of house colors (page
7) .
e. The adoption of revised design guidelines for areas requiring
design review (page 7).
f. The implementation of a more responsive referral process for
development projects in the West Valley hillsides to include
expanded notification and City representation at design review
hearings (page 8 ) .
The Santa Clara County Planning Commission has already forwarded a
positive recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the
implementation of this strategy. It is anticipated that Board will
direct County staff to immediately initiate the recommended rezoning,
general plan amendments and other procedural revisions.
The Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed this final report at their
October 9 meeting and have forwarded a unanimous recommendation in
support of this plan.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Follow -up Action:
If the Council accepts the final report, staff will prepare a General
Plan Amendment which adopts Joint Planning and Land Use Principles and
Long Term Growth Boundaries and policies.as indicated in Appendices A
and B of the final report. The Planning Commission and City Council
public hearing processes for this General Plan Amendment will be
initiated in January of 1997.
Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion:
The Saratoga portion of the Hillside Preservation Strategy will not be
implemented.
Attachments:
Hillside Preservation Strategy Final Report.
Correspondence
Motion and Vote:
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES JOINT PLANNING REVIEW
A Cooperative Project of
the Cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno, the Town of Los Gatos, and
the County of Santa Clara
Public Revieza Draft • September 1996
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
CONTENTS
Introduction................................................................................................................ ............................... 1
Overview of Hillside Preservation Strategies ........................................................ ............................... 2
Mapof Study Area ....................................................................................:................. ............................... 3
Strategy 1: Develop. Joint Hillside Land Use Objectives .................................... ............................... 5
Strategy 2: Limit Expansion of Urban Development into Hillside Areas ....... ............................... 6
Strategy 3: Minimize the Visual Impacts of Future Hillside Development .... ............................... 7
Strategy 4: Provide Mechanisms for Resolution of Hillside Land Use Issues ............................... 8
Appendix A: Joint Planning and Land Use Principles ....................................... ............................... 9
Appendix B: Long Term Growth Boundary Policies ........................................ ............................... 10
I Z
Pitblic Review D ra ft.........._.._......._.... ..... .........................._....
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of This Report
The scenic backdrop of the Santa Cruz
mountains in western Santa Clara County
contributes significantly to the quality of life
of the region by affording visual and psy-
chological relief from the fast paced urban
environment in the valley.
As population grows and development
pressures on the hillsides continue, it is
important to conserve this natural resource
and prevent future development from
reducing its natural beauty. .
This report presents some key strategies,
that can be used to preserve this resource,
through inter - jurisdictional cooperation and
coordination. The strategies proposed are
based on and serve to reinforce existing city,
town, and County general plan policies.
History of the Project
The West Valley Hillsides Joint Planning
Review is a collaborative planning project
involving the Cities of Cupertino, Monte
Sereno and Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos,
and Santa Clara County. It was established
to protect the scenic appearance of the West
Valley hillsides (the foothills of the Santa
Cruz Mountains) most visible from the
valley floor. (see Study Area Map)
This project originated from a proposal for a
"Western Santa Clara County Foothills Sub -
regional Planning Project" that was submit-
ted to the Association of Bay Area Govern-
ments (ABAG) for staff and financial
support in November 1994. Although ABAG
did not award the grant to this project, the
participating jurisdictions determined that
since their joint planning goals remained
the same, efforts should proceed regardless
of the ABAG decision.
1
Goals of Project
The major goal of the project is to protect the
predominantly natural visual character of
the West Valley Hillsides by:
• Confining urban uses to flatland areas
most appropriate for urban develop-
ment.
• Allowing in the hillsides only develop-
ment appropriate to rural, hillside areas
• Minimizing the visual impacts of non -
urban hillside development
• Fostering closer interjurisdictional
cooperation and coordination concern-
ing land use and development issues
Public Review Draft
2 WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
OVERVIEW OF HILLSIDE PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
This report proposes four basic strategies for
preservation of the natural visual character
of hillsides.
Strategy #1 Develop joint hillside land use
objectives
Strategy #2 Limit expansion of urban
development into hillside
areas
Strategy #3 Minimize the visual impacts
of hillside development
Strategy #4 Provide mechanisms for
resolution of future hillside
land use issues
Two additional strategies were considered
earlier in this study.
One called for making recommendations to
open space agencies regarding acquisition of
key parcels which will provide permanent
open space protection in the West Valley
hillsides. These recommendations will be
made at a later date, possibly in conjunction
with the review of the Master Plan which is
currently being developed by the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(MROSD).
A second additional strategy was to allow
flexibility in addressing special issues
possibly on a bilateral basis. It was found
during the course of this project that this
strategy was unnecessary as all issues that
arose have been adequately addressed
under other strategies.
This report then focuses on the recommen-
dations for the four strategies.
....... _.. .. .._.
-� ................... ....... ................ y.................... ............................ - - -� ......... ....... ...... ... ..... .__... ., .. . ...... ...... - - -- -- - - - - --
_ .. .. .. . ....... ........... .. .
Public Reoiezu Draft i... ....... .... _ _.. ......
0
Study Area for West Valley Hillsides Joint Planning Review
iiiiiii iii;......iii::::i:;:::1::;:
• iw
Approx. Study Area Boundary
iiiiiiiii •�V � '
` j
I.
Z
Areas Currently Subject to County Design Review
Ki i •f
011 r •
8
•., iii�iiii
Cupertino City Limit
..........
iiiiiiii::::... a :•
"/•.. '•' I /i ?;; o
Cupertino Urban Service Area
.
• •� iii :fir -4 *� .� :�,,:. .,- � P'te
!• ii iii r
-\ .
Lt
''•�'( t ���. "5fi,*v
paE�?'n"` ft,t
%%(
�JJ
j
j
Existing Parks
iii\ - r;:,.,
lf.Fl�.• ••r
i.....iii'
t�
General Plan Land Use: Hillsides
a z
ta`.; �*•. °. --
17
Los Gatos Town Limits
,��'"�
::i; yy�,
• / % 9 r '�•� " _ + r. ' 85
M .
Los Gatos Urban Service Area
~
�jZ /�I I i •i it No *�
Monte Sereno City Limit
:r I I•
•! l
Losfa
Rob
Monte Sereno Urban Service Area
• x •
V f ' ' ( y
Public Open Specs lends
If
/ /�/ tl
s., ♦ t4! 111.. /
�
ILL:;:
Saratoga City Limits ,
G/)� ��� i��/�� /�Jr/
�,� ;-�- � � 1,
Rpeeti�?�i�E1`iijji �� rr:: •a�."�t+�r. s�
,..• ...�..L�.�.►. ��:!.I � .L .
"fib "�•�
Saratoga Urban Service Area
I/
Scenic Roads
Santa Cl11ra County
�f� •I
I �
::
V. un
A
This map is a product of This map is a digital representation of data collected from various sources
Santa Clara County Planning Office The County assumes no responsibility for data accuracy
August 1996
Geographic Information Systems
0 1 2
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
STRATEGY #1: DEVELOP JOINT HILLSIDE LAND USE OBJECTIVES
Purpose Action Recommendations
General Plan policies provide basic direction
Action 1. Adopt the Joint Planning and Land
'
for land use and development decisions.
Use Principles for West Valley
This strategy is intended to assure basic
Hillsides Area as amendments to the
consistency of hillside land use policies
General Plans of the participating
' among the various jurisdictions participat-
jurisdictions to reinforce existing
ing in this study.
policies.
Background
(These Joint Planning and Land Use
This is a unique cooperative planning
Principles are listed in Appendix A.)
project involving four cities and the County
Implementors: The West Valley cities
working together to achieve the shared goal
and the County
'
of preserving the natural beauty of the West
Valley hillsides - a goal which is expressed
in the general plans of all the participating
' jurisdictions.
To emphasize this basic goal, a core set of
joint land use policies have been developed;
' which echo the spirit of the Hillside Preser-
vation Strategy. These policies are not
intended to replace existing policies, but
' rather to help reinforce them.
6-
5
- --- - - - - -- - -- -
- - - - - --------------- - - - - -- ....... --------- -..... .. - - --
... -- -- - .... - ._....._...._....._ ... _...._..._._........
....... _........... .............
....... ...__.- ..... ._ .......... :.. - - -- - ...._ ..............- .......... - ....._. -_. _ _..._......................---._...__.._.._._.................................:............._..._........__............-..............._:...._._ .............................__ ....... ...... ... . ............ .... ......
Public Review Draft
6 WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
STRATEGY #2: LIMIT EXPANSION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
INTO HILLSIDE AREAS
Purpose
Urban development, if allowed to expand
further into the hillsides could drastically
alter the scenic beauty of these predomi-
nantly open space lands. The purpose of this
strategy is to protect the natural appearance
of the West Valley hillsides by preventing
expansion of urban development into
hillside areas.
Background
Each of the West Valley cities currently has
an established urban service area (USA)
boundary which includes lands to which
urban services will be provided in the short
term and outside of which the County will
not allow urban type development.
To build on this concept and to assure
stability and integrity to this existing growth
management mechanism, the cities should
also adopt long term growth boundaries.
Long term growth boundaries would
indicate lands the cities are willing to
provide with services in the next 20-30
years.
If long term growth boundaries are cotermi-
nous with or closely approximate existing
urban service area boundaries, they would
help prevent encroachment of urban devel-
opment into the hills and make a strong
statement about their desire to see the
natural beauty of the hillsides maintained.
.Action Recommendations:
Action 1. Delineate and adopt long term
growth boundaries as amendments to
city and town general plans.
Implementors: The West Valley cities
Action 2. Adopt general plan policies regarding
the intent and maintenance of long
term growth boundaries.*
Implementors: The West Valley cities
Action 3. Adopt policies related to the allowable
land uses outside the long term
growth boundary and in lands within
the long term growth boundary that
are outside the urban service area.*
Implementor: The County
*(Suggested policies concerning long
term growth boundaries are described
in Appendix B.)
Action 4. Define and limit the allowable
intensity of uses which involve
overnight accommodations, including
golf courses, lodges, retreats and
hostels; local- serving industrial/
commercial uses; institutional and
other non - residential uses.
Implementor: The County
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
STRATEGY #3:
Purpose
MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACTS OF
FUTURE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of this strategy is to ensure that
future development allowed in the hillsides
blends into the landscape and does not
cause significant visual impacts when
viewed from the valley floor.
Background
Even if the West Valley cities adopt long
term growth boundaries that exclude urban
development from the hillsides, low density
development is still likely to occur on
private lands within this area. Individual
buildings, if they are not designed and
located with sensitivity to the natural
landscape, can detract from the scenic
beauty of the hillsides.
The visual impacts of hillside development
can be minimized through the proper use of
design elements such as building form,
color, and landscaping and through appro-
priate development standards governing the
maximum size or height of buildings.
Each of the West Valley cities and the
County have development regulations and
standards as well as design review proce-
dures intended to minimize the visual
impacts of hillside development.
The County is currently reviewing its
hillside design review guidelines and
standards, with the multiple goals of
making them:
• More effective in minimizing the visual
impacts of hillside development,
• More consistent with those of the cities,
• Easier for hillside landowners and
architects to understand, and
• Easier for staff to administer.
7
Action Recommendations:
Action 1. Require design review for develop-
ment proposed on portions of the
hillsides that are visible from the
valley floor within the West Valley
cities.
Implementor: The County
Action 2. Revise existing or adopt new develop-
ment standards in areas visible from
the valley floor within the West
Valley cities.
Implementor: The County
Action 3. Revise the existing design guidelines
applicable to areas where design
review is required
Implementor: The County
Action 4. Review city hillside development
policies and standards for their
effectiveness in minimizing visual
impacts of development.
Implementors: The West Valley cities
- - - -- -- — -------- - - - - -- -- - - . - ......
-..... ..... _._ .....................:> ..................... ........................_....:_ -.
Public Review Draft
E.
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
STRATEGY #4:
Purpose
PROVIDE MECHANISMS FOR RESOLUTION OF
HILLSIDE LAND USE ISSUES
The purpose of this strategy is to provide a
means for constructive resolution of inter -
jurisdictional hillside land use issues that
may arise.
Background
Although city and County hillside land use
policies and development standards are
relatively consistent, there will always exist
the potential for differences of opinion
regarding the approval of or standards
applied to certain types of development. It is
important that there be effective mecha-
nisms for discussing and resolving such
issues when they arise.
One tool for resolving such conflicts early in
the development approval process is a
timely interjurisdictional referral and
comment procedure for projects proposed in
the hillsides. The referral and comment
procedure should be used to emphasize
open communication and foster good
working relationships between city and
County decision makers and staff.
Generally, such processes can occur at a staff
level via written communications and phone
conversations. On occasion, however, it may
also be desirable to have face - to-face meet-
ings between city and County officials to
address issues of major significance, should
they arise.
Action Recommendations:
Action 1. Review referral and comment
procedures for development projects
proposed within the West Valley
hillsides to determine their adequacy
and develop enhanced procedures
where necessary.
Implementors: The West Valley cities
and the County
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
IAPPENDIX A: JOINT PLANNING AND LAND USE PRINCIPLES
Va
Protection of the West Valley Hillsides
Viewshed
1. The natural beauty of the West Valley
hillsides area should be maintained for
its contribution to the overall quality of
life of current and future generations.
Minimizing the Visual Impacts of Hillside
Development
2. New development in the West
Valley hillsides area should be located and
designed to minimize its visibility from the
valley floor.
Allowable Land Uses
3. New land uses within the West Valley
Hillsides area should be limited to non -
urban uses that are compatible with the
preservation of the natural appearance
of the hillsides.
Limiting the Extension of Urban Services
and Urban Development
4. Urban development and the extension
of urban services should be limited to
those areas most suitable for urban
development. Further substantial
expansion of the urban area into the
West Valley hillsides should be discour-
aged.
Interjurisdictional Cooperation
5. The West Valley cities and the County
should work cooperatively to maintain
the natural appearance of the West
Valley hillsides and should establish
procedures for resolving
interjurisdictional land use issues that
may arise in this area.
9
10 WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
APPENDIX B:
Background
LONG TERM GROWTH BOUNDARY POLICIES
Existing urban service area boundaries
primarily serve as short term growth
management boundaries, indicating lands to
which urban services will be provided in the
short term (generally within approximately
5 years).
Long term growth boundaries are intended
to indicate lands to which th e city/town
expects to provide with urban services
within approximately 20 -30 years.
Long term growth boundaries help to:
a. Reinforce fundamental policies concern-
ing the appropriate location of urban
development.
b. Preserve the predominantly natural .
character and natural resources of
hillsides by preventing urban develop-
ment from encroaching into them.
c. Protect public health and safety by
preventing urban development.in
hazardous areas.
Policies Suggested for Adoption by the
West Valley Cities in Their General Plans
1. The City/Town will delineate and adopt
a long term growth boundary indicating
the lands to which it is willing to
provide urban services within approxi-
mately the next 20-30 years.
2. The City's /Town's long term growth
boundary will only be modified in
conjunction with a comprehensive
review of the City's General Plan.
3. The City's /Town's urban service area
boundary will not be expanded outside
its long term growth boundary.
4. Proposed revisions to the City's /
Town's long term growth boundaries
will be referred to the County for review
and comment.
Policies Suggested for Adoption by the
County in Its General Plan
1. The West Valley cities should delineate
and adopt long term growth boundaries
indicating the lands to which they are
willing to provide urban services within
approximately the next 20-30 years.
2. The County will maintain current land
use designations and prohibit uses of an
urban density, intensity or nature
outside the long term growth bound-
aries and in lands within the long term
growth boundaries that are outside the
urban service area.
I
0
WEST VALLEY HILLSIDES PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PROJECT STAFF
City of Cupertino
Michele Bjurman
Ciddy Wordell
Town of Los Gatos
Lee Bowman
City of Monte Sereno
Brian Loventhal
City of Saratoga
George White
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Don Weden
Neelima Palacherla
Greg Bazhaw
Jim Reilly
Kitty Yau — Graphics
Geographic Information System (GIS)
Consultant
Eric Coumou
..... ... ...
_.._
....._ ...._.
..
f
. ........ ............. , ... ......... , . ...... . ..... ......... ........ ....... ............... .
_.P bt is Review Draft
P E O P L E F O R O P E N S P A C E
October 9, 1996
Mayor Paul Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Support for the Hillside Preservation Strategy Final Report
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers:
We have been fortunate to follow the progress of the West Valley Hillside
Preservation effort over the course of this year and wholeheartedly urge you to support and
adopt this report and the recommended actions. This represents an unprecedented planning
effort on the behalf of five jurisdictions to bring forward a more coherent, subregional
long -range plan to upgrade the County hillside protection measures in the 13,000 acre
West Valley Cities' viewshed and to establish and maintain long -term urban growth
boundaries around each cities' border with the hillside area.
Another result of this report is the implementation of a more responsive referral
process for development projects in the hillside viewshed (unincorporated) area and city
representation at design review hearings. This will help assure that the entire West Valley
hillside range is protected to a uniformly high standard and that city interests are met.
We are very pleased that Saratoga has been a partner in this process, and believe
that its residents will benefit from the added hillside protections it will put in place as well
as the long -term certainty that each of the participating cities will define clearly the line
where urban density development stops and the rural hillsides begin.
Please support this report and direct staff to follow through with its implementation
items. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Vicki Moore
Associate Policy Director
MAIN OFFICE • 116 New Montgomery Suite 640, San Francisco CA 94105 • (415) 543 -4291
SOUTH BAY OFFICE • 1922 The Alameda Suite 213, San Jose CA 95126 • (408) 983 -0539
NORTH BAY OFFICE • 520 Mendocino Avenue Suite 200, Santa Rosa CA 95401 ♦ (707) 575 -3661
EAST BAY OFFICE • 500 Ygnacio Valley Road Suite 250, Walnut Creek CA 94596 • (510) 932 -7776
0 ° D
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: October 16, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM ?S
CITY MGR.
�ff fx7 0
SUBJECT: POLICY CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
Recommended Motion:
Adopt attached policy, or make any desired changes.
Report Summary:
As the Council knows, staff was directed to research this subject after it
was brought up at the October 2 meeting in connection with the discussion on
Proposition 218. Over the years the Council has often taken positions on
ballot measures, from County Park Funding to Mobile Home Rental Assistance.
However, no policy has been formally written. There has even been
disagreement among individual Councilmembers as to whether there is a policy.
As a result, the Council has handled the question in various ways.
In 1961 Resolution 91 was adopted, giving the Mayor the right to speak for
the Council "...on all matters of legislation... being considered by any
federal, state or local governmental body... ". In recent years this
resolution has been disregarded, and staff believes it no longer represents
the intent of the Council. The Council has voted at various times to take
positions on specific ballot measures, often in response to a request from
an official or another jurisdiction.
The most significant recent discussion of the issue took place in February
1992. Those minutes are attached. Staff has attempted to discern the true
intent of the Council and distill it into a simple policy. The proposed
policy is also attached.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Follow Up Actions:
Place policy in permanent policy manual.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Council will not have a consistent policy on which to rely.
Attachments:
Minutes, 2/5/92
Proposed policy
City Council Minutes 4 February 5, 1992
9. C. City Position on Measure C School Tax - Clevenger
Councilmember Clevenger noted she put this on the agenda because a
member of the School District called to her attention that Mayor Kohler
had signed the ballot measure opposing the parcel tax. She noted this
indicates to many Saratoga residents that this is the opinion of the
City Council. She noted it needs to be clarified that the majority of
the City Council may not be in support of the Mayor's signature. She
requested the City Council take a position on this.
i
Mayor Kohler noted there was criticism about the signature, but it is
his own opinion.
Mr. Tom Reddick expressed concern regarding the parcel tax. He stated
he does pay tax to the City as he is a resident of Saratoga.
Councilmember Clevenger stated that Mr. Reddick does not have to pay
the parcel tax as he does not live in the Saratoga School District
area.
Mayor Kohler declared a recess.
Ms. Connie Hammer, 15001 Quito Rd., requested that Councilmember
Clevenger restate her request. Councilmember Clevenger did so.
Ms. Hammer noted concern regarding the number of taxes the residents
are asked to support and why would the City Council take an official
stand on this issue. She feels it is unfair that two of the City
Councilmembers be part of the vote as they are not affected by the tax.
She feels that scare tactics are being used to urge voters to vote for
this tax. She requested the City Council not to take a stand on this
issue. She expressed concern about the way the School District use the
money they have.
Councilmember Stutzman noted he attended many of the School Board
Meetings to review the budget and the schools are in need of repair.
He feels the schools are very important to the community and the tax is
needed.
Mr. Jeff Klopotik, Senate District Director for the California
Republican Assembly, noted that he represents the largest Republican
volunteer group in the State. He noted the Mission City Chapter is on
record for endorsing the opposition group Crossing Guards and any other
groups or individuals in opposition to Measure C. He wished the groups
success in upcoming elections.
Mr. John Crimmins, 19096 Harleigh Dr. noted the proposed budget for the
School District has a short fall of $1 million. He noted the parcel
tax is needed to repair the schools. He noted during the summer of
1990 citizens met to address the problems of the School District. He
stated the School District has a good reputation in Saratoga and they
want to keep it.
Ms. Lyn Barnum, 14350 Taos Dr., noted her children have attended
Saratoga Schools, she noted the people opposing the tax are not opposed
to good schools. She stated she has been active within the public
schools to try to improve things. Ms. Barnum stated we need to get
back to the basics, she feels more money is not the solution to solve
the problems of the School District.
Councilmember Monia expressed concern about the process. He noted a
number of months ago there was an agreement among the Council that they
would abstain from becoming involved in another government entity's
affairs. He noted, no matter how many people speak at this hearing, it
will not convince him to change his opinion favoring the tax. He noted
after discussion regarding the School Board Tax, the Council made a
decision not to take a position on an official basis. He does not feel
it will help to have public input at this time as the Council should
deal with this item as a body.
Mayor Kohler stated the public should be allowed to speak and suggested
a two minute time limit per person.
City Council Minutes 5 February 5, 1992
City Attorney Riback stated the Council must allow people to speak but
has the authority to establish a time limit.
Councilmember Monia moved to overrule the chair for the two minute time
limit. It was a consensus of the Council to continue the hearings for
another 10 minutes.
Councilmember Stutzman stated the discussions should be confined to the
F matter at hand.
Ms. Mary Ann Welch, 19520 Kenosha Ct., stated she is not against the
schools, but is against new taxes until certain procedures are followed
as outlined in her letter presented to the Council. She stated even if
new taxes are passed there is no safeguard that will prevent the same
thing from happening again.
Mr. Ed Vincent, 13617 Westover Dr., stated this is not a proper item
for discussion and urged the Council to take a position on this
individually. He feels strongly about short changing education. Mr.
Vincent reiterated comments from the School Budget and the Emergency
Fund. He noted the deficit over the years.
Mr. Lou Thorpe, 19550 Farwell Ave., expressed opposition to the tax
increase as long as the School District uses money for less important
issues. Mr. Thorpe quoted Councilmembers remarks from the meeting of
May 15, 1991 regarding the parcel tax. Mr. Thorpe submitted a letter
to the Council to be made part of the public record.
Councilmember Clevenger noted she agrees with the comments of other
Councilmembers that the Council should not be involved, but the reason
it is brought up is because they were forced into this since the Mayor
has signed, what appears to be, on behalf of the Council.
CLEVENGER /ANDERSON MOVED TO ENDORSE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCEL TAX.
Councilmember Monia agreed with Councilmember Clevenger that there was
a violation of the Council's agreement, but does not feel that this
action should be taken. He suggested that the Council agree to remove
from the ballot arguments that have been signed, all the official
titles. He feels this is the issue to deal with.
Councilmember Anderson stated it is too late to do what Councilmember
Monia suggested, they have passed the deadline. She noted what needs
to be clarified is, when the Mayor signs it, does it represent the
Council as a whole?
Councilmember Anderson stated, although she is not within the School
District, her daughter does attend Foothill. She noted she has made a
pledge to the group supporting the parcel tax, that if the tax passes
she will pay the tax every year. She noted she has looked at the
school budget, there is no music or art this year and the buildings are
in bad condition. She stated the district does teach the basics, but
music and art should be part of the curriculum. She does not feel it
would be responsible to use all the reserves. She stated she will vote
for the motion.
IThe above motion was carried 3 -1 -1 (Kohler opposed; Monia abstaining).
Councilmember Monia stated it is important not to get involved in cross
elections.
MONIA /STUTZMAN MOVED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY LOOK TO SEE IF THERE IS A
REASONABLE WAY TO REMOVE THE USE OF ANY CITY TITLE IN THE ELECTION.
After discussing the motion, Councilmember Monia withdrew his motion.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:30 p.m.
A. CDBG /Human Services Allocations for 1992 -93
Ms. Carolyn King, Assistant to the City Manager, summarized the staff
report. She noted staff received 11 proposals and have made
recommendations on 9 for the total amount of $343,745.
File 14030
Adopted on: October 16, 1996
POLICY ON LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
PURPOSE: The City Council generally desires to avoid involving itself in
matters outside its jurisdiction. At the same time, the Council recognizes
that there are often measures on the ballot which may concern the City of
Saratoga as a part of the larger community. It is therefore often
appropriate for the City Council, or its individual members, to express
support or opposition for these measures.
1. The Saratoga City Council as a body will not support or oppose
candidates for elected office.
2. Individual Councilmembers may support or oppose either candidates for
elected office or ballot measures if they explicitly state that they
speak for themselves as individuals and not as members of the City
Council.
3. The Saratoga City Council as a body may support or oppose any ballot
measure which could have a direct effect on the City of Saratoga, but
only after voting to do so.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Q 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: Q 1�
MEETING DATE: October 16, 1996 CITY MGR: 41 ,
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development
SUBJECT: Leases for Wireless Communication Antenna Sites -
Congress Springs Park and City Maintenance Yard
Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to enter into lease
agreements with Sprint Spectrum LP.
Report Summary: On September 11, 1996, the Planning Commission approved
(4 -0) Use Permits allowing the installation of two monopole antennae for
wireless communication facilities located on two sites: 1) at the east
end of Congress Springs Park adjacent to the Route 85 sound wall; and 2)
in the City Maintenance Yard.
Sprint Spectrum LP will be leasing the sites from the City at a price
tentatively set at $1000 per month. Staff is recommending that the City
Council authorize the City Manager to continue negotiations and enter
into lease agreements for both sites.
Staff has completed some initial research into what other agencies have
required in approving antennae installation on public property. That
information was presented to the City Council in September as part of a
report recommending approval of a lease agreement with Pac Bell for an
antenna facility at Congress Springs Park. At that meeting, the City
Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with
Pac Bell.
The Sprint Spectrum lease agreements are the same as those previously
approved for Pac Bell.
Environmental Determination: None for a lease agreement. A Negative
Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission as part of each Use
Permit approval.
Fiscal Impacts: The City will receive $1000 per month rental for each of
the antenna sites. The money is unrestricted and is recommended to be
placed in the General Fund. The City Council has requested further
discussion regarding alternatives as to spending restrictions,
designated accounts, etc. A meeting is tentatively scheduled for
October 22 to discuss the alternatives.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: No special advertising is
required for this authorization of a lease agreement. A public hearing
was advertised and held by the Planning Commission on the Use Permits.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff will be
unable to complete negotiations and the signing of the lease which will
result in a loss of $24,000 annually.
Follow Up Actions: Staff will sign the lease and the antenna site will
be constructed in the near future (approx. 2 -4 months).
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 27S3
3
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
'1
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD: �:
SUBJECT: Ordinance replacing existing Floodplain Management
Ordinance
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to introduce the Ordinance by title only waiving further
reading.
Report Summary:
Attached is a new version of a Floodplain Management Ordinance
intended to replace the current Ordinance originally adopted in
November of 1987. The policies and regulations contained in the
Ordinance are codified in Article 16 -66 of the Municipal Code.
The new Ordinance incorporates the latest changes that have been
made in the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) regulations for floodplain management,
flood loss and flood damage reduction and prevention. These
regulations must be in place before the flood map modifications
along Calabazas, Prospect, and Saratoga Creeks recently approved
by FEMA can become effective.
The new Ordinance generally follows the FEMA developed model
Ordinance, but also includes some higher standards recommended
for California communities which could result in lower flood
insurance premiums for those property owners in Saratoga who will
still need to maintain flood insurance even after the new maps
are published. I have carefully reviewed the higher standards to
ensure that they will not create any undue burdens for Saratoga
property owners which would undercut the potential for lower
premiums, and it is my opinion that they will not. For the most
part, the higher standards deal with issues that are not even
relevant to Saratoga such as manufactured home parks, RV lots,
and basement construction. Additionally, the City Attorney has
rewritten portions of the model Ordinance primarily in those
sections pertaining to the variance and appeal processes so that
these procedures will be consistent with similar such procedures
set forth elsewhere in the Municipal Code.
Overall, the new Ordinance differs from the existing Ordinance
primarily by incorporating a greater number of definitions and by
including a number of minor technical changes throughout. Of
particular note is that there is language in the.new Ordinance
which would allow for the incorporation of future flood map
revisions without having to amend the Ordinance, and the
designation of the City Manager (or his /her designee) as the
Floodplain Administrator for the City. Currently, the Planning
Director is designated as Floodplain Administrator although the
City Engineer for all intents and purposes performs this
function. As the final 90 day appeal period for the new map
revisions will commence next week, it is recommended by FEMA
officials that the new Ordinance be adopted at this time. Once
the new Ordinance becomes effective, and at the end of the appeal
period, the new base flood elevation (BFE) data will be
officially recognized and the new flood maps will be published.
I expect to receive the new maps from FEMA during the first half
of next year.
Fiscal Impacts•
There should be no change to the City's floodplain management
costs as a- result of adopting -the-new Ordinance. Other than the
City Attorney's costs to draft the Ordinance, FEMA absorbs all
costs associated with adopting the new BFE's and publishing the
new maps.
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional for this Ordinance. Legal notices describing
the proposed changes to BFE's are published in the Saratoga News
by FEMA.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The new Ordinance will not be introduced. This would delay the
effective approval date for the new BFE's.
Follow Up Actions:
The Ordinance will be scheduled for second reading and adoption
on November 6.
Attachments:
1. New Floodplain Management Ordinance.