HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2002 City Council Agenda PacketX
AGENDA
ADJOURNED MEETING/JOINT SESSION
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
APRIL 23, 2002
CLOSED SESSION-6:00 P.M. -ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
CALL MEETING TO ORDER- 6:00 P.M.
ARCHIVE COPY
ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION- 6:00 P.M.
Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (1 case):
(Government Code section 54956.9(a))
Name of case: Sazatoga Fire Protection District v. City of Sazatoga (Santa Claza
County Superior Court No. CV-803540)
• Conference With Real Property Negotiators (Section 5496.8):
Property: 19848 Prospect Road
Agency negotiator: Dave Anderson, City Manager
Negotiating parties: Grace Methodist Church
Under negotiation: Instructions to negotiate regazding price and terms
for purchase of real property.
ADJOURNED MEETING/JOINT SESSION
7:00 P.M. -ADULT CARE CENTER - 19655 ALLENDALE AVENUE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
April 19, 2002)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-AQendized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
None
Written Communications
None
Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
7:00 P.M. -JOINT MEETING WITH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
a. Introduction
b. Overview of Accomplishments and Future Projects
•
7:30 P.M. -ADJOURNMENT TO JOINT MEETING WITH SANTA CLARA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT •
2. a. Introduction
b. General Discussion
8:00 P.M: ADJOURNMENT TO JOINT MEETING WITH SARATOGA FIRE
DISTRICT
3. a. Introduction
b. General Discussion
8:30 P.M: ADJOURNMENT TO JOINT MEETING WITH SANTA CLARA
COUNTY FHtE DISTRICT
4. a. Introduction
b. General Discussion
OLD BUSINESS (continued from 04/17/2002)
5. Report on Strategies to Reduce Creek Contamination including Draft Ordinance
Removing Below Grade Exemption for Septic Systems
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff to schedule introduction and first reading-of septic .
abatement ordinance amendment following a public hearing; provide direction to
staff regarding establishing of sewer lateral inspection requirements.
2
f
i
6. Union Pacific liaikoad Trail Update
• Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
7. Chamber of Commerce Agreement Options
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
NEW BUSINESS (continued from 04/17/2002)
8. Award of Contract to Abate a Public Nuisance at 12623 Quito Road
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution; awazd bid; and authorize execution of contract.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
OTHER
CITY MANAGER'SREPORT -
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269.
• Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
II)
•
3
1
1
r:
.x.~ ~~,
5/1
5/7
5111
5/15
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2002
Regulaz Meeting
Adiourned Meetine -Finance Commission, Chamber of Commerce,
SBDC
Council Retreat
Regulaz Meeting
C~
6/5 Regulaz Meeting
6/19 Regular Meeting
6/25 Adjourned Meeting -Saratoga Union School District, Cupertino Union
School District, Campbell Union School District
7/3 Regular Meeting
7/17 Regular Meeting
8/7 Regular Meeting -City Manager Evaluation
8/21 Summer Recess
9/4 Regular Meeting
9/18 Regulaz Meeting
10/2 Regular Meeting
10/16 Regular Meeting
1 I/6 Regular Meeting
11/20 Regalaz Meeting
12/4 Regulaz Meeting
12/10 Adjourned Meeting -Council Reorganization
12/18 Regular Meeting
**Please note that all meeting start at 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise posted. Regular
Meetings are held in the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Adjourned
Meetings are held in the Adult Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue.
•
u
4
`[
'M
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO, _
MEETING DATE: April 2002
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works/
City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER: ~~~
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone/
Richard Taylor
SUBJECT: Report on Strategies to Reduce Creek Contamination including Draft
Ordinance Removing Below Grade Exemption for Septic Systems
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report, direct staff to schedule introduction and
first reading of septic abatement ordinance amendment following a public hearing, and
provide further direction to staff regarding establishment of sewer lateral inspection
requirements.
STAFF REPORT:
_ _ At its meeting of June 6, 2001 the City Council received a detailed report
concerning water quality in Saratoga Creek and other creeks in the City. That report
explained that several creeks in Saratoga exceed EPA standards for fecal coliform. The
report noted that the City had been engaged in a lengthy process of abating potential
sources of contamination by working with the West Valley and Cupertino Sanitary
Districts, inspecting public storm drain systems, and by requiring abatement of certain
septic systems. The report concluded that although contamination levels have declined
since these efforts began, overall contamination levels continue to exceed applicable .
standards.
In response to the report, the City Council directed staff to investigate (1) methods
of further reducing the number of homes relying on septic systems by encouraging
connection to the public sewer system and (2) methods of identifying privately owned
sewer lines that could be leaking untreated sewage into local groundwater. Staff
presented an interim report on December 5, 2001 and was directed to obtain more
information regarding the costs associated with the two programs discussed. This
information is presented below.
Below Grade Septic Systems
The City Code requires properties served by septic systems and for which public
sewer service is "available" to connect to the public sewer system pursuant to a schedule
and certain conditions set forth in the code. The City has interpreted the word "available"
to mean, among other things, that the residence in question lies above the grade of the
sewer system so that the sewage can flow from the residence to the sewer system by
gravity. This interpretation has been applied only to existing residences. New homes
constructed below the grade of the public sewer system generally are required to install
pump systems.
The connection requirement was interpreted to exempt below grade homes served
by septic systems because it was believed that cost of installing the storage tank, pump
system, and piping necessary to convert from septic to sewer service would be
prohibitively expensive. New information indicates, however, that the costs of
conversion, while substantial, do not differ markedly from the costs of converting above
grade systems. This is because a smaller diameter pipe can be installed at a lower cost
than the installation of a larger diameter gravity pipe.
The estimated costs associated with installing a below grade connection are
described on the attached table. They indicate that for a home 100 feet from the sewer
system the likely cost would be in the range of $8,700 to $17,000 depending on the size
of the holding tank installed (ranging from three to fourteen days of storage) and the
distance to the sewer main. The comparable cost.for an above grade conversion would be
$4,000 and $20,000 (based on $40.00 per ln. ft. for gravity pipe). The sewer connection
fee for the West Valley Sanitation District and for the Cupertino Sanitary District is the
same for both above and below grade systems.
Because the City has historically interpreted the City Code to exempt below grade
systems from the septic conversion requirements, staff recommends that the City amend
the ordinance to state that a public sewer system shall not be considered "unavailable" if
it is above the grade of the residence. This will ensure that there is no ambiguity on the
matter and will ensure that there is a full opportunity for public review and comment
through the public hearing process. The City's records indicate that there are 19 homes
maintaining a septic system with a "below-grade" exemption. A draft ordinance prepared
by the City Attorney's office is attached. If the City Council wishes to consider adopting
the ordinance staff will issue a notice for public hearing and place the matter on the next
available agenda.
2
Sewer Lateral Inspection Program
At its December 12, 2001 meeting the City Council also received information on a
proposed sewer lateral inspection program. The program would allow the City to identify
sewer laterals that are in poor repair and that could be leaking sewage into the
groundwater and from the groundwater into the City's creeks. The City Council had a
number of questions at that meeting concerning the costs of implementing such a
program. Staff has received conflicting reports thus far concerning the costs and
mechanisms for implementing an inspection program and is continuing to investigate how
such a program could operate in Saratoga. Staff will bring this information to the Council
after it completes its investigation.
FISCAL IMPACTS: Additional costs of ensuring compliance of homes with septic
systems below the grade of the public sewer system.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The
• City would continue to exempt existing below-grade homes from the septic conversion
requirement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Cost Estimates for Residential Sewage Pump Systems
2. Draft Ordinance
J
Estimate for Residential Installation
of Sewage Pump Station
Using the E/ONE AMGP System
Typical Residence:
Flow:
5 Persons @70 GaUday = 350 GaUday discharge.
Stora a (da s) Size allons)
3 1100
7 2500
14 5000
Construction/Installation Costs:
Storage Tank:
Excavation Cost: Approx. $7.35 cu. yd.
Tank
size al Tank Cost Deliver cost Install Cost Total
1100 600. 500 1000 2100
1250 1000 1000 2000 4000
5000 4000 1000 3000 8000
Pump/Grinder:
E/ONE AMGP item cost: $4000.00
Installation/wiring cost: $2000.00
Total Pump Cost: $6000.00
Lateral Costs:
Trenching & Install: 6.00/ hi. ft. @500 ft. _ $3000.00
TOTAL COSTS:
Tank
Size
allons Tank
Cost +pump
Cost TOTAL
COST
100'lateral TOTAL
COST (Z50' '
lateral TOTAL
COST (500'
lateral
1100 $2,100.00 $6,000.00 $8,700.00 $9,600.00 $11,100.00
2500 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $10,600.00 $11,500.00 $13,000.00
5000 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $14,600.00 $15,500.00 $17,000.00
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE
CONCERNING CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
A. Despite the progress made by the City of Saratoga's ongoing water quality protection
programs, fecal coliform levels in Saratoga Creek and other waterways exceed national
standards for the protection of human health and the environment. Even where
waterways appear clear, tests have recorded fecal coliform levels that pose a threat to
human health. The risk to human health is heightened by the fact that people--especially
children--maybe amacted to unsafe water by its clean appearance.
B. Reviews of local conditions and technical literature indicate that a probable source of
contamination is subterranean flows from septic systems.
C. The City Council has recently amended the Saratoga City Code to address contamination
caused by septic systems. As amended, the Saratoga City Code requires persons owning
property within the •City to connect to a public sewer if such a sewer is available within
200 feet of the property. However, the Saratoga City Code does not clarify whether a
public sewer within 200 feet of a property is "available" if the property is below grade,
i.e., where any connection to a public sewer within 200 feet of the property would be
required to carry sewage uphill. The City has concluded that a variety of factors now
make it feasible to connect below-grade properties to public sewers.
D. In order to clarify that the public sewer connection requirements of the Saratoga City
Code apply to below=grade properties, sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this ordinance amend the
Saratoga City Code to clarify that a public sewer within 200 feet of a property sh_ all not be
considered unavailable solely because the property is below grade.
Section 2 Amendments to the Saratoga City Code. The Saratoga City Code is amended as
set forth below. Text inserted by this ordinance is indicated in bold, double-underlined font
x 1 ;text deleted by this ordinance is indicated in strikeout font (eixax~ple). Text in standard
font is unchanged by this ordinance.
Section 2.1. Amendment to Requirement of Connection to Public Sanitary Sewer or Inspection
of Private On-Site Sewage Disposal System Upon Transfer of Ownership of Property.
Section 7-10.070 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended as follows:
1 Ordinance No.
7-10.070 Section Bll-13.2 is added concerning inspection of private on-site
sewage disposal system upon sale of property.
Section B11-13.2 is added to the Code of the County of Santa Clara, to read as follows:
Section B 11-13.2. Connection to Public Sanitary Sewer or Inspection of Private
On-Site Sewage Disposal System Upon Transfer of Ownership of Property
(a) No person shall transfer or convey more than fifty percent of the ownership
interest in any real property, residence, place of business, or other building,
located within two hundred (200) feet of an available approved public sanitary
sewer, and upon which a private on-site sewage disposal system exists, without
first providing for connection to the approved public sanitary sewer to the
satisfaction of the Health Officer, as a condition to close of escrow or transfer of
ownership of the subject property. n annroved public sanitary sewer shall no
e found to_be_unavailable solely because the nublic sanitary sewer or any
aortion of the connection to the nublic sanitary sewer is or would be at a
higher elevation than the real nronerty. residence, place of business or other
building to be transferred or conveyed.
(b) No person shall sell, transfer, or convey more than fifty percent of the
ownership interest in any real property, residence, place of business, or other
building located in excess of two hundred (200) feet of an va a11a¢!g approved
public sanitary, upon which a private on-site sewage disposal system exists,
without first obtaining an inspection of the sewage disposal system and written
report summarizing the results of the inspection. An annroved nublic sanitary
sewer shall not be found to be unavailable solely because the nublic sanitary
w the connection to the nublic sanitary sewer is or
would be at a higher elevation than the real property, residence, place of
usiness or other building to be transferred or conveyed.
(1) The inspection shall be made for the purpose of determining, and the report of
the inspector shall state, whether the private on-site sewage disposal system is
operating in compliance with this Code.
(2) The inspection shall be conducted by a registered civil engineer or a registered
environmental health specialist, or any other individual who is determined by the
Health Officer to be qualified to perform such inspection.
(3) The report of the inspection shall be submitted to the Health Officer as a
condition to close of escrow or transfer of ownership of the subject property.
Ordinance No.
Section 2.2. Amendment to Requirement of Connection to Public Sanitary Sewer.
Section 7-10.080 of the Sazatoga City Code is hereby amended as follows:
7-10.080 Section Bll-13.3 is added concerning requirement of connection to
public sewer.
Section B11-13.3 is added to the Code of the County of Santa Clara, to read as
follows:
.Section B11-13.3. When Connection to Public Sanitary Sewer is Required.
(a) The Health Officer shall order by notice in writing any person owning or
occupying property within the boundaries of the City from or upon which any
sewage whatsoever is generated, which premises aze not connected to an existing
approved public sanitary sewer facility available within two hundred (200) feet of
the boundary line of such property, to connect thereto or vacate or cause to be
vacated such premises within a specified period of time, not to exceed 180 days.
The notice shall also provide that, if the owner or occupant desires consideration
by the Health Officer of an extension of time to connect to the public sewer
facility, the owner or occupant shall submit a written report summarizing the
results of an inspection of the private system to the Health Officer. The inspection
shall be for the purpose and conducted in the manner set forth in Section B11-
13.2(b)(1)and (2) of the Code of the County of Santa Clara, as added by Section
_ _ 7-10.070. Failure to submit the inspection report and request for extension or to
cause connection to the approved public sanitary sewer facility, within forty-five
days of the date of notice, shall result in the City recording a Notice of Non-
compliance against the property. r v public sanitarv sewer shall no
be found to be unavailable solely because the public sanitarv sewer or anv
aortion of the connection to the public sanitarv sewer is or would be a
higher elevation than the real nronerty. or anv portion thereof. from whic
sewage is generated.
(b) The Health Officer, after receiving evidence from the owner or occupant, may
declare and determine that the continued use of an existing on-site sewage
disposal system is and could reasonably be expected to remain adequate for
treatment and disposal of sewage for a period of time not to exceed five (5) yeazs,
without constituting a public nuisance by reason of the soil conditions, damage
conditions, the degree of urban development in the area and the type and
condition of the particular sewage disposal system in question.
3 Ordinance No.
(c) As a condition to the determination made under section (b), the owners of the
property with reference to which such determination has been made, shall execute
in writing in a form acceptable for recordation a covenant to:
(1) Cause connection to be made to the existing public sewer facilities within the
time period determined by the Health Officer pursuant to section (b), not to
exceed five (5) years from the date of such determination, or upon demand of the
Health Officer, whichever date comes first, based upon a determination that one
or more of the conditions recited in section (b) above have changed so that such
existing sewage treatment and disposal constitutes a public nuisance.
(2) Notify any purchaser or transferee for consideration of any rights in and to
such property of the existence of such a covenant and the performance or
nonperformance thereof prior to such purchase or transfer.
(d) The five year maximum time period set forth in section (b) maybe extended
by the City Council only upon a determination of financial hazdship.
Section 3. Severance Clause.
Each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this
ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-
paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, pazagraph,
sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council
declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the
portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this
ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.
Section 4. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation of the City of Sazatoga within fifteen days after its adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 2002, and was adopted by the
following vote following a second reading on the day of , 2002:
A
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 Ordinance No.
4
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
5 Ordinance No.
J
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: April'2002
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: ~~--~G~'"~
~ l1 DEPT HEAD:
PREPARED BY~
SUBJECT: Union Pacific Railroad Trail Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept report and provide direction to staff.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Union Pacific Railroad has an easement running through the cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los
Gatos and Campbell. The desire to develop this easement began when groups of West Valley
pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists realized the potential value of this comdor for amulti-use
trail. The proposed trail segment length is 8.7 miles, with Saratoga's portion being 3.7 miles.
Development of the trail would offer recreational and commuting opportunities for Saratoga
residents, and will serve as an important linkage to other significant trail venues in the area, such
as the Stevens Creek Trail and Rancho San Antonio County Park trails to the North, and Los
Gatos Creek Trail and Vasona Lake County Park trails to the South. The proposed trail is
included as a Regional Trail Route in the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan, is a proposed
bicycle corridor in the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program and could be
included as part of the Juan Bautista De Anza National Historic Trail, a Millennium Trail, once
completed.
At their regular meeting on March 21, 2000, City Council passed Resolution 00-016 in support
of The creation of the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Ad Hoc Task Force to study and recommend a
plan for developing the proposed trail. The task force held monthly meetings for approximately
one year, with the City of Cupertino being the lead agency, and developed a Memorandum of
Understanding, which was executed by each City, along with a Request for Proposal (R.F.P.) for
the Feasibility Study of the Union Pacific Railroad Trail.
The feasibility study was completed by Alta Transportation Consulting October, 2001, and the
recommended action of the task force was to defer construction of the proposed trail until Union
Pacific Rail Road Company ceases operations along the line. The primary reason for this
recommendation was Union Pacific Rail Road Company's (U.P.R.R.) unwillingzness to discuss
land acquisition along their line due to potential liability.
y
L
A special joint meeting was held on October 4, 2001 with the Cupertino Bicycle And Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (B.P.A.C.) and the Union Pacific Rail Road Task Force to discuss and
review the findings of the Feasibility Study by Alta Transportation. Given the position of Union
Pacific, the B.P.A.C. and Union Pacific Rail Road Trail Task Force agreed to the following:
• The task force should conduct an annual review to discuss-options and provide updates
on the status of the trail.
• Efforts should be made by each jurisdiction to seek ways to procure land along the trail
alignment that do not involve the railroad company (for example, PG&E or water district
property).
• Recommend each jurisdiction designate their portion of the railroad corridor land as
"open space" to prevent commercial or residential development of the land when the line
is abandoned.
This past January, the Cupertino B.P.A.C., at their regular meeting, discussed the U.P.R.R. trail
and reiterated the above stated recommended actions. At this meeting; the B.P.A.C. expressed a
desire to have the U.P.R.R. Task Force hold a meeting to receive updates from the various
jurisdictions. A U.P.R.R. Task Force meeting was held on Apri14, 2002 to receive updates and
feedback from task force members. The following updates were received:
• Staff from the VTA indicated tier 1 funding eannazked for the U.P.R.R. project will
probably be reallocated to other projects, which are more likely to be completed within
the next 8 years. VTA staff did indicate if Saratoga was able to secure an agreement
with PG&E for usage of their easement for implementation of..the trail, tier 1 funding
maybe available to offset incurred costs this agreement.
• The City of .Cupertino is going to update their General Plan to designate the railroad
corridor as "open space". The Town of Los Gatos also expressed an interest in pursuing
this course of action.
• Staff from the California PUC shazed information they gathered via conversations with
U.P.R.R. indicating operations along the line may double, extending the length of time
the line will be operational by an additional 10-20 years.
• Ross and Associates attorney Brenda Ross, who specializes in negotiations for land
acquisition for trails, stated the description of the U.P.R.R. deed is significant in terms of
what type of compensation can be requested by the railroad and in terms of what type of
operations are permitted. It was suggested each jurisdiction ask to reserve the corridor
and get a first right of refusal from the Omaha, Nebraska office of U.P.R.R. for this
purpose. In determining value of land, it was suggested having an M.I.A. Appraiser do a
valuation of the land.
• Staff from Rails to Trails Conservancy suggested forming a "Friend of the Union Pacific
Rail Road Trail" group to increase and maintain interest in the trail via a grass roots
advocacy campaign.
• Establish and maintain an active Email /mail listing to keep all task force members
updated.
• Continue to pursue options for land acquisition along the trail corridor (PG & E, Water
District, etc.)
2 of 4
• Each jurisdiction should designate the U.P.R.R. Trail lands as open space during General
Plan Updates.
The next scheduled meeting of the U.P.R.R. Task Force is Apri12003. During the next several
months, the "Friends of the Union Pacific Rail Road Trail" will be formed and begin holding
meetings and organizing events. A final report from the. U.P.R.R. Task Force should be
presented to the City of Cupertino Council (the lead agency) sometime during the summer of
2002. The task force encourages comments from the Councils of all the jurisdictions prior to
completion of the final report.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
None.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
None.
ADVERTISING; NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) U.P.R.R. Trail Task Force Meeting Agenda for Apri14, 2002.
u
3 of 4
CC~ s
CITY OF
CUPERTINO
ATTACHMENT R
City Hall ~
' 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408)777-3354
FAX: (408) 777-3333
UPRR Trail Task Force Meeting .
4 pm Apri14, 2002
Agenda
Introductions
Distribution of Feasibility Study Report
Status of project with:
• Cupertino
• Saratoga
• Campbell
• Los Gatos
• VTA
• County Parks.
Rails to Trails Conservancy -
Formation of "Friends" group
Establishment of maiUemail list
Adjourn-next meeting scheduled for Apri12003
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
l' 1
V V
City 11811
10300 Tom Aveaue
Cupectiao, CA 950143255
(4081777-3354
FAX (408) 777-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary.
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
AGENDA DATE March 4.2001
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Corridor -Report of action by the Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (BPAC) on the Trail Feasibility Study (Council Referral to BPAC
of October 15, 2001)
BACKGROUND
The Union Pacific Raihr~ad (IJPRR) Trail corridor is located along a segment of the
UPRR Vasona Branch extending from the Los Gatos Creek Trail neaz Winchester
Boulevadd and Highway 85 in the Town of Los Gatos to Rancho San Antonio Park neaz
Foothill Boulevard and Interstate 280 in the City of Cupertino. Portions of the trail also
pass through the Cities of Saratoga and Campbell (see attachment `1').
On Mazch 5, 2001, the Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the
Cities of Campbell and Saratoga, the Towa of Los Gatos, the County of Santa Clara, and
the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). This MOU assigned Cupertino as the lead
agency for the development of a feasibility study on the proposed UPRR Trail project.
Also on March 5, 2001 the Council approved an agreement with ALTA Transportation
Consulting to conduct the feasibility study for the proposed project.
On October 15, 2001 the Council considered a report from staff and the Bicycle
Pedestrian Advisory Committee on the Final Report of the Feasibility Study completed by
ALTA. The consultants, working with staff and a UPRR Task Force composed of
representatives of all six parties to the MOU pursued the project with the following
general objectives and tasks:
Document existing condifions aad research background on project history and
related items, including the expected future UPRIi trail users and their needs.
PrmleO on Recydstl Peper
_ _
• Identify constraints to the trail implementation including construction challenges
as well as engineering solutions and other relevant information.
• Develop alternative alignments and design solutions where constraints may not be
overcome and develop appropriate design standards to facilitate the design
process. _
Provide an analysis of the feasibility of implementing the Trail Proposal including
issues related to cost and sources of funding, liability, safety, legal agreements,
maintenance, cooperative agreements with UP, other necessary agreements,
permitting and other items.
The consultants had completed all phases of -the feasibility study, and a report was
f presented to the Bicycle Prdestrian Advisory Committee az a special joint meeting with
the UPRR Task Force on October 4, 2001. A summary of that reports is as follows
Trail Alternatives. Desiens and Development
Alta Transportation Consulting has developed several alternatives for the design and
development of the trail. One of the largest challenges is the continuity of the trail
through narrow or restricted crossings. The design solutions provided by Alta present
some choices for the Cities in the implementation of the trails. These include existing
grade separated crossings az rivo roadways (Saratoga Avenue, Pollard Road), and eight
creek waterways crossings (Regnant, Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga, Wildcat, San Tomas
Aquino, Smith and E. Smith Creeks). There are also a number of at-grade crossings on
city streets, both protected and u~rotected.
Alta has developed design alternatives to each of these locations and has provided a cost
estimate for these facilities and the mainline trail development. Alta has also provided a
series of design standards for pavement, fencing, and other installations fora "hail with
Trail" project. As there are no adopted standards for these types of facilities, Alta
suggests that these design proposals represent a "best practices" set of criteria for
implementation rather than actual design standards. These are detailed in the consultants
report. .
Alta has estimated that up to 300 persons per day (cyclists and pedestrians) may now be
using the UPRR right-of--way (ROW) primarily for recreational walking or cycling. Any
current arse of this UPRR ROW is, of course, trespassing on the railroads property.
This trespassing has largely gone unnoticed or az least un-enforced by the UPRR If the
trail, as proposed, were to be completed, Alta estimates that upwards of 500-1000 persons
per day would use the trail for recreation and for commuting, primarily by bicycle.
Staff reviewed the study report and advised the Council that the solutions proposed for
the hail implementation, from an engineering and construction perspective is workable
and, with some adjustments represent practical and constmctrble approaches.
Desies- and_Constrnction Cost
The consultant developed a cost estimate for trail implementation based -on their
recommended designs that totals approximately $8.5 Million. Staff has reviewed the cost -
and believes it to be low. Iti summary the design and construction management costs,
should be increased to $2.0 Million (25% of construction) and a 3-yeaz escalation factor
or approximately $1.25 Million at the time of construction, should also be added. In
summary Staff reported to the Council, with the consultant's concurrence, that the
appropriate budget number should be approximately $11.5 Million. It was also noted to
the Council that there are no land or easement acquisition costs included in any of these
figures.
UPRR Agreements and Land Acquisition
During the Council discussion on October 15, 2001, staff emphasized that The UPRR
. owns all of the right-of-way and/or property required for the trail in the City of Cupertino
and the majority of the rights-of--way in the other jurisdictions. It was also noted that
similaz acquisitions for RR rights-of--way (ROW) or easements.-:within an operating rail
branch suggest that acquisition costs for the UPRR comdor could be very high. That
factor is a major unlmown in this project
It was also discussed with the Council that the other unknown is the Railroad itself.
UPRR has stated that, as a matter of policy, they do not want pedestrians or cyclists
within an operating railroad ROW. However, the UPRR currently has several trails within
its right-of--way which were passed on to UP when it acquired these "rails with trails"
from the Southern Pacific (SP).
Council noted and staff agree:; that there is some uncertainty over whether this position is
intractable or simply a starling point for any negotiations to acquire an easement or title to
the railroad right-of--way.
Summary
Given all these facts and the analysis developed for the project, sta$ and the consultant
have concluded that:
1. The UPRR Trail as proposed can be adequately designed and constructed over its
entire length, but would more expensive to build than first believed; and,
2. That, once the UPRR liability issues are resolved, trail development would require
acquisition of the right-of-way, either as an easement or fee title, from UPRR and
this could take a long time and a lot of money.
Staff and the BPAC therefore recommended that the Council, while retaining the study
and the concept as a worthy future goal, drop the project finm the 5-year CIP and divert
the activities and resources that currently support it to other priority projects. The BPAC
also requested that the Council approve an annual review of the project by BPAC in the
context of the report to evaluate any new opportunities, which might arise for its
implementation. The Council approved those recommendations. The City Manager has
indicated that. the annual monitoring of the project would assigned to the Parks and
Recreation Department as a programmatic responsibility for the trail.
Also at the October 15, 2001 Council meeting, BPAC member Joe Walton presented the
Council with some additional recommendations, which are in the attached document
submitted by Mr. Walton to the Council at that times Since these recommendations were
not consistent with nor approved by the BPAC action the Council directed that staff
review the proposals with the BPAC and report back to the Council in the spring with
final recommendations before referring the report to the other MOU partner agencies.
BPAC Meetine of Januar~l7.2002 -Report from BPAC Member Joe Walton
Staff and the BPAC at its January 17, 2002 meeting discussed the Council referral of Mr.
Walton's recommendations. Consistent with the Councils earlier action as noted above,
BPAC did not support any fiuther City staff effort to continue as lead agency for a pmj ect
that is clearly.regional in nature and is at a point where it is beyond the City's current
capacity to manage. In the same context, on Staffs recommendation, BPAC took no
action on any recommendation for an effort by the City to initiate discussions with PG&E
and the Water District to develop portions of the trail (mostly in other cities) within their
right-of--way.
Additionally, since that report was presented to Council Mr. Walton has also
acknowledged that the twc other items, i.e. fiuther effort on additional studies and
discussions with the railroad along with the budgeting of any foods in support of that
effort, would not be appropriate at this time. However, staff and the BPAC recommend to
the Council that the City incorporate into the General Plan Update a component that
would note that the trail area should be reserved for future development as recreational
and open•space and urge the other cities to do the same. The General Plan now identifies
the UPRR alignment as a future trail.
Regarding recommendations 5 and 6 is Mr. Walton's paper, staff has no recommendation
regarding the formation of a "Friends" group to continue the advocacy of the trail -
development nor the renaming of the trail to the "Permanente Rail Trail". If such a group
is formed it should be supported by a regional agency such as VTA.
~`
BPAC Action
hl Summary, the BPAC met 8t its regular meeting of January 17 and acted to:
Recommend the inclusion of the UPRR Trail as a future Open Space and Trail in
the General Plan update; and,
2. Conduct an annual review update of the project at a BPAC meeting in the spring
bf each year, and,
3. Have BPAC Members encourage a group of "UPRR Trail Friends° and/or an ad
hoc UPRR Trail task force among the four cities on the trail alig~ent to maintain
ownership of the project in the future.
Lastly, Staff and BPAC would continue to support recommending that the Council refer
this revised report with its recommendations along with the final Feasibility Study to the
other parhrers in the MOU (Cities of Saratoga, Campbell, Town of Los Gatos, VTA,
County of Santa Clara) for their consideration and comment prior to taking final action.
Staff would expect that following review by the other parhners, the Council could
consider a final report and recommendation in June 2002.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council support designating the UPRR Trail as future
open space to the General Plan Update and accept the UPRR Trail Feasibility Study
Report and refer the report and recommendations to the MOU partners for consideration,
review and comment by the City Councils of Campbell and Saratoga, the Town Council
of-Los Gatos, the VTA Board and the Santa Clara County Board_ of Supervisors with a
report back to Council for final action in the summer of 2002.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
..emu L
Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. a Ambrosi Smith
Director of Public Works Director of Parks and
Recreation
David W. Knapp
City Manager
.p
s
v
0
C9
~Z ~
3._cu.cmw..m~ m~>~o
m
e
m
m
N
O
C
Y
m
m
U _
m'ce
m F'
Q ~ .~ ..
Q
0
U
C] m Q C N t6
'T.I
W
v "_~ O` ~
m J L i J O: Y
IL O OvL.~.. m. >'O
c
0
0
U
z.
W
0
m
v
c
o ~
o ''
J U
~~
~ ~ H
ffi
A ~ R
° L ~ -.. .
C -o
~ ~
V ~
m r ~
~ ~ ~ O
C
a~
\Y'~
.~ F O
C
.Q
UP Trail Task Force Meeting
4 April 2002
Attendance
Ian Moore.. Alta Transportation ismoore@altaplanning.com
Kevin Boles Califonia PUC kcb@cpuc.ca.gov
Betty Olsen Campbell BAC bettybikes@aol.com
Kelly Gibson County Parks staff kelly.gibson@mail.prk.co.scl:ca.us
Anne Ng Cupertino BPAC anneng@aol.com
David Greenstein Cupertino BPAC david@greenstein.com
Richard Lowenthal Cupertino Council richard@lowenthal.com
Diane Arrants Cupertino staff dianea@cupertino.org
Therese Smith Cupertino staff thereses@cupertino.org
Ralph Qualls Cupertino staff ralphq@cupertino.org
Joe Adamo DeAnza Lancers
Tom Frankum Friends of Stvns Crk Tr ffrankum@aol.com
Brenda Ross lawyer acquires@aol.com
Tim Boyer Los Gatos staff tboyer@town.los-gatos.ca.us
Gladwyn d'Souza Los Gatos T&BC godsouza@yahoo.com
Amanda Eaken Rails-to-Trails aeaken@transact.org
Jean Amaral Rails-to-Trails jamaral@transact.org
Marj Ottenberg ._ Saratoga resident
Cary Bloomquist Saratoga staff
~ cbloomquist@saratoga.ca.us
Jim Stallman Stga BPAC, Altrans j.stallman@attbi.com
Logan Deimler Stga P&R Comm logan@wyrmwood.com
Ken Hodor Sunnyvale resident kenhodor@yahoo.com
David Simons VTA BPAC davidsimons@pacbell.net
Celia Chung VTA staff celia.chung@vta.org
408-243-5182
408-749-8227
408-257-6506
408-252-6065
650-964-1270
650-329-1869
408-399-5777
415-397-2220
408-867-4576
408-868-1258
408-867-9797
408-741-5688
408-749-8227
408-321-5716
r
...
- - .-
Memo
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Date: April 17, 2002
Re: AGENDA ITEM #5
Correspondences in regards to agenda item ~- UPR Trail
~ Dave Anderson
From: j.stallman@attbi.com
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 4:46 PM
To: waltonsmith@attbi.com
Cc: anneng@aol.com
Subject: Next step for rail corridor future plan
Z gathered that there was interest on the part of the ~~~~, a F ~a~
Council in Saratoga to look into the future
zoning/master plan for the UP Rail corridor.. Whether
or not the City goes about just getting an easement
from PG&E like was done for the CS Car Park, the
interest and availability of Brenda to talk to UP was a
timely recent development.
Cupertino may have the same intent - to research the
conversion options now rather than leave it to chance
or miss out later.
Celia Chung at VTA 321-5555 told us at the PBAC meeting
yesterday that she wants to hear from each of the
cities on what they want VTA money for with regards to
bike/trail/bridge projects. All it takes is for John
to give her a call and say that he still wants VTA
money for possible planning/work on the UP Rail Trail.
srenda's services are a qualifying expenditure of the
VTA money since it is for planning.
VTA has a reluctance (and demonstrated shortcoming) in
dealing with UP on anything so I recommend that someone
with City of Saratoga give Celia a call andtell her
that we may need VTA money to go the next step on the
trail. The RR investigation would be the same as
Environmental Planning work since it gathers input from
the community (which we wanted to do anyway) and-
determines impacts on affected property owners (UP is
one in this case). The report could show that the
trail would have no impact on UP given certain setbacks
being maintained and could also identify the future of
the corridor - which is what we all would like to see.
Celia wanted a yea or nea on vTA money called in to her
by April 15which is Monday.
- Jim
1
''
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
.MEETING DATE: April 1'9x-2002 AGENDA ITEM
a /
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager CITY MANAGER: ~~ '
PREPARED BY: DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Chamber of Commerce
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept report. Give direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
On February 12, 2002 the City Council discussed whether to continue the current subsidy to the
Chamber of Commerce. At the conclusion of the meeting, direction was given to staff to
continue the existing relationship with the Chamber for the time being and to agendize a joint
meeting with the Chamber to develop a new operating agreement on May 7, 2002.
At the Apri13, 2002 Council meeting, Council directed that a discussion of various options to be
included in a draft Chamber agreement be agendized for the April 17, 2002 meeting. Under the
Brown Act, the Council must discuss all matters of public policy in open session with the
exception ofpotential litigation, property acquisition or personnel issues.
The Council asked Mayor Nick Streit and Council Member Stan Bogosian to investigate the
various options that the Council may want to discuss. At their meeting they instructed the staff to
prepare a summary outlining various topics the Council might wish to discuss that could form
the basis for a new City/Chamber Agreement. These discussion topics are attached as Appendix
A to this staff report.
The discussion topics addressed several areas of concern that were brought up at the sub-
committee meeting. Among them aze; 1) Length of term, whether a fixed term agreement would
be appropriate or a multi-year phase-out of support; 2) a requirement that, while receiving public
funds, the Chamber's meetings be made open to the public; 3) As a condition of public funding,
require City Council representation on the Chamber Board and Executive Committee, and 4)
Reporting requirements to account for public funds spent for Chamber activities. `
Among the topics discussed but discazded was a requirement constraining the Chamber from
political activity. It was thought such a requirement might represent an abridgment of the right
to free speech and as such was not included.
A chart summarizing various City/Chamber agreements in Santa Clara County, is included a r.~
Attachment "B". It compares annual funding received in cash. and in kind services, the services y
provided by the Chamber in return, the contract term and reporting requirements. "
Staff was asked how a funding condition requiring that the Chamber Board include a member of
the City Council might affect Chamber operations. Such a requirement would make the
Chamber subject to the Brown Act. Sections 54952(c)(2) of the Act, define a "legislative body"
covered under the Act as one which "Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of
whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed
to that governing body by the legislative body of the local agency".
If there was a requirement that a Council member be included on the Chamber Board, the
Chamber of Commerce would be required to comply with the open meetings requirements of the
Brown Act, including posting of agendas in advance, and conducting business meetings in a
manner that would make them open to the public. This language was written into the contract
between the Hakone Foundation and the City. Hakone has subsequently found Brown Act
compliance to be inconsequential to the conduct of its meetings.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Undetermined.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Develop draft City/Chamber agreement containing provisions as directed by the City Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Points to be included in Chamber of Commerce Agreement
Attachment B: Chamber Table -Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill
' CITY of SARATOGA -CHAMBER of COMMERCE
AGREEMENT
~" DISCUSSION TOPICS
Term -Fixed term: Should the City and Chamber agree to a fixed term
duration of agreement? If so, with or without optional renewals? This would
be appropriate if the contract is structured strictly as a fee for service
agreement.
Phase-ont of City participation: Should the City and the Chamber agree that
by the end of 36 months from the date the agreement is signed, the Chamber
will be completely self-supporting? Should the total amount of City
contribution to the Chamber (to be determined by Council) include both in-
kind and cash? The dollar value of the in-kind contribution could be
determined from comparables in the Village, and will be updated on a yearly
basis. Should support for Celebrate Saratoga be negotiated separately? Should
there be a cap on Celebrate costs?
2. Conduct of Chamber Meetings: Should the City condition contributions
from the City, on a requirement that all Chamber meetings (including
Executive Committee) be open to the public, with the exception of items
involving litigation, property acquisition or personnel actions? Should the
agreement require that all Chamber meetings be publicly noticed, and
conducted in a place accessible to the public?
3. Representation on Chamber Executive Committee: Should the agreement
require that the Mayor be a member of the Executive Committee and a
Council Member would be appointed to the Board in which both would have
full voting rights2
4. Performance Criteria: Should the agreement require that the Chamber (1)
sponsor Celebrate Saratoga, and (2) shall apply the dollar value of City
contributions to increase business activity in Saratoga? Should the agreement
require that as a measure of its performance, the Chamber submit an annual
report containing statistics reflecting activities pertaining to the following:
o Tourism and information services, calls, a-mails and brochures
o Printing and distribution of City maps
o General City information and referral services
o Cooperation in the area of economic development and attendance and
participation in SBDC
Attachment A
Saratoga ,;Campbell ~' ~ Los Gatos; g
°.lYIor an Bill
Chamber
;~ Chamber
,
Chamber:, ,
;Chamber
>
, ., ,
,
„ „ , ,,
. - - :
Services Provided: Services Provided: Services Provided: Services Provided:
• Community Community Directory • 32 Hours Per wk. • Business
Directory • Maps Visitor Info Amaction
• Map • Recreational Facility Maintain Town • .Business
• Community Events Info. Website (Gov. Info. Retention
Celebrate Saratoga, Community Events Included) Host Broker
Crab Feed, Citizen • Hotel • Town Maps Meetings
of the Year, Accommodations Advertising Developers
Business Person of . Demographics Campaigns Forum
the Year Relocation Packets • Town Brochures Business
• Referrals • Business Start-Up • Town Calendar Incubators
• B-2-B Networking Kits • Leadership Los • Trade Show
opportunities - Tourism & Visitor Gatos* Participation
mixers Information Quarterly
• Business Assistance Business Forum
• Newsletter _ • Newsletter
• Tourism & Visitor • Brochures
Information • Tourism
Citv Provides: City Provides: City Provides: City Provides:
Cash: $3,000 Cash: $10,000 Cash: $100,527.00 Cash: $90,000
In-kind: $33,800 In-kind: N/A In-kind: N/A In-kind: N/A
Contract Leng[h: Contract Length: Contract Length: Contract Length:
None at this time Yearly Renewal Yearly Renewal Yearly Renewal
Can be canceled at any Can be canceled at any with a (30) day
time (30) day notice time (30) required notice clause as done in the
to fix problem, if not other two cities
remedy -contract
canceled a City pays for
services rovided thus far
Accountability Fac[or: Accountability Factor: Accountability Factor: Accountability.
Factor
None at this time Must provide logs of all Must complete all
calls, emails, and faxes - projects by the end of the None at this time
for a reporting mechanism yearly contract
r
Attachment B
SAR~ATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: Apri~k7; 2002 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: ~~G~----
~.
PREPARED BY: Thomas Sullivan, AICP DEPT BEAD:. ~ ~~
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUSANCE AT
12623 QUITO ROAD
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Adopt the attached Resolution amending the 2001/02 Saratoga Municipal Budget in the amount
of $73,900 from unallocated reserves; award the bid to Stevens Creek Quarry Construction in
the amount of $73,900 and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract on behalf of the City
of Saratoga upon the City receiving access to the property from the Santa Clara County Superior
Court.
REPORT SUMMARY:
A hearing before a Superior Court judge will be scheduled to consider our request for a warrant
to enter the premises and abate the nuisance. The Court will not determine the propriety of the
warrant until after the Council chooses a contractor to perform the abatement. The City
Council's actions, however, will allow us to proceed immediately once, and if, the Court grants
us permission to proceed with abatement. By reviewing the bids and conditionally awarding
contract at this time the City will be able to expedite the remediation of the nuisance.
Government Code Section 38773.1 allows the City to set up a procedure for recovery of
abatement costs. Saratoga Ciry Code Section 3-15.120 sets forth the specific procedural steps
that the City must take in order to be able to recover abatement costs.
The City Manager is to keep an accurate accounting of the abatement costs, which include
investigative, administrative, direct abatement costs and other reasonably related costs.
Following completion of the abatement, the City Manager must prepare a final itemized written
report. This report is to be presented to the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting for
confirmation.
At least 10 days prior to date of the City Council meeting, a copy of the City Manager's report
and written notice of the date on which the report and confirmation will be considered, must be
mailed to Michael Costa, the owner of the property and the person against whom the nuisance
abatement proceedings commenced. The notice must specify that the City intends to impose
costs as a lien against the parcel and/or a special assessment against the parcel and that such
parcel may be sold by the tax collector after three yeas for any unpaid assessment.
At the hearing, the Ciry Council must hear any objections of the owners of the property that are
to be assessed. The Council is permitted to modify the City Manager's report "if it deems
appropriate." The City Council must confirm the report as submitted or modified by
Resolution.
A total of five bids were received to accomplish the remediation of the site at 12623 Quito Road.
The table below summarizes the bids received.
Stevens Creek Qua Construction $73,900
C. F. Archibald Pavin ,Inc. $74,000
Klassen Tractor, Inc. $64,980 120 da s to com lete
Klassen Tractor, Inc. $87,280 Com lete within 15 da s
Duran &r Venables, Inc. $97,500
Silicon Valle Builders $132,012
*Prior to submittal, Klassen Tractor, Inc. discussed the 120~day option with City Sialf and was advised that the Ciry desired to expedite the
project and that a 120 day construction period would be too long.
Klassen Tractor, Inc. submitted two bids. The bids are $22,300 different due to the timing. If
the work is allowed to take 120-days, they will not have to purchase fill dirt. If they must
purchase fill dirt they can have the work completed ni 15-days. Klassen was the only contractor
who offered an alternative bid based of timing of the work. As they were advised that a 120-day
construction period would be too long, Staff suggests that the 120-day bid be rejected. The City
specified in the bid document that work must commence within 30-days of Notice to Proceed. If
the City Council concurs that the 120-day construction period is too long and that the bid be
rejected, Stevens Creek Quarry Construction is the apparent low bidder.
The bid request included the following items:
• Demolition of the stilt (steel columns) supported building.
• Demolition of approximately 90 linear feet of exposed reinforced 12" CMU basement
walls approximately 9 feet tall.
• Demolition of approximately 60 linear feet of a steel I-beam and wood lagging retaining
wall being used as shoring to protect adjacent property.
• Removal of all construction and demolition debris from the site.
• Import compactable dirt to fill the excavated area and compact dirt to a minimum of
90%. The excavated area is approximately 2,700 cubic yards in volume.
• Install chain link fencing
The potential bidders were also informed that they would have to submit a safety plan detailing
how they would protect contiguou"s properties and streets.
2of3
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If the City Council awards the contract to Stevens Creek Quarry Construction the direct fiscal
impacts will be $73,900. There will also be legal fees and indirect project supervision costs.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The public nuisance_will continue to be uncorrected.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
1. Award the contract to a different bidder
2. Wait to award the contract until after the Court has taken action to grant the City
access to the property.
3. Abandon the abatement process
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Monitor the Court action and award the contract as soon as permitted.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Not required
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Bid Submittals
3of3
~~
ATTACHlV-SENT 1
April 4, 2002
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: 12363 Quito Road
Attention: Brad Lind
SCQ Construction, Inc., a division of Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. is pleased to
submit this bid proposal for the demolition and rough grading for 12363 Quito
Road. This bid is based on the information provided in a letter from you faxed
March 28, 2002.
Bid. Price $73,900.00
Inclusions:
1) Demolition of the stilt (sKeel columns) supported building.
2) Demolition of approximately 90 linear feet of exposed 12° CMU basement walls 9' tall.
3) Demolition of 60 linear feet of steel I beam and wood lagging retaining wall
4) Removal of all construction and demolition debris from site.
5) Import compactable dirt to fill the excavated area, compact to 90%, up to 2,700 CY.
6) Provide compaction testing.
7) Install chain link fence on three sides of the property (approximately 250 linear feet).
8) Safety plan to protect adjoining properties during demolition.
9) Traffic control and dust control for SCQ work only.
Specific Exclusions:
1. Engineering, bond premiums, fees, permits, and tests.
2. Removal, modification, or relocation of existing utilities.
3. Erosion control, hydro-seeding, or winter maintenance.
4. Clearing.
5. Handling or removal of saturated, over optimum native materials.
6. Removing of erosion control measures.
7. All utility work.
8. All offsite work.
9. Striping, signage, joint trench, and electrical work.
10. Any work not specifically included is excluded:
SCQ Standard Conditions:
1. One initial move-in with continuous operations for that and all additional contract move-ins.
2. Any phasing of work by others which delay SCQ work, reduce production or cause additional
move-ins will result in the assessment of additional costs for standby of equipment and labor.
3. Any work requested by the Owner/Client to be pertormed in inGement weather, or with over-
optimum moisture. conditions in the materials will be billed on a Time and Material basis.
4. Removal and disposal of unknown unsuitable soils, to be placed with fill in areas-that are not
indicated on the plans will be performed at addtional cost to be determined at time of discovery.
~~ SCQ Construction
=' t® A Division of Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc.
12100 Stevens Canyon Road • Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 253-2512 . FAX (408) 257-4614 . Contractor's License No. 155174
5. Processing and removal of any material not suitable as fill to be performed on a T&((lj basis.
6. Processing or removal of contaminated or hazardous materials not included in bid. __.__ _. ;; ,
7. This proposal is based on a 40-hour workweek.
8. There will be no repairs by others to SCQ work at our expense without prior approval by SCQ
Construction to accept_the back charge.
9. Water to be available at an onsite location suitable for a water tower with truck access.
10. Payment to be made within 30 days after receipt of progress payment invoice.
11. Retention to be released no later than 90 days after satisfactory completion of work.
Thank you for the opportunity to bid this project. SCQ is available to begin this project immediately.
Please raltif-you have any questions.
Sincerely,
n
~~~ ~. ~~
Jeffre W. Wells
Division Manager
Construction
L-~
J
APR. 05 2002 fFRI) 08:58 CF-ARCFII BALD-PAVING
SST.19A5
6503668777
G.F. Archibald
19D7' -1978
W.L. Archibald
President
C,F. Archlbara
Vlce Presiderd
P,O. cox 97.3b24 Neven Avenue
Redwood Gty • Callfornla •44084-0037
F?5L~ru
PACE.1
~o~
DATE: ~~
4uotatlon 44;
arearomer mrunuwu
Name: vn. ~
City of Saratoga
' -
Neme;
Address:
Resident
12983 Quito Road
Address:
State ZIP:
Chy 17 Frultvale Ave
137
Saratoga, Ca 9S07o OBy~state ZIP: 8aratoga,Ca 95070
, .,...., see ewer,
E~~k a conrrnacr
Pumish all tabor, materials, toots and equipment, transportation, permks and taxes necessary to perform the followlnF
work as per enclosed attachetl plans and spacHlcatlons.
1 Pravlde sanitation services
~ Remove and off-haul existing structure.
1 Remove and off-haul existing retaining walls, shoring
and debris an stte.
2,700 a,y. Import, pleas and compact 2,700 cubic yards fill malarial
to lulydg basement to sidewalk elevation.
1 Provkle soils engineer for compectfon tests onry,
t ~ Provkle dust control,
1 Provide demolftlon safety plan.
1 install temporary fenoln0 unfit proposed work is
Prepared by: Curtis Arohibak
TOTAL BID I S 74,OOtl.00
lswtrnt~rrtoeetAanaluraLt.ow~ NaU30
~ M rho Mmw wl aelMWmt t.lmdh an dw rwerAe eWt Man PwpaN tnd eonhAee
welnoeryetAfed hmtM by lYetMee dltl Mw.b.M wed And undMM-'IOd BL d+e uMenlpnetl. AMYYALB
a) NoTIOk To OWNlR -(dAa9on7o1ioaweoblt LWtme Lew} lMderlM MeahtnbY Ldn LM, AnymnMabn wbaadrlgtq, bhaq, nwlariAlmuy aaMArpatal vAfe helpA m Impact yarpwpwW
and le net ptlgmr MtltEq,eWon arrneMlld, alwedpMmanlaae Mtalalm aprMAt YO4r poptdY•
vndume Irw, 1•u mAy pawatveuntrpelnetwwMr oblmt hyddng; tebwtueh weM a MgalemtM, an gglnN terAaet taMtwerv q Impra•Mataq a nlpdiAOAVen Mmeol, In MedhptdlM
aeunq meederdMe OOa,aYMltrt MepropMy Is elhlettd tnd tequYMq Meta torOtdade ptypdMhtne hewwded M AVdr eMIrA. Slid bgMtMll bt M Me MnewR ndba Mtn Agptment (60)A)
arMe canxANpdat AtM lMA M Addtkr, b AnvaeMAtlani fMM1A pedewitnsdMA oonhAel, M eendhlantd brlM,r)lnen! Mfi+l dIM dalmt del pAteeM Nm6hMd Itbar, tM1et and A~pllbl!
gmAbdAk an MA wedt healbed M xk eenhAOL OM4egote Aw wquiwd by tAwbhA Aeemed and rnddMMl hYMs Lbnttoltre 9bb t.Ntnte Aaartl. MyqutMlgitedmeanrd a w~udq mAY
he rMpM bMetnOlttr+RCanheeEdr68MM lJpllae aetfd, 91ST BItdahawAd., BtowmeMO,GA aMXIna WWroes: P.O. BOx7/IOW, Bnwmenb. CA a6Bdp,'
q Yedt tnaWdn M d4Aahk lattalbm SOPl, BIYAtM 8711, plttemlt r9rd C;xNr whhM rpdwt u m ntNtryee W way da GManla PnMr1,wYNdJa'VW N hNb to NetpeW 6 hdl tar Inper, wMu,
nqulpmmd or MthrlANwmMhtd,or b ht8mhhed, Mt MnDmYed pwpgry pddoh a,deepdhed hereon) marbendgAMb biro. "INt ebYmpm b tpphwdeb paAbwwk any. 7hY Y nets rMerdaYi en
M e Irlbadp~ d yeu q AIIY mNrtder et tVAObVeleMt.
d) AlrTNORRlo 81oNA1Vlttl
aCCir?ANCE OF PAgAQML.TM enaaa plan, e~ rt,d eelydNM.rs
aw tadNAd01Y Bret rre neaM,Y tactpbd. You ewaudwleed boo Me wedrm gwedbd.
WymentwNl btmtde 9A euanea Nrww.
pAT[opaxsttaNCa:
NW:7nk PmV+radb
ena~WaYr rar R
eIaNAT~ ~
1
KLASSEN TRACTOR, INC.
Contractor's Lic. # 353302
Office # (408) 433-5544
Fax # (408) 433-5840
April 4, 2002
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Brad Lind, Building Official
RE: 12363 Quito Rd., Saratoga
Estimate for the abatement of a public nuisance located at 12363
Quito Rd., Saratoga.
FOR THE SUM OF $ 64,980.00 WE WILL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:
SCOPE -OF WORK:
Item one (1):
Demolish a portion of a building which is currently supported
on steel columns approximately 22 feet above a basement
excavation; demolish exposed CMLT basement walls; demolish a
steel/wood shoring retaining wall; remove debris from site,
fill and compact the excavated area and construct a perimeter
chain link fence around three sides of the property.
A more detailed scope of work follows:
1. Demolition of the stilt (steel columns) supported
building.
2. Demolition of approximately 90 linear feet of exposed
reinforced 12" CMiJ basement walls approximately 9 feet
tall.
3. Demolition of approximately 60 linear feet of a steel I
beam and wood lagging retaining wall being used as a
shoring to protect adjacent property.*
• * I beams to be torch cut at existing basement
excavation grade. The buried portion at basement grade
to be left in place and filled over.
1041 Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA.95131-1611
•
2 -
4. Removal of all construction and demolition from the site.
5. Import compactable dirt to fill the excavated area and
compact dirt to a minimum of 905. The excavated area is
approximately 2700 cubic yards in volume.
6. Provide compaction testing.
7. Install chain link fencing on three sides of the property
(approximately 250 linear feet).
• The- cost estimated shall include a safety plan to
protect adjoining properties during the demolition.
• It would be imperative that work commences within 30
days upon notification by the city of Saratoga.
Work to be started within 30 days of notice to start and
completed within ].20 days.
Addition Alternatives:
To complete the job within'15 days after the start date.
ADD THE SUM OF .......................$ 22,300.00
CONTRACT EXCLUSIONS:
1. fees, bond, permits
2. removal or relocation of existing utilities.
1041 Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA. 95131-1611
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The owner/developer shall provide at no cost to Klassen
Tractor, Inc.:
a. Fees, bonds or permits, as required by
contractor/owner, city, county or governing agencies.
b. Professional engineering, surveying, or layout.
c. Soils testing and inspection services.
2. It is mutually acceptable to both parties that the
conditions herein stipulated are not intended to cause
additional expense to the owner or contractor. These are
only items of clarification because your plans and
specifications did not specifically set out that these
would be required. Therefore, it can logically be
assumed they will not be required of Klassen Tractor,
Inc., and any changes to the plans and specifications
shall be compensated for and mutually agreed on prior to
starting work on such changes.
3. Klassen Tractor, Inc. will not accept any responsibility
for excavations, placement or compaction of any dirt,
fill material, rock or similarly used materials, by
others, on this project.
4. The equipment operators will submit to the owners
representative, a daily time sheet for hours worked and
the type of equipment operated on any force account.
5. If required by owner, Klassen Tractor will name owner and/or
general contractor as an additional insured using the current
Insurance Industry standard CG 2010 3/97 form.
6. Klassen Tractor will be responsible for damage to property or
injury to persons caused by or arising out of our work, but
only to the extent caused by our negligent acts or omissions.
7. Payments shall be made on 1000 of the work completed.
All accounts are due and payable on the 10th of the month
following billing. A non-negotiable service charge of
1.So per month (18% annual percentage rate) will be
applied to all past due accounts. All reasonable legal
fees to be paid by the defendant in any court action.
8. Prices on material and labor good thru 2002 only. _
3
i
~.I
1041 Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA. 95131-1611
ACCEPTANCE of PROPOSAL:
Acceptance of this proposal must be received by Rlassen
Tractor within 15 days of the date hereof. If not received
within the time specified, Klassen Tractor reserves the right
to review and resubmit this proposal making any amendments
necessary.
By:
Date: ~- - 9' -~~
By: Date: ^-^-^
California Contractor's License No.
Name of Owner:
By: Date: _-_-^
Address:
Name of Construction Lender:
By: Date: _-_-_
Address:
4
1041 Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA.95131-1611
KLASSEN TRACTOR, INC.
.d.b~
DURAN&
VENABLES, INC.
April 4, 2002 __ .
Crty of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvak Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070 '
A7TN: Howard Lewis, Senior Project Engineer
RE: 123b3 Quito Road
Saratoga, California
We are pleased to submit our Bid for grading on the above mentioned project.
ss:ssassssssssssssassisssssszziksk#4ikkkkk4kkk4k;4ii#sisii:tz:::isizsssiiiis4iskkkkkk
Oar Base Bid Includes the FOlbwing:
1. Site demo of the existing house, 5tee1 & debris.
Note 1: All concrete will be broken up and used as fill within the bottom 2' of the existing hole.
Note 2; We will remove only the top 3' of the existing retaining wall.
2. Import, Place and compact approximatey 2,700 cubic yards of soil.
3. Provide certification that he imparted soil material was Installed at 90% wmpaction.
4. Install approximately 250 (heal' feet of 6' high chap link fencing.
Base BW:; 97.500.00
ik44444kkik!!sl444444444#i######sk#ii;issiisiiik4kkitikk4##4########isziisisis4kk#k##
Our Base B/d EXdudeS the FONowing:
1. Er~gereering, staking, IayouC soils testng, and hazardous materials testing
2. Patnlts, fees and cast of famishing hauls
3. Multiple move-ins and outs
4. All else not mentioned inslckxies
sssssssks4441~kkkki+ikkkA~~F##i#ississessssassikkk####ssss#tsississsssk#kR#!#######ssssss
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call
Skxerey,
Duran 8 Venables, Inc.
Mark) Petersen
Chief ESGmator
L 1
i..J
DORM! & VENABIES INCORPORATED Page 1 Of 1
261 BOTHELO AVENUE - MILPITAS. CA 9S03G
(d08) 93d-7300 • G4. UC. 375068 A
s~ucon
= .~.~ VALLEY
4s.F CM:ulllnq fnprrornq Ne. COmoonv
ulro<ro .Ile nn.• np /1/!q0
April i, 2003
Mr. Brad U. Lind
Building Official
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvalc Avenue
Saratoga, Ca ~15U70
Subject: 12623 Quito Road, Saratoga
RF,: PRO!'OSAL
llcar Mr. Lind:
Silicon Valley liuildcrs, is pleated to. provide the following proposal for the above relcrcnccd project:
Scope of work:
A)
' Remove existing elevated structure and steel column shoring
* Demo and remove cuncrote block walls and footing
:Demo and remove tcmporarv xhoring wall
Subtotal 937.780.00
Li )
* Import din to fill excavated area and re-compact
* Tes[ compaction
* Build eanhwork back to sub grade
tiuMotal S3G.S20.00
(')
' Chain link fence on three sides of property
Subtotal 53,940.00
U)
' Supervision, Overhead and Profit
Subtotal $7,472.00
TO'T'AL S132,U12.00
excLUSloly:
Pcmtif fees, llazarduus Material Removal, Utility Relocate. USA, and Unlinroseen Conditions.
Bc~R cards
Silicon valley Builders '
l3Y
SHAWN MASSIhIPO[1R, RCG
C.C.U.
259 N. Market St.. Suite 220, San Josa, CA 95110
Tcl: a08/999~539 Fax: d08/999~638 email: aseinc@compuserve.com
~n-~ ecncoeeeona. •-i•~•••.• ••n-ten ~.~ e-n rrl••
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF
$73,900 FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SARATOGA
AND
STEVENS CREEK QUARRY CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, a hearing before a Superior Court Judge will be scheduled to consider the City's
request for a warrant to enter the premises and abate the nuisance on the property located at 12623
Quito Road; and
WHEREAS, if the Court grants the City permission to proceed with abatement, the
conditionally approved contract would allow the City to expedite the remediation of the nuisance;
and
WHEREAS, The City of Sazatoga received five bids to accomplish the remediation of the
site located at 12623 Quito Road; and
WHEREAS, Stevens Creek Quany Construction submitted the lowest responsible bid in the
amount of $73,900.
NOW, THEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED, the adjustments below to the City of Saratoga's
Fiscal Yeaz 2001-02 budget will be made using the following entries:
Expenditures Revenues
(Debit) (Credit)
250-4015-542-40-10 General Contract $73,900
250-000-330-10-00 Fund Balance Reserves $73,900
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regulaz meeting of the
Sazatoga City Council held on the 23`d day of Apri12002 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Nick Streit, Mayor