Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-02-1992 City Council Agenda packet
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �13 AGENDA ITEM L MEETING DATE: September 2, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Civic Center Improvements Capital Project No. 956: Notice of Completion Recommended Action: Accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the project. Discussion: Attached is the Notice of Completion for the Civic Center Improvements, Capital Project No. 956. The City granted substantial completion of the project on July 3 and since then, the contractor has completed all punch list items attached to the Notice of Substantial Completion. The Council should now accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion which will commence the 35 day mechanics lien period and the one year warranty period. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments; 1. Notice of Completion. Motion Vote: �l� Recording requested by, and to be returned to: Saratoga City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 2nd day of September 19 92 Contract Number: Contract Date: September 4, 1991 Contractor's Name: Contractor's Address: Description of Work: No. 956 ATTEST: Swenson and Associates This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters that he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Claa, State of California on 19 Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 470 Vanden Way, Suite A, Campbell, CA 95008 Civic Center Improvements CITY OF SARATOGA BY: Larry I. Perlin City Engineer Capital Project SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OZ), IL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: Reclassification of the Plans Examiner Position Recommended Motion: Approve Reclassification Report Summary: Registration as a Professional Engineer in the State of California is not a prerequisite for appointment to the position of Plans Examiner. However, the class specification has always reflected that registration is a desirable qualification for this position. The City Engineer has requested that incumbents who are hired and have their registration or incumbents who obtain registration during their tenure with the City have a title and salary which reflects this professional status. Staff believes that this is a reasonable request and can be accomodated by revising the current classification and allowing a salary adjustment of 3% for incumbents who have or obtain registration as a professional engineer. While it is not necessary to have two separate classifications, staff proposes to revise the current class specification as follows: o Change the title of Plans Examiner to Plan Check Examiner. o Add to the certification section under OUALIFICATTONS, the following language: Incumbents with certification as a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California will have the title of Plan Check Engineer and be compensated at a higher salary range, Prior to making this recommendation, staff conducted a survey of engineering positions in other agencies in the County and believes that these levels are consistent with other agencies and will satisfactorily maintain internal relationships with other City staffing. Fiscal. Impact 3% depending upon whether or not employee possesses or obtains registration as a Professional Engineer in the State of California. ,Attachments: Revised Job Description Revised Salary Schedule Motion and Vote: PLAN CHECK EXAMINER (PLAN CHECK ENGINEER) DEFINITION The Plan Check Examiner performs detailed examination of plans to insure compliance with applicable State regulations, technical codes, City ordinances and accepted engineering practices; assists field inspectors in resolving structural and other problems that arise in the field; performs some complex field inspection; assists in the plan review and permit process; and does related work as required. Work is performed under general supervision. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a fully experienced, working -level classification in the Building Inspection Division. It is distinguished from the position of Building Inspector through the specialized knowledge and background necessary to perform detailed examination of plans, calculations and specifications for construction /structure plans. It is distinguished from the higher level position of Building Codes Administrator by the lack of any regular supervisory or administrative responsibilities. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all- inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned this classification: o Performs independent building and plan examination concerning the construction or alteration of commercial and residential structures to determine compliance with applicable codes, laws and regulations. o Checks complex plans and calculations to determine loading on roofs, walls, and floors, size and spacing of beams, rafters and joists, amount and size of reinforcing in concrete members, type of structural connections and adequacy of design to meet earthquake, wind load, and material stress requirements; makes independent analysis as required. o Checks plans for conformance of non structural items and State Handicapped and Energy Conservation regulations. o Answers questions and gives instructions to architects, engineers, contractors and owners regarding: building requirements, structural application of various codes and requirements; issues permits after plan review approval. o Advises Building Inspectors on structural and other problems arising in the field; makes field inspections. o Prepares reports and correspondence; keeps informed regarding new building construction methods, materials and requirements; performs other duties as required. OUALIFICATIONS Knowledge Of: Principles and practices of structural engineering design; building techniques and materials, accepted construction methods; codes and ordinances enforced by the City, specifically Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire and Housing Codes, National Electric Code, Zoning Ordinances, and State Codes. Ability To: Apply knowledge and follow proper techniques when examining plans and specifications and detect deviations from regulations and standard practices; read and interpret building plans, specifications, and Building Codes; advise on accepted construction methods and requirements; enforce necessary regulations with firmness, fairness and tact; keep records and prepare oral and written reports; fully organize the plan check and permit issuing process; and maintain cooperative working relationships with builders, design professionals, the general public, and other employees. $ducati,on and Experience: Equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university with coursework in civil, structural or architectural engineering, and two years of responsible experience performing plan checks or structural /architectural design work. Driver's License: License. Certification: desirable. Possession of valid State of California Driver's ICBO Certification as a Building Inspector is Incumbents with certification as a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California will have the title of Plan Check Engineer and will be compensated at a higher salary range. c: \wp51 \kc \spec \examiner.cs City of Saratoga August 1992 Effective September, 1992, the following positions in the City service are assigned to the following ranges, and shall be paid at the rate of compensation shown below. RANGE POSITION 65 Account Clerk 107 Accountant 114 Administrative Assistant 87 Admin. Secretary 114 Assistant Engineer 120 Associate Engineer 102 Assistant Planner 114 Associate Planner 62 Build. Maint. Custodian 114 Building Inspector 56 Clerk. Typist 85 Community Service Off. 89 CSO /Emerg. Coordinator 14 Custodian Aide 94 Deputy City Clerk 94 Facil. Maint. Leadworker 89 Irrigation Specialist 38 Japanese Grdn. Caretaker 94 Japanese Grdn. Special. 94 Parks Maint. Leadworker 69 Parks Maint. Worker I 84 Parks Maint. Worker II 120 Plan Check Engineer 117 Plan Check Examiner 114 Public Works Inspector 76 Recreation Frog. Coord. 98 Recreation Supervisor 76 Secretary 92 Secretary to City Manager 114 Senior Accountant 65 Senior Clerk Typist 94 Senior Comm.Serv.Off. 114 Senior Eng. Tech. 94 Street Maint. Leadworker 69 Street Maint. Worker I 84 Street Maint. Worker II 89 Street Maint. Specialist 56 Switchbd. Opr /Reception. 89 Volunteer Coordinator 56 Volunteer Program Assist. Revised 9/92 A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G Step H Step I Step J Step K Step 2031 2082 2133 2186 2239 2295 2351 2410 2469 2531 2592 3085 3162 3239 3320 3401 3486 3571 3661 3750 3844 3937 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 4121 4221 2528 2591 2655 2721 2787 2857 2927 3000 3073 3150 3227 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 4121 4221 3511 3599 3687 3779 3871 3968 4064 4166 4268 4374 4481 2935 3009 3082 3159 3236 3317 3398 3483 3568 3657 3746 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 4121 4221 1971 2021 2070 2122 2174 2228 2282 2339 2396 2456 2516 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 4121 4221 1857 1904 1950 1999 2048 2099 2150 2204 2257 2314 2370 2478 2540 2602 2667 2733 2801 2869 2941 3013 3088 3163 2579 2644 2708 2776 2843 2915 2986 3060 3135 3213 3292 1220 1251 1281 1313 1345 1379 1412 1448 1483 1520 1557 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 3377 3460 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 3377 3460 2579 2644 2708 2776 2843 2915 2986 3060 3135 3213 3292 1553 1591 1630 1671 1712 1755 1797 1842 1887 1934 1982 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 3377 3460 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 3377 3460 2114 2167 2219 2275 2330 2389 2447 2508 2569 2633 2698 2454 2515 2577 2641 2705 2773 2841 2912 2983 3057 3132 3511 3599 3687 3779 3871 3968 4064 4166 4268 4374 4481 3408 3493 3578 3668 3757 3851 3945 4044 4142 4246 4349 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 4121 4221 2266 2323 2379 2439 2498 2561 2623 2689 2755 2823 2892 2821 2891 2962 3036 3110 3188 3265 3347 3429 3514 3600 2266 2323 2379 2439 2498 2561 2623 2689 2755 2823 2892 2657 2724 2790 2860 2930 3003 3076 3153 3230 3311 3391 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 4121 4221 2031 2082 2133 2186 2239 2295 2351 2410 2469 2531 2592 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 3377 3460 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 4121 4221 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 3377 3460 2114 2167 2219 2275 2330 2389 2447 2508 2569 2633 2698 2454 2515 2577 2641 2705 2773 2841 2912 2983 3057 3132 2579 2644 2708 2776 2843 2915 2986 3060 3135 3213 3292 1857 1904 1950 1999 2048 2099 2150 2204 2257 2314 2370 2579 2644 2708 2776 2843 2915 2986 3060 3135 3213 3292 1857 1904 1950 1999 2048 2099 2150 2204 2257 2314 2370 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Recommendation: Printed on recycled paper. Attachments: uauw cpo [51] oi 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M 1. Negative Declaration 2. Ordinance Amending Article 15 -12 3. Staff Memo dated 7/8/92 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/8/92 8 City Council Planning Commission September 2, 1992 AZO -92 -003 Amendment to City Code Impervious Coverage Regulations On July 22, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance. A copy of the original staff analysis is attached for reference. Adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce the attached ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Printed on recycled paper. lua[ow ©o [Tag, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner lP DATE: July 8, 1992 SUBJECT: AZO -92 -003, Amendment to Zoning Standards, Article 15 -12 Relating to Impervious Coverage COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman In November 1991, the City Council adopted amendments to the various sections of the zoning regulations concerning subdivision of sites, design review, allowable floor area, setbacks, height, impervious coverage and grading in all the residential and agricultural zone districts. In April 1992, after the new standards had been implemented, the City Council adopted additional amendments in order to correct technical problems and to avoid the creation of non conforming situations. The amendments did not include changes to the new impervious coverage standard. At the 4/15/92 City Council meeting, members of the public raised concerns about the imperious coverage standards in the R -1 zone district which have been in effect since December 1991. They said that the new standard created non conformity and they were required to remove existing coverage on their property. The City Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to study this issue and consider changing the standard back to that in effect prior to December 1991. The impervious coverage standard which was recently adopted exempted driveways from the allowable coverage in all residential districts. The intent was to solve the accruing problems on hillside properties. The steep topography on these lots requires long driveways resulting in excess impervious coverage and necessitates variance approvals. Originally, the standard was reduced to compensate for the exemption of the driveways. However, during the review process the standard for the hillside districts changed to the original, and driveways were exempt. This change effectively increased the allowable coverage for the hillside districts. In the R -1 zone districts, however, the standard was reduced and driveways were exempt. The minutes and reports related to this issue repeatedly indicate that the intent of the reduction in the standard was to compensate for the exemption of driveways. Following the City Council directions, staff reviewed about forty homes, randomly selected from all R -1 zone districts. The study shows that the standards of impervious coverage were reduced by 14% to 30 This reduction is significantly larger than the common area of driveways on the relatively small lots in the R -1 zone districts. After inclusion of existing driveway areas to the calculation, the study still showed an average of 12% reduction of the new coverage standard relative to the old standard. The study also indicates that in most cases, the existing coverage was in conformity with the new standard. One of the limitations of this study, however, is that home owners may increase the coverage by adding pools requiring administrative review only, or may add other paved areas not requiring approval or permits. As a result, the impervious coverage on private properties may be significantly increased after the application was processed, without being reviewed or documented by the City. Thus, the area of coverage indicated in the file, does not necessarily reflect the actual coverage on the property. Since the adoption of the new coverage standard, staff has dealt with few cases where applicants exceeded the standard and were required to remove portions of the existing hard surfaces as a condition of approval. The change of the standard and the lack of permit requirement create practical problems in determining when the areas were paved and whether or not they were lawfully constructed prior to the change of the standard. The City will have to rely on owner's statements for the enforcement purpose of the new standards. The study indicates that the potential problem and non conformity situations are greater in small lots where the area of existing coverage is very close to the new allowable coverage. In large lots, which are typical of the R -1- 40,000 zoning district, the coverage is well below both old and new standards. Therefore, the new standard is not likely to create non conforming situations on larger lots. The impervious coverage for the R -1- 20,000 district which was in effect prior to December 1991, was 45% for a hillside lot and 50% for non hillside lot. The new standard allows only 35% for any lot in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. Due to the typically larger size of lots in this district, staff suggested that the standard for this district be changed to the original 45% for any lot in this district. As indicated, the standard for the hillside districts, NHR and HC- RD, was increased in the December 1991 code amendments, to address the excess of coverage due to the typically long hillside driveways. Therefore, the new standard will not result in non- conformity situations. In summary, the new coverage standard has the potential of creating non conformity problems and practical enforcement difficulties, only in the R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500, R -1- 15,000, and to a certain extent, in the R -1- 20,000 zone districts. The new standard raises no problems related to the R -1- 40,000 or the hillside districts. Staff Recommendation 1. Maintain the current standard for the R -1- 40,000, the NHR and the HC -RD zone district. 2. Amend the impervious coverage for R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500, R -1- 15,000 back to the standard in effect prior to 12/91: R -1- 10,000 60% R- 1- 15,000 50% R -1- 12,500 55% 3. Amend the coverage standard for the R-1-20,000 back to 45% for any lot, hillside or non hillside. 4. No amendments are recommended for the R- 1- 40,000, NHR or HC -RD zone districts. TA:cw Attachments: 1. Comparison table of current previous and proposed coverage standards 2. Amended Ordinance to Article 15 -12 of the City Code 3. Resolution AZO -91 -001, with recommendations to City Council 4. Negative Declaration 5. City Council Minutes dated 4/15/92 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE COMPARISON TABLE Zone Coverage Current Proposed District prior to standard Coverage Dec. 1991 (driveways- exempt) R -1- 10,000 60% 45% 60% R -1- 12,500 55% 45% 55% R -1- 15,000 50% 40% 50% R -1- 20,000 50 %/45 %(hillside) 35% 45% R -1- 40,000 40 %/35 %(hillside) 30% 30% (driveways exempt) NHR /HCRD 25% or 25% or 25% or 15,000 s.f. 15,000 s.f. 15,000 s.f. (driveways exempt) Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 22, 1992 Page 10 Planner Walgren presented the Report dated July 8, 1992 and answered questions from the Commission. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:26 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak. MORAN /DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:26 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. MORAN /DURKET MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO -92 -001. PASSED 5 -0. 8. AZO -92 -003 City of Saratoga, Amendment to Zoning Regulations, consideration of amendments to zoning regulations in the R -1 zone districts, Article 15-12 to the City Code. The amendments are related to the allowable impervious coverage, the purpose of which is to eliminate existing nonconforming situations. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (cont. from 7/22/92 due to the late hour of the meeting). Planner Walgren presented the Report dated July 8, 1992 and answered questions from the Commission. Chairperson Caldwell noted that on page 88, Section 15- 12.080 "Site Coverage" should include, for clarification, the language regarding driveway exemptions which appears in the current ordinance. Planner Walgren indicated that the language would be placed in the new ordinance, Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak. MORAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 P.M PASSED 5 -0. BOGOSIAN /DURKET MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO -92 -003 WITH THE ABOVE NOTED MODIFICATION. PASSED 5 -0. Printed on recycled paper. Recommendation: Attachments: c r MW CD2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM:. Planning Commission DATE: September 2, 1992 SUBJECT: AZO -92 -001 Amendment to City Code Fences on Heritage Lanes On July 22, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance. A copy of.the original staff analysis is attached for reference. Adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce the attached ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. 1. Negative Declaration 2. Ordinance Amending Article 15 -29 3. Staff Memo dated 7/8/92 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/8/92 Rh Printed on recycled paper. 0:VITW Clt 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Summary of Proposed Amendment: M E M O R A N D U M COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner'' DATE: July 8, 1992, continued from June. 24, 1991 SUBJECT: AZO -92 -001 Amendment to Fence Ordinance, Article 15 -29 The proposed amendments to the Fence Ordinance related to Heritage Lanes, were first reviewed by the Planning Commission at its 1/22/92 meeting. The ordinance review was continued to the 3/3/92 and 4/28/92 study sessions. The main concern of the Planning Commission was regarding the appropriateness and compatibility of sound walls with the historic character of Heritage Lanes. This issue was raised at the joint meeting with the Heritage Preservation Commission on 4/28/92. The Heritage Commission clarified its position that sound walls are incompatible with the historic character of Saratoga Avenue and, therefore, recommends removal of the provision for sound walls along the portion of Saratoga Avenue which is designated as a Heritage Lane. Since the Planning Commission was in agreement with this recommendation, staff revised the proposed ordinance accordingly. The portion of Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale to the Village was removed from the list of arterials along which sound walls are permitted (Section 15- 19.030). The height standards and landscaping requirements relating to sound walls were also modified. All changes are marked on the revised draft. 1. A requirement was added for fence permits, to be issued by the Planning Director, in accordance with the Heritage Preservation Commission's recommendation. The permit is required for any fence in excess of 3 feet in height which faces and is located within 50 feet of the right -of -way of a designated Heritage Lane. Currently, fences which comply with the City standards do not require such review and approval. The purpose of this requirement is to provide the City the opportunity to review proposed fences for compatibility with the historic character of Heritage Lanes. 2. An amendment was added authorizing the Planning Director to require an increase in setback when found necessary for preservation of the historic character of a Heritage Lane. Such requirement currently exists in the ordinance only for soundwalls. 3. Standards for color, material and design were added to ensure compatibility with the historic character of the street. No such specific requirement currently exists in the Fence Ordinance. 4. Landscaping requirements along fences or walls in excess of 3 feet in height, facing Heritage Lanes, was added to ensure integration of new fences with the streetscape and character. Landscaping requirement currently exists in the ordinance only for soundwalls. 5. The provision for a soundwall along the designated portion of Saratoga Avenue was eliminated. Currently, Saratoga Avenue is identified and listed in the City Code as a major arterial along which soundwalls are allowed. Staff Recommendation Approve the attached resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the amendments to the fence ordinance, as revised, and the attached Negative Declaration. Attachments 1. Revised draft amendments to Fence Ordinance. 2. Resolution AZO -92 -001 3. Negative Declaration 4. Staff report dated 1/22/92 5. Planning Commission minutes dated 1/22/92 6. Planning Commission study session minutes, 3/3/92 and 4/28/92 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 22, 1992 Page 9 Commissioner Bogosian stated that although he supported the idea of the applicant posting a security deposit to await the City's upcoming review of the amendments, he did not feel comfortable linking Commission's decisions to what may or may not happen in the future. 6. SM 002 Haladus, 13937 Albar Ct., request for site modification to previously approved development plans in order to construct a pool and spa with rock decking per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 1.2 acres in gross site area and is located in the NHR zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated July 22, 1992 to the Commission and also answered questions with regard to the application. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak. DURKET /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:14 P.M. PASSED 6 -0. DURKET /MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE SM -92 -002. Commissioner Forbes expressed opposition to the application because he felt that the proposed pool and deck would be too close to the existing oak trees and that the proposed pool and deck would be wide open to view from the street. Commissioner Moran also expressed concern regarding the screening of the pool and deck. Commissioner Bogosian stated that he had visited the site and thought it to be well screened. THE MOTION PASSED 5 1 (FORBES OPPOSED). Commissioner Favero excused himself from the meeting at 9:23 p.m. 7. AZO 92 001 City of Saratoga, Amendment to the Fence Ordinance Article 15 of the City Code, consideration of amendments to the Fence Ordinance, Article 15 -29, relating to fences and walls along Heritage lanes. This item was first considered by the Planning Commission at their 1/22/92 meeting and was continued for review at Planning Commission study sessions. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (cont. from 7/22/92 due to the late hour of the meeting). Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 22, 1992 Page 10 Planner Walgren presented the Report dated July 8, 1992 and answered questions from the Commission. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:26 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak. MORAN /DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:26 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. MORAN /DURKET MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO -92 -001. PASSED 5-0. 8. AZO -92 -003 City of Saratoga, Amendment to Zoning Regulations, consideration of amendments to zoning regulations in the R -1 zone districts, Article 15-12 to the City Code. The amendments are related to the allowable impervious coverage, the purpose of which is to eliminate existing nonconforming situations. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (cont. from 7/22/92 due to the late hour of the meeting). Planner Walgren presented the Report dated July 8, 1992 and answered questions from the Commission. Chairperson Caldwell noted that on page 88, Section 15- 12.080 "Site Coverage" should include, for clarification, the language regarding driveway exemptions which appears in the current ordinance. Planner Walgren indicated that the language would be placed in the new ordinance, Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak. MORAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 P.M PASSED 5 -0. BOGOSIAN /DURKET MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO -92 -003 WITH THE ABOVE NOTED MODIFICATION. PASSED 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. cc I1 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: September 2, 1992 CITY MANAGER: "._(,,,af//-- ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: PROPOSED RAVENWOOD PARK DESIGN SERVICES Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with Jeffrey Heid, Landscape Architect, on behalf of the City of Saratoga for design assistance for Ravenwood Park. Summary: The Capital Improvement Budget for this fiscal year contains $25,000 for improvements to Ravenwood Park. If the park is to be completed this year, the Parks Recreation Commission would need to begin conducting workshops with the neighborhood residents to develop a plan for the park. A resident, Lisa Kurasch, who is a landscape designer, has volunteered her services to design the park. Since she is not licensed and her experience does not include park design, we have asked Jeffrey Heid to oversee the park design phase and the working drawing phase. The agreement with Jeffrey Heid provides for a $75 /hour professional service charge, not to exceed twelve hours. Fiscal Impact: The estimated $900 professional services charge will be taken from the $25,000 Capital Improvement Budget. Attachments: 1) Letter and proposal from Jeffrey Heid dated August 19, 1992 Motion and Vote: tql August 19, 1992 W. JEFFREY HEID Bob Rizzo City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Bob, Enclosed are two copies of an amended proposal for the Ravenswood Park site. Sin W. e Ai filibtil 0101 'Held 14630 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 LIC. NO. 2235 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (408) 867 8859 IRRIGATION CONSULTANT I enjoyed meeting with Lisa and feel that she has alot to offer in the design of the park. My approach with this proposal has been to initially cover any consultation time with Lisa as well as whatever assistance the City would like from me in the way of meeting time. I haven't really included any time for drafting or production of plans at this time. We may find that that type of design assistance may be needed at a later time, probably after the initial master planning has been acomplished. I want to be available to you as well as Lisa as much as possible or as needed. She and I spoke about getting together in the next week or so to review the site a little more, do a little brainstorming about the possibilities so that we are somewhat prepared for the meeting with the neighborhood group. I have provided a fee with a not to exceed so many hours. As this number approaches, I would let you know so that you can allow additional hours, or give me the go ahead to prepare an addendum to the proposal to allow for additional services as needed. I see no problem in working together with Lisa. I want to allow her to be able to do as much as she can both design wise as well as in the production of the plans. I do want to be as available or involved, ho ever, as the City would like. PROPOSAL FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 I. Scope of Services (Ravenswood Park) Date: 8/19/92 Design Consultation: includes meeting times and design assistance as required or requested. Does not, at this time include any drafting or production of plans, will include more availability of input and feedback for production of plans by others. I see the amount of hours stated here covering only the master planning stage of the overall project. II. Owner to provide Landscape Architect with all necessary reference data to include: A. Site plan B. Proposed and existing site limitations (utilities, easements, etc.) C. Architectural, engineering and related reference drawings,_ details: and. specifications D. Budget requirements E. Scope of work F. Design and construction schedules G. Notification of engineering, architectural and site condition changes H. Known City, County or State requirements of the particular site itself. page 1 of 3 PROPOSAL FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES III. Fee Schedule: For meeting and consultation time: $75.00 /hour not to exceed 12 hours V. Abandonment of Improvement: If the Owner /client finds it necessary to abandon the project, the Landscape Architect shall be compensated for all work completed under Item I, according to the schedule of payments designated under Item III. Scheduled items not completed, but upon which work has been performed, shall be paid for upon the basis of hourly rates listed under Item IV.B. VI. Termination of Contract: This agreement may be terminated at any time by the Owner /client or the Landscape Architect by giving (7) days' written notice. Termination by the Owner /client shall comply with Item V. VII. Ownership of Documents: page 2 of 3 Invoices shall be submitted at the en&of each month for the percentage of work actually completed, or at the time of project completion, either completion of working drawings or completion of site and construction observation (as authorized). All invoices are due and payable upon receipt. Terms shall be net 7 days. Invoices past due shall incur an additional charge of 11/2% per month. IV. Items supplied and extra service charges: A. Reproduction of drawings and contract documents, etc. At cost B. If, during the progress of developing plans or during construction, the Owner /client finds it desireable'or necessary to cause the Landscape Architect to expend additional time or to perform additional services other than those defined within this proposal, payment shall be based upon an hourly rate as follows: 1. Landscape Architect $75.00 /hour 2. Designer /hour 3. Draftsman /hour 4. Clerical /hour All original drawings, specifications, and other data are instruments of service whether or not the work for which they were made be executed, and are to remain the property of the Landscape Architect, unless otherwise stipulated. PROPOSAL FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES VIII. Annual Fee Adjustment IX. Arbitration All questions in dispute under this Agreement shall be submitted to arbitration, when practical, in accordance with the provisions of the American Arbitration Association. The prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the Arbitrator, or, in the event there are judicial proceedings instead or arbitration, reasonable attorney's fee shall be fixed by the court. Very truly you i. W. f ey Heid Landscape Architect California Registration #2235 Accepted by: Date: X. Deposit If the project should continue for more than one year, the Owner(client) and the Landscape Architect shall at that time have the right to renegotiate the fee to compensate for normal cost of living expenses (salaries, materials, overhead expenses). Owner(client) or representative Upon acceptance of this proposal a deposit of none will be due with the return of a signed copy of this proposal. The remainder of the contract amount, as stated under Section III, will be paid according to Sections III, IV and V, as each may apply. XI. This proposal is valid for 60 days from the date of writing as noted on page one. Landscape Architects are regulated by the California Board of Landscape Architects. Any questions concerning a Landscape Architect may be referred to the Board at: Board of Landscape Architects 1021 0 Street, Room A151 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 (916) 445 -4954 page 3 of':3 SARATOGA GA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ca ale AGENDA ITEM 1 MEETING DATE: September 2, 1992 ITY MGR. APPROVAL Ld t e Engineering ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Quito Road Bridge Replacements Capital Project No. 905: Award of Construction Contract and Approval of Amendment to Interagency Cooperative Agreement Recommended Action: 1. Declare Serrano Cone, Inc. of San Ramon to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Authorize staff to execute the attached construction contract with Serrano Cone, Inc. for $503,493. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the con- tract up to $50,000. 4. Approve the attached amendment to the interagency cooperative agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the amendment. Discussion: Sealed bids for the Quito Road Bridge Replacements at Austin Way and Bicknell Road, Capital Project No. 905, were opened on August 19. Seven contractors submitted bids on the project and a summary of the bids is attached. Serrano and Cone, Inc. of San Ramon submitted the low bid of $503,493 which is within 1.5% of the Engineer's Estimate of $496,371. Staff has carefully checked the low bid and determined that it is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for the project dated July 22. Consequently, it is recommended that the Council declare Serrano and Cone, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award the attached construction contract to Serrano and Cone, Inc. for $503,493. Additionally, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $50,000. In addition to the above actions, it is also recommended that the Council approve the attached amendment to the interagency cooperative agreement for the project which the Council voted to extend on July 1. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has requested the amending language be added to the extension of the ageement to more clearly define maintenance responsibilities for the new bridges after they are built. The amending language has been drafted by the City Attorney and is simultaneously receiving approvals from both the Water District and the City of Monte Sereno. Fiscal Impacts; The adopted FY 92 -93 budget contains sufficient funds in Capital Project No. 905, Account No. 4510 to cover the base contract amount plus the recommended change order authority. The project is also being funded through the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR) program which reimburses 80% of the project costs. The remaining 20% local match is being split equally between the two cities and the Water District. Thus, the City of Saratoga's share of the base contract amount is $33,566. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Construction Contract. 3. Amendment to Cooperative Agreement. Mption Vote: rsmrzraavrz.zr'� WM ILIE IA 77p B/d OPEN /NG w r}TI.•`ei FfJ UN/T I 9 Ci!Fia LallINFiU, 13V:M EgIVA5=1112E2 L1°.+p Sewn MIIIIMMIL EN CI T Y OF SARI TOGA !j j j I I 1 fa.: ":4Ar PEA 4 1 O Pka/ECT "Ls- 5322(001 O•oTE: A!(�LI 2 WEE R /NG �Ei"AftTME 7 00 Pm O6JCR /P /OK IF r i t 0.• yJ •s 010 SUM MAR Y 2 ,29:"',10 �.rr �e_ NOUNT riEgKEV;"•71 WM L.S. r.neeC.ntlns er ;Nil AMOi/NL. W, H. fiver/ I el ,,a. v. 4MOf1NT George8,anch, .OMO!/NT ,/one ��w DEA L. S. Brat g 7 P /earar/anE" FM A/ Nr A/itrsas W 1 L.S. Rx'lfc ...o...r LanCopu?o MI r I E LIA [F.i Co. 4.1a(/KT ^_•l['- 20Gb00 32000.00 rim 1 L. 5. 3000.-- 2000.00 0 000. 0Mil �iMMe.:_® 4 S /.00.00® ,000,00 28.00000 .c. S, /a0 9 /55.00® /040(40 25.72400 6 coo. /7 350.00 /GOAI'JI22 /400 .00 ax'••• 30••• 000100 20,0.x'.00 -'%r;® %7 7 35,7/0.00 oGt9.03 500.00 /a••i 00 sO 00 rr •r i •_.7 IL LE r Ai rr.Q ry �i.r 9.0e mica..• 3B 29 /so 259- -27.3-. r. 1 c.J t. S Q� TES [Md 30 /0 40- 'M d 570.00 7 200.00 70- r /50 /3 500 W� �f� /00 30• 600.00 r r /00 F��� -:..r. /2 AAQ7 0 00 00 /58 CRAW 6•. -.09 2 OZ DO 00 i ce /50` Q�L W113 5700.•. 00 i 2. 70.00 -ir. rr7 ®�'r'..® /AO ®�r" r i*� r eOZI �TST: 3 30010.00 72n cvar Flo, 'n. ll a rt i -r r6 a l- VoCXn r -(c!! one. ,.p.Sar.;orre,_,° c c r .S 4 05 050.00 Le ..r J.r. ..9.1 L'.:]i'� -1 r %:•.1.7%7 5000.00 3750.00 .509.00 500.00 500,00 50000. 2, 007. a 1 •.00 3 750.00 750.00 IlEnla F�F L-- i c. F��7/1; Fm C_ r•I y 7• WM z52922 lima ima KM FAII r"� i 5470.01 /Soe 00 504. -r 00 OOF t. r i 1.S �1F Ma Q� 1 r �F. F>� Mill n� I7J f 650.00 675.00 L.S. UjEAM1 �r,� 01M1 rim Mall �3� m'0. 33 �ki VIM •...00 ter Fail Fly ISgi EMI F�� r ;9 as F; r �7'• 2000.27 Ina ®l �wDro��. �j� Ei� I r� 1 Mil rz L'7E F.�adE.'' End �r ��llX_%�i_i MS MUM 2,000.00 1.5. M EN Q� fl rf_ 46 46' ;EPA ;EPA i •r Mil rrAbFiit ms.�r•.�•�.•� F.�I'rJf.Ll r 1%�iE W' �L �1 3507.00 3 9 75. 00 500.00 4 r. 00 00.00 4.. ♦i r 252•!.00 25 2 00 C5000.00 aZ (F� /6, 7. /8. 20, 21. e a 07 13S1nar1._ld0. lcr 5f f Re we Ca r Brid e v0. 0 w0 XCOVO /orI S t ur XC.v arl: �'1 Sfr .,cfua Exceed:hew(y�J ac um/ 1311"?�)I ac./ .reAavc Noe/ J 5 RV. oo /000. •OO. 010.00 i r. •�•�7�'- r... 2500.00 z 000.07 SQ27 c/o 2 250.00 9 00 00 575_ 00 250 •7f_.7 /200.00 i j AT =•7 •7•waf ..-•.0 /5000.05 2 0 2 n Ii�^r, Z z s 0 z, 70t9A 5 4 0 540 r p /75.. :ZOO 850. 304 00 7• -00 00.00 /6'9 5.0 0 S, 910.00 3 5 r�M�?'1 00 4550.60 500.0c S�� 50.00 0. 40 0.0... 1� zi 240.00 /9 000.00 /600.00 4600.00 fl .00 74040.00 4 0 30'• 0O 1. •r0% OLIN 5- 0 •.0 FA '012 60 te s 1 29 500 _r •r% '3X.:., 4000 }...f.+: %y /30:X0..0• i 17,.79_ Road a ME MI 40w- L 5 4 /20 700 2 50- 303 Ow 50 Z 20 .50 5o9 /50 050.00 �E. JI� 7 /x».ao CL i:i rJ 0 0.. 000. ss�:ti F7�ts r tj..0-m..41 2 9107_GY� 875.00 i r r r za9.63 4" 00 Z?L3 '11111ET=1 l'• 1 r" 7 I'L- 9J0,06 r' o 0 0 00 2 376.00 2 24. 25. s .4 t.- t -a e €..,k1, J- t e I r' Coale AMMO 6i:np! 6' is 'n z 0' /B "O'o. CWON 'i .n ss ��•a ere ,nor .....2 fe <.2, r -id: Erect .Yet es n r /2 "Neo•reneS in o LZEMI p r ran 40 3. 40- L.F. 50 r Inn. WTI Ilr Mil MI Mel Mel PM M M M a 3000.00 :l r r�r. .i ri 38 500. a acn 22 rt r i•r r 2,380.00 40' 5.00 700.00 �2i• ate' 6 n_! oo 7 50. 7• 225 00 22 67. so 0 5 770 20 5550.00 0 .00 �%�r .7 •i 5 r 26. 7 29. 30 �A Sacke- 40 4/. 42. D 5000 00 45' 200Q09 O: r' �.C':•.T•.'•] x� ►.�J 000. I��- �i{%%:C:] E 0f0'] 54 0.00 950.00 r r r r_. 33 07 .00 •r S62.A0 �F�� F25L/J tklTl -!iii: rill. J ���;jr �TI'•� 'IEEE 'a►''] 0.P 5,5 44.00 III ON: 0 SOO.00 yfi!i1• 72 o RZ!'A� E3 r� '509.• r r B860. •O .r INTM...'nrl, 00.00 900.00 !�'Z -1 5+� %T. r -�i i] _i_)bf• 17 "Corr�ar. sire/ 'pe /0.e..• J 46" g: f. CaaTe f5P 6.'09" y:-� i r moo 00 _,.,00 /1 CJ 45 rr 5450.00 5 4400 I�• •I. •%7 00 L] 376.00 201.0 .1t �JL -vm 4 4 -0.40 1: 50'x.00 SM.00 750 Dr. /n ri/i i r- a uLLL21� k s o t ec to (jiy� o 98 /200.00 r :][r�.� �i� ri rJ r 5 000 56 700.00 .rr i Lb,c.07.- Pro c/.'- 5'.0100. A0 p1 8eon Gyar R-a'/ a lar T on a. 3450 5 5400 �IET �r• �L_•� ®�Y1'] COnc. 2rr'ar Tpe 2SN.d C e -nc Or r,o 2 Ali S r �L 7- te, ^o /Sech'or/ .•M "1 r 88.00 792 /8 r r WWI 0 '/r r 0 'c E iT J�jffr�QT� s 0 J 7 1 i I0. B /0.07 /O. Q7 I� r Ila..j�1J F 3i it O✓ en r vLTZ7 7 72'A� �l 1 r MIN miI ZOO. mai mil me um I= MN MI TOTA AMOUNT 0 4 9 /a 496, 37/ 0 503, 532,202 0 548, 655" 549 5/2 555,555 574000 067;878 AGREEMENT THE CITY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter referred to as "City" and SERRANO CONE, INC., 2092 Omega Road, Suite F, San Ramon, California 94583 hereinafter referred to as "Contractor for the consideration hereinafter stated, here by agree as follows: 1. The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, equipment, and tools to replace the two bridges described below within one hundred twenty (120) working days beginning one (1) calendar day after the NOTICE TO PROCEED, the following work: QUITO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS NORTH OF AUSTIN WAY AND SOUTH OF BICKNELL ROAD AT SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK in strict accordance with the Plans, Contract Documents and Specifications made herefor by the City Engineer of Saratoga, which Plans, Documents and Specifications are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement a of herein fully set forth. 2. The City shall pay to Contractor, as full consideration for the faithful performance by Contractor of the aforementioned work, the sum of Five Hundred Three= Tho Four Hundred Ninety Three dollars No Cents computed in accordance with Contractor's accepted proposal dated August 19„1992, in the manner set forth in Section 9 entitled "Measurement and Payment" of the StandaW'Specifications, which provisions and accepted proposal are incorporated herein by reference thereto as if therein fully set forth. 3. All of the work to be done shall be done under the direction and supervision of and to the approval of the City or its authorized representative, and the work shall be done in the best workmanlike manner, conforming strictly to the provisions of the plans, and contractor documents and specifications made therefor. 4. In the performance of this Agreement, eight (8) hours shall be the maximum hours of labor on any calendar day, and the minimum wages or compensation for persons performing labor in the execution of this agreement shall be the prevailing scale of wages as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations for a particular work or craft. a. Pursuant to the provision of California Labor Code, Sections 1770 et seq., the contractor and any subcontractor under him shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773.2, the contractor is hereby advised that copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages and a general prevailing rate for holidays, Saturdays and Sundays and overtime work in the locality in which the work is to be performed for each craft, classification, or type of workman required to execute the contract, are on file in the office of the City clerk, which copies shall be made available to any interested party on request. The contractor shall post a copy of said prevailing rate of per diem wages at each job site. 69 b. The contractor shall comply with the provisions of Section 1775 of the California Labor Code and shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit Twenty Five Dollars ($25.00) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract. c. The contractor and any subcontractors shall keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee needed to execute the contact. the said records shall be kept open at all reasonable hours for inspection by the City and the State Division of Labor Law Enforcement. The contractor and any subcontractors shall comply with all other requirements of Section 1776 and 1812 of the California Labor Code; and the contractor and any subcontractors shall not split or separate the work required under the contract into smaller work orders or projects for the purpose of evading the applicable provisions of Labor Code Section 1771. d. The contractor and any subcontractors shall, when they employ any person in any apprenticeable craft or trade, apply to the joint apprenticeship committee administering the apprenticeship standards of the craft or trade in the area of the construction site for a certificate approving the contractor or subcontractor under the apprenticeship standards for the employment and training of apprentices in the area or industry affected; and shall comply with all other requirements of Section 1777.5 of the California Labor Code. The responsibility of compliance with California Labor Code Section 1777.5 during the performance of this contract rests with the contractor. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.7, in the event the contractor willfully fails to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1777.5, the contractor shall be denied the right to bid on any public works contract for one year from the date noncompliance is determined and be assessed civil penalties. e. In accordance with the provisions of Article 5, Chapter 1, Part 7 Division 2 (commencing with Section 1860), and Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 4 (commencing with Section 3700) of the California Labor Code, the contractor is required to secure the payment of compensation to his employees and for that purpose obtain and keep in effect adequate worker's compensation insurance. If the contractor, in the sole discretion of the City satisfies the City of the responsibility and capacity under the applicable workers' compensation laws, if any, to act as self- insurer, he may so act, and in such case, the insurance required by this paragraph need not be provided. The contractor is advised of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract. Before the agreement between the City and the Contractor is entered into, the contractor shall submit written evidence that he and any subcontractors have obtained for the period of the contract full worker's compensation insurance coverage for all persons whom they employ in carrying out the 70 work under this contract. This insurance shall be in accordance with the requirements of the most current and applicable state workers' compensation insurance laws. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1861 of the California Labor Code, the contractor shall, prior to performing the work of the contract, sign and file with the City the following certification: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract f. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1727 of the Labor Code, the City, before making payment to the contractor of money due under a contract for public works, shall withhold and retain therefrom all amounts which have been forfeited pursuant to any stipulation in the contract, and the terms of Chapter 1, Part 7, Division 2 of the California Labor Code (commencing with Section 1720). But no sum shall be withheld, retained or forfeited, except from the final payment, without a full investigation by either the Division of Labor Law Enforcement or by the City. 5. It is hereby agreed by the parties to the Agreement that in case all work called for under the Agreement is not finished or completed on or before the time set forth in this Agreement, damage will be sustained by the City, and that it is and will be impracticable and extremely difficult to ascertain and determine the actual damage which the City will sustain in the event of and by reason of such delay; it is therefor agreed the Contractor will pay to the City of sum calculated at the rate of five hundred dollars,$500 per day as liquidated damages for each and every working day's delay in finishing the work in excess of the number of working days prescribed, and the contractor agrees to pay said liquidated damages as herein provided, and in case the same are not paid, agrees that the City may deduct the amount thereof from any monies due or that may become due under this Agreement. It is further agreed that in case the work called for under this Agreement is not completed in all of its parts and requirements within the number of working days specified, the City shall have the right to increase the number of working days or not, as may seem best to serve the interest of the City; and if it is decided to increase the said number of working days, the City shall further have the right to charge to the Contractor, and deduct from the final payment for the work, all or any part, as the City may deem proper, of the actual cost of engineering, inspection, superintendents, and other overhead expenses of the City which are directly chargeable to this Agreement, except that the cost of final surveys and the preparation of the final estimate shall not be included in such charges to be paid by Contractor. In the event the Contractor, for any reason, shall fail to perform the work herein specified, within the time herein required, to the satisfaction of the Engineer, the City may, in lieu of any other if its rights authorized in this Agreement or in the Specifications for this work, deduct from payments or credits due the contractor Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) per day as liquidated damages for each calendar day beyond the date herein provided for the completion of such work, that the work does not meet the satisfaction of the Engineer. 71 7. Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless City, its council, officers, agents and employees of and from any and all claims, suits or actions of ever name, kind and description which may be brought against its council, officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of any person or damage suffered or sustained by any person or corporation caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, any act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of Contractor, his officers, agents or employees in the performance of any work required of the Contractor by this agreement. The duty of Contractor to indemnify and save harmless, as set forth herein, shall include a duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to require Contractor to indemnify City, its council officer, agents and employees against any responsibility of liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code. 8. Contractor, at his sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect throughout the entire term of this Agreement insurance coverage as approved by the City Attorney. Concurrently with the execution of the Agreement provided for herein, Contractor shall furnish City with a certificate or certificates, evidencing issuance of all insurance mentioned herein, and copies of the policy declaration or information page, which certificates and copies of the policies shall be deposited with the City Clerk, each such policy of insurance shall bear the following endorsement; a. Endorsement precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of 30 days after City shall have received written Notification by Registered Mail from the insurance carrier; b. A standard cross liability endorsement; c. An endorsement naming the City of Saratoga, its Councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and employees as additional insureds; d. An endorsement stating that the insurance afforded thereby to City, its officers, agents and employees shall be primary' insurance to the full limits of its liability of the policy, and that if City or its officers and employees have other insurance against a loss covered by such a policy, such other insurance shall be excess insurance only. In the event of the breach of any provision of this paragraph, or in the event of any notices received which indicates any required insurance coverage will be diminished or cancelled, City, at its option, may, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, immediately declare a material breach of this Agreement and suspend all further work pursuant to this Agreement. 9. The Contractor shall provide, on the execution of this Agreement, a good and sufficient corporate surety bond in the penal sum of one hundred percent (100 of amount bid, which bond shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of all work required to be performed by the Contractor under this Agreement. Said bond shall be liable for any and all penalties and obligations which may be incurred by Contractor under this Agreement. 72 10. In addition to the bond required under paragraph 9 hereof, Contractor shall furnish a good and sufficient corporate surety bond in the penal sum of one hundred percent (100 of amount bid, which bond shall conform strictly with the provisions of Chapter 7, Title 15, Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code of the State of California, and all amendments thereto. 11. The Contractor may substitute securities for the amounts retained by the City to ensure performance of the contract in accordance with the provisions of Section 4590 of the Government Code. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this day of ,19 ATTEST: City Clerk 73 CITY OF SARATOGA A Municipal Corporation By City Manager CONTRACTOR By By (Title) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Oi AGENDA ITEM 1 MEETING DATE: September 2, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: 1992 Street Maintenance Program Award of Construction Contract CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended, Action: 1. Declare Valley Slurry Seal Co. of West Sacramento to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Authorize staff to execute the attached construction contract with Valley Slurry Seal for $61,611.72. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $9000. Discussion: Sealed bids for the 1992 Street Maintenance Program (slurry seals) were opened on Wednesday afternoon. Two contractors submitted bids for the work and a summary of the bids is attached. Valley Slurry Seal Co. of West Sacramento submitted the low bid of $61,611.72 which is slightly over 6% less of the Engineer's Estimate of $65,684. Staff has carefully checked the low bid and determined that it is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for the project dated August 4. Consequently, it is recommended that the Council declare Valley Slurry Seal Co. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award the attached construction contract to Valley Slurry Seal Co. in the amount of $61,611.72 for the work. Fiscal Impacts: The adopted FY 92 -93 budget contains sufficient funds in Program #31 Account No. 4530 to cover the base contract amount plus any changes to the contract up to $9,000. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Construction Contract. Motion Vote: CITY OF SARATOGA STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PROGRAM: SLURRY SEAL 1992 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE VALLEY SLURRY SEAL CO. AMERICAN ASPHALT TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. SLURRY SEAL 131,470 SY $0.45 $59,161.30 $0.37 $48,643.90 50.38 876,252.60 2. PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPES-STATE DETAIL NO. 22 3,237 LF $0.60 $1,942.20 50.86 52,783.82 $0.68 $2,201.16 3. PAINT CROSS WALKS 2 EA 5100.00 5200.00 $270.00 $540.00 583.00 5166.00 4. PAINT STOP BARS 32 EA 525.00 5800.00 543.00 51,376.00 522.00 5704.00 5. PAINT "AHEAD" 3 EA 560.00 5180.00 586.00 5258.00 $110.00 5330.00 6. PAINT "STOP" 35 EA $40.00 $1,400.00 $86.00 $3,010.00 546.50 51,627.50 7. TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $2,000.00 55,000.00 $2,800.00 =mm ==m =am GRAND TOTAL $65,683.70 GRAND TOTAL 561,611.72 GRAND TOTAL $84,081.26 CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 1992 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM THIS CONTRACT, made this 2nd day of September, 1992 by and be- tween the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter called the City, and VALLEY SLURRY SEAL CO. hereinafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the City has caused to be prepared in the manner pre- scribed by law, plans, specifications and other contract docu- ments, for the work herein described and shown and has approved and adopted these contract documents, specifications and plans and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law, a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10 of the amount bid for the construction of all of the proposed work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a contract for all of the work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE: That the Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction; shall furnish all materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever nature necessary to construct all of the improvements for the City of Saratoga in conformity with the plans, specifications and other contract documents and according to such instructions as may be given by the Saratoga City Engineer or his authorized agent. 15 ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications "Changes and Extra Work the City shall pay the Contractor according to the prices stated in the bid proposal submitted by the Contractor, which shall include all applicable taxes, for complete performance of the work. The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to complete the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work or from action of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruc- tion or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabili- ties and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other ex- penses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for well and faithfully performing and completing the work within the time frame specified in the Notice to Proceed, all according to the contract plans and specifications, the details and instruc- tions, and the requirements of the City. ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT: That the complete contract document consists of the following: 1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 2. Bid Proposal 3. Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty 4. Contract for Public Works Construction 5. Hold Harmless Clause 16 6. Performance Bond 7. Labor and Material Bond 8. Plans 9. Specifications 10. Insurance Certificates In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of the contract, this Contract shall be binding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year hereinabove written. AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL: CITY OF SARATOGA: Date ATTEST: CONTRACTOR: The foregoing Contract is approved as to form this day of 19 City Clerk City Attorney 17 By Title License No. Tax ID or SSN SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 2, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: En EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Motion Vote: SUBJECT: 1992 Pavement Management Program Award of Construction Contract Recommended Action: 1. Declare O'Grady Paving, Inc. of Mt. View to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Authorize staff to execute the attached construction con- tract with O'Grady Paving for $730,442.85. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $50,000. Discussion: Sealed bids for the 1992 Payment Management Program (pavement overlays) were opened on Wednesday afternoon. Five contractors, submitted bids for the project and a summary of the bids is attached. O'Grady Paving, Inc. of Mt. View submitted the lowest bid of $730,442.85 which is less than 1% above the Engineer's Estimate of $724,030. Staff has carefully checked the low bid and has determined that it is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for the project dated August 4. Consequently, it is recommended that the Council declare O'Grady Paving to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award the attached construction contract to O'Grady Paving in the amount of $730,442.85 for the work. Fiscal Impacts; The adopted FY 92 -93 budget contains sufficient funds in Program #31, Account No 4530 to cover the base contract amount plus any changes to the contract up to $50,000. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Contract. PROGRAM: AC OVERLAY 1992 CITY OF SARATOGA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ITEM 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE GRAND TOTAL S724,029.90 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. RGW CONSTRUCTION PAVEK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OLIVER DE SILVA, INC. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. 1 3/4" COMPACTED AC OVERLAY 12,935 TON 531.00 8400,985.00 532.50 8420, 387.50 $31.00 5400,995.00 134.00 5439,790.00 $36.74 5475,231.90 544.00 5569,140.00 2. 2" COMPACTED AC OVERLAY 1,635 TON 131.00 550,685.00 534.30 S56, 080.50 540.00 565 ,400.00 $37.00 $60,495.00 $45.00 573,575.00 545.00 573,575.00 3. PAVEMENT FABRIC 110,099 SY $0.90 S99, 089.10 $0.75 582,574.25 80.75 $82,574.25 50.80 $88, 079.20 50.76 583,675.24 50.60 566,059.40 4. REPAIR FAILED STREET SECTION 1,648 SF 82.50 $4,120.00 53.00 84,944.00 85.00 58,240.00 56.00 $9,888.00 85.00 $8,240.00 55.00 $8,240.00 5. WEDGE CUT 66,135 LF S1.00 566,135.00 51.15 576,055.25 51.15 576,055.25 81.25 582,668.75 51.25 582,668.75 81.20 879,362.00 6. ADJUST MANHOLE 176 EA 8250.00 544,000.00 8225.00 $39, 600.00 1200.00 535,200.00 8200.00 535, 200.00 8200.00 535,200.00 5250.00 544,000.00 7. ADJUST VALVES 8 MONUMENTS 234 EA 1200.00 546,800.00 5135.00 531,590.00 8175.00 540,950.00 5160.00 537,440.00 8175.00 8440,950.00. *225.00 $52,650.00 8. PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE -STATE DETAIL N0. 3 2,893 LF S0.40 51,157.20 50.45 81, 301.85 $0.30 5867.90 50.30 *867.90 80.30 1867.90 *0.30 *867.90 9. PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE -STATE DETAIL N0. 16 414 LF S0.60 8248.40 50.85 5351.90 10.50 8207.00 $0.45 8186.30 10.45 5186.30 80.45 1186.30 10. PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE -STATE DETAIL N0. 22 3,759 LF 80.60 82,255.40 51.00 $3,759.00 50.50 81,879.50 *0.50 81,879.50 10.50 *1,879.50 50.50 51,879.50 11. PAINT 4" 00110 WHITE TRAFFIC STRIPE 262 LF 10.40 5104.80 80.30 578.60 $0.40 8104.80 10.40 1104.80 $0.40 1104.80 10,40 8104.80 12. PAINT CROSS WALKS 4 EA 5100.00 5400.00 8150.00 1600.00 5100.00 5400.00 8100.00 5400.00 1100.00 5400.00 5100.00 5400.00 13. PAINT STOP BARS 20 EA $25.00 8500.00 550.00 81,000.00 535.00 5700.00 *35.00 8700.00 $35.00 $700.00 535.00 5700.00 14. PAINT RAR STOP BARS 1 SET 550.00 550.00 5150.00 $150.00 870.00 170.00 875.00 575.00 *70.00 170.00 570.00 570.00 15. TYPE D PAVEMENT MARKERS 363 EA 55.00 51,815.00 85.00 81,815.00 13.00 81,089.00 83.00 51,089.00 *3.00 51,089.00 53.00 81,089.00 16. TYPE H PAVEMENT MARKERS 30 EA 55.00 5150.00 85.00 5150.00 53.00 890.00 15.00 5150.00 13.00 890.00 83.00 190.00 17. BLUE MARKERS 55 EA 85.00 5275.00 820.00 *1,100.00 820.00 51,100.00 $30.00 *1,650.00 820.00 *1,100.00 520.00 51,100.00 18. PAINT "AHEAD" 4 EA 560.00 5240.00 840.00 *160.00 870.00 8280.00 $70.00 8280.00 870.00 8280.00 870.00 1280.00 19. PAINT STOP" 22 EA 140.00 8880.00 530.00 5660.00 545.00 1990.00 850.00 $1,100.00 845.00 8990.00 *45.00 5990.00 20. PAINT "98*" 1 EA 8140.00 1140.00 185.00 585.00 180.00 880.00 180.00 580.00 *80.00 180.00 180.00 $80.00 21. TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 84,000.00 58,000.00 845,017.00 *27,000,00 *1,000.00 512,989.00 GRAND TOTAL 5730,442.85 (RAID TOTAL 1762,279.70 GRAND TOTAL 5789,123.45 GRAND TOTAL 5808,378.39 GRAND TOTAL 1913,852.90 b CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 1992 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THIS CONTRACT, made this 2nd day of September, 1992 by and be- tween the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter called the City, and O'GRADY PAVING, INC. hereinafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the City has caused to be prepared in the manner pre- scribed by law, plans, specifications and other contract docu- ments, for the work herein described and shown and has approved and adopted these contract documents, specifications and plans and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law, a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (16 of the amount bid for the construction of all of the proposed work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a contract for all of the work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE: That the Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction; shall furnish all materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever nature necessary to construct all of the improvements for the City of Saratoga in conformity with the plans, specifications and other contract documents and according to such instructions as may be given by the Saratoga City Engineer or his authorized agent. 16 ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications "Changes and Extra Work the City shall pay the Contractor according to the prices stated in the bid proposal submitted by the Contractor, which shall include all applicable taxes, for complete performance of the work. The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to complete the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work or from action of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruc- tion or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabili- ties and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other ex- penses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for well and faithfully performing and completing the work within the time frame specified in the Notice to Proceed, all according to the contract plans and specifications, the details and instruc- tions, and the requirements of the City. ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT: That the complete contract document consists of the following: 1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 2. Bid Proposal 3. Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty 4. Contract for Public Works Construction 5. Hold Harmless Clause In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of the contract, this Contract shall be binding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year hereinabove written. 6. Performance Bond 7. Labor and Material Bond 8. Plans 9. Specifications 10. Insurance Certificates AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL: CITY OF SARATOGA: Date ATTEST: CONTRACTOR: 19 City Clerk The foregoing Contract is approved as to form this day of City Attorney 17 By Title License No. Tax ID or SSN SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. c a a a D MEETING DATE: Sept. 2, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM 4z Recommended Motion: CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Renewal of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Adopt resolution extending the existing DBE Program for an additional year from October 1, 1992, through September 30, 1993. Report Summary: On April 19, 1989, the City adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in order to satisfy one of the technical requirements for receipt of federal funds for reconstruction of the bridges on Quito Road. The Program is intended to facilitate the opportunity for minority and female owned businesses to submit bids and receive awards of contracts on federally funded projects. The Program is required to run during the same period as the federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. The expiration date of the DBE Program has already been extended to September 30, 1992, and a further extension is necessary to September 30, 1993. No changes to the Program itself are being made. It is anticipated the City will continue to renew this program to retain eligibility to receive federal funds. The enactment of the ISTEA Program, which is expected to fund the Highway 85 Median Project between Saratoga Village and Saratoga High School, the grant funds for the Pierce Road Bridge replacement, and the grant for the replacement of the two northerly bridges on Quito Road will require continuation of the Program for the foreseeable future. Fiscal Impacts: Adds nominal costs to the bid, award and contract administration work for the project. Loss of grant funds for the above mentioned projects would exceed $1.5 million if the program is not continued. Attachments: Proposed resolution with attached DBE Program. Motion and Vote: