The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-06-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA{& ARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z ?jam% AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works SUBJECT: Quarry Creek Restoration, Capital Project No. 9109 - Approval of Consulting Services Agreement Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the attached proposal from H.T. Harvey & Associates for consulting services on the project and authorize staff to execute a standard Professional Services Agreement with this firm in the amount of $23,455. Report Summary: Over the past several years, staff has been negotiating with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game to develop an acceptable mitigation plan for the Quarry Creek /Quarry Road repair project. During this time, the primary obstacle to developing a plan has been the Army Corps' insistence that on -site replacement of lost wetland habitat be a part of the mitigation plan. The City has repeatedly opposed this requirement, at the advice of its consultants who contend that creation of wetlands on the surface of the buttress fill will tend to weaken the buttress and result in more severe problems over time. Instead, it has been the City's position that appropriate on -site mitigation should entail creation of woodland,, rather than wetland, habitat. Recently, staff has iproposed a compromise solution to the Corps which would involve mitigating the project site with woodland habitat while mitigating for the lost wetland habitat at a suitable off -site location. In retrospect, this probably should have been the mitigation scheme for the project all along as it represents a method commonly accepted by the Corps for mitigating lost wetland habitat (Route 85 for example). Staff, working with its consultants, H.T. Harvey and Associates, has identified a very promising location on the campus of West Valley College to create what appears could be valuable wetland habitat as replacement habitat for the Quarry Creek site. The proposed restoration area is a narrow knoll between two converging creeks just north of the tennis courts and east of the baseball field. Preliminary reactions from the Corps and the Dep't. of Fish and Game suggest that a wetland restoration project in this area could more than compensate for the lost wetland habitat in Quarry Creek. Furthermore, several college officials with whom I have met to discuss the potential project have indicated their support for it as well. The project would be carried out by the City with the joint cooperation of the College and would then be turned over to the College for long term monitoring and management of the site. Attached is a proposal from H.T. Harvey and Assoc. to develop both the wetland and woodland restoration projects. The total cost to complete the design of both projects in accordance with the identified scope of work is $23,455. Also attached is a budget for the entire project which includes cost estimates for the remaining work to be done at the Quarry Creek site as well as for completion of drainage improvements and landscaping. If the Council is supportive of this concept, all of the work can be completed by the end of the year and the Quarry Creek project can be brought to a successful conclusion once and for all. Fiscal Impacts: The Quarry Creek project is funded through Capital Project No. 9109 in the adopted FY 93 -94 budget. Funding for the project is via the Quarry Creek Trust Account, Fund 68, which has a current balance of $66,850. Sufficient funds exist therefor to complete the project as proposed. Follow Up Actions: Staff will execute a standard Professional Services Agreement with H.T. Harvey and Associates for $23,455 and will then authorize them to proceed with their work. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The proposal will not be accepted and staff will await further instructions from the Council. August 24, 1993 HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS Mr. Larry Perlin, Director Dept. of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Quarry Creek Restoration Proposal Dear Mr. Perlin, Attached you will please find our revised proposal for designing and supervising restoration on the Quarry Creek buttress surface and at the West Valley College site. We have pre- pared this proposal based on taking a very low tech, low cost approach to conducting the restoration and we feel that the cost will be very reasonable compared to most restoration projects. The cost estimate appended to the proposal only covers our labor cost. Addi- tional costs would be incurred for materials (est. $3- 5,000), student labor from the College unless they work as volunteers (which I consider likely), and City work crews and equip- ment operation costs. We hope that our proposal meets the your needs and we look forward to working with the City on this project. Please call me if you have any questions or suggestions. Sincerely, &A Dan Step ns 906 ELIZABETH STREET - P.O. Box 1180 , ALVISO, CA 95002 - 408. 263 -1814 FAX. 408- 263.3823 HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS WEST VALLEY COLLEGE SITE- QUARRY CREEK RIPARIAN RESTORATION PLAN PROPOSAL 8/24/93 H. T. Harvey and Associates proposes to provide ecological consulting services to the City of Saratoga by preparing an off -site (West Valley College) riparian restoration plan and a buttress restoration plan for the Quarry Creek project. This would entail the preparation of conceptual and final revegetation plans, to be .coordinated with the City, West Valley College, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Attached is a cost estimate which is valid for a period of 60 days from the time of submittal. All charges will be billed on a time and charges, not -to- exceed basis. The tasks associated with this proposal are as follows: TASK 1. DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLANS Quarry Creek Buttress Surface Restoration A brief narrative will be- prepared describing the natural restoration occuring.and the potential (if required) for enhancing that restoration with a low -tech approach to establish- ing native shrubs and trees on the buttress surface. This document will describe planting methods, maintenance requirements and monitoring criteria. Off-Site Restoration A potential mitigation site has already been ideZfd ' n the W est Valley Campus. Dan Stephens of Harvey and Associates met with Mr. Rose (West Valley College Dept. of Biology) who indicated that the College might allow the site to be used for riparian mitiga- tion. The site appears to, be approximately 1.5 acres in size, which should be adequate to mitigate Quarry Creek riparian impacts (0.6 acres) at a 2:1 ratio. It is assumed that the CDFG will accept a 2:1 mitigation ratio since the surface of the Quarry Creek buttress is 906 ELIZABETH STREET - F.O. BOX 7180 • ALVISO, CA 95002 • 408 - 263 -1814 FAX: 408- 263.3823 currently being recolonized by native vegetation, and as such presents some mitigation value. It is proposed that Harvey and Associates prepare a very brief conceptual plan for the West Valley College mitigation site containing a description of the overall project, the proposed revegetation /grading component, and a sketch of the site. This concept plan will then be submitted to the City and the College for review and comment. If it is considered acceptable then we will proceed to Task 2. TASK 2. SITE VISIT A site visit will be scheduled with the City of Saratoga and the Department of Fish and Game to the Quarry Creek site and the West Valley College mitigation site to discuss our proposed mitigation approach. If Fish and Game concurs then the design will proceed as described in Task 3. TASK 3. DEVELOP FINAL REVEGETATION PLAN Final restoration plans will be developed for the buttress surface and the West Valley College site that outline the revegetation approach, the layout for plantings, the appro- priate species to be installed, the installation techniques, a . brief vegetation monitoring plan, maintenance recommendations, a detailed cost estimate and other information as needed. It is intended that the restoration be designed as a practical, low -cost low -tech project. The development of the plans will be coordinated with the City, the College (for the off -site plan) and will be composed in the format that has typically been accepted in the past by the California Department of Fish and Game. It is assumed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be involved in an informal review of the revegetation plans. It is anticipated that the West Valley College site will be graded by City work crews, plant- ed by College students, City work crews or a landscape contractor and that all implementa- tion will be supervised by Harvey and Associates. Therefore a detailed bid package and formal landscape plans will not be required. Grading will be field directed by H. T. Harvey and Associates, therefore a standard grading plan will not be prepared. H. T. HARVEY & ASS(9CIATES It is anticipated that the buttress surface will be planted and maintained by City work crews. TASK 4. CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION Harvey and Associates will direct work crews in the collection of plant materials, site grading and preparation, plant installation, and other work associated with the restoration project. TASK 5. GENERAL PROJECT COORDINATION Harvey and Associates will coordinate all project activites with the City, the College, and the Department of Fish and Garne. Fairly extensive coordination will be required with the College, relating to the use of student workers, site access and construction scheduling, site maintenance and monitoring, etc. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES to O BUDGET ESTIMATE QUARRY CREEK BUTTRESS REVEGETATION AND WEST VALLEY COLLEGE. RIPARIAN MITIGATION 8/24M- 1. TASKS/STAFF TIME support staff Project Asst. TASKS Principal ManaRer Reveg. �ConceptuA 1 16 0 -;j—ASK I. Restoration Plan 0 4 0 TASK 2. Site Visit 4 — 4 24 48 TASK I Final Restoration Plans ITASK 4 -16 80 4. Construction Supervision 4 24 4 Genera] TASASK 5. project Coordination 17 104 132 H. S-TAFFTIMF. COST EMMATE R. TIME Hours u_ Rate Amount 17 25.00 125-00 212�5 iri�CiTall Ronald Duke 104 95.00 9880 Project Man ger. Dan Stephens 112 65.00 8580 ASSL RevegetatiOn Specialist. Patrick Reynolds 44 50.00 2200 -Graphics, Paul Brown 4 45.00 ISO support Staff Subtotal:::::: S .,22965 M. D1RECTEXMNb1!,b: 100 DircctFxpenses rnailin S.c0&s,ctc--) — — — 145 500 @$0.29tmi. 45 Service fee (10%) W 490 S. Subtotal .23455 V. TOTAL PROJECT COSl - is support staff 8 1 2090 0 36 0 3 W 7835 0 0— 9120 0 0 3040 44 4 22965 Quarry Creek Restoration Capital Project No. 9109 Proposed Project Budget 1. Design of wetland and woodland mitigations (Consulting agreement with H.T. Harvey Assoc.) - $23,455 2. Installation of buttress plantings (Outside construction contract) - $ 7,500 3. Restore wetlands at West Valley College site (Combination of outside construction contract and student labor). - $15,000 4. Complete buttress drainage improvements (Outside construction contract) - $14,000 5. Misc. staff work, project administration, etc. - $ 1,500 TOTAL PROJECT COST $61,455 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 ?J (o c� AGENDA ITEM 16 MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Special Event Permit Request for October 30, 1993, Village Halloween Costume Walk Recommended Motions Conditionally approve the Costume Walk. on Sunday, October 30, 1993, authorizing the Public Services Assistant to issue a Special Event Permit once the conditions of the City's Special Event Ordinance have been satisfied Report Summar The Saratoga Village Association will be sponsoring the seventh annual Halloween Costume -Walk on Saturday, October 30, 1993, between 10:30 a.m. and 12-:30 p.m. in the Village. As in the past years, most of the +event activity will be confined to sidewalks with the exception of the parking lot at Corinthian Flowers. Fiscal Impacts: None anticipated Attachments: Application letter of September 15, 1993, to the City i Motion and Vote: r H PQ Box 725 Sarato¢a.CA.95071 September 15, 1993 Carolyn King Assistant to the City Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mrs. King, � E c F 8 SEP 1 0 5 1993 CITY O CITY op �A- LGa MANgGER'� p= TT'ICE The Seventh Annual HALLOWEEN COSTUME WALK will be held on SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1993 beginning at 10:00 AM in the Corinthian Flowers parking lot and ending by 12:30 PM. Approximately 300 persons will be parading, in costume, around the Village, mainly on Big Basin Way. Many of the Downtown Merchants will be participating by handing out treats to the children as they pass their places of business. This event is being sponsored by the Saratoga Village Association, who in turn will be handling the filing fees, refundable cleanup deposit, liability insurance and indemnity agreement. Since the walk will be on the sidewalks there will not be any need to reroute traffic. Parking will occur as it normally does, on the streets and in the parking district areas. Emergency vehicle traffic will not be effected. A small P.A. system may be used during the registration period from 10:00 to 10:45 AM and for the Award announcements at 12 NOON. Participants that register for the walk will be signing a "Hold Harmless" clause. PQ Box 725 Sarato¢a.CA.95mi page two, Halloween Costume Walk Hopefully, all traffic control (at the crosswalks) will be volunteer labor. However, should the need arise to hire any reserve officers, the Saratoga Village Association will be responsible for paying their expenses for the is event. Should you have any questions regarding this activity, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely yours, Kookie Fitzsimmons Chair, Pumpkin Walk 1993 Corinthian Flowers 867 -2020 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 2.3(pS AGENDA ITEM: �2j; MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 DEPARTMENT.: Community Development CITY MGR. APPROVAL: SUBJECT: Adoption of a Specific Plan for the 24 -acre former Paul Masson Winery Site located on Saratoga Avenue next to Route 85 Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Paul Masson Specific Plan and associated environmental Negative Declaration. Report Summary: At the August 4, 1993 City Council Public Hearing, Community Development staff presented the Paul Masson Specific Plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Representatives of the property owner, BA Properties, were present to request language modifications to the document. Following deliberations, the City Council voted 4 -1 (Anderson opposed) to approve the Specific Plan with the requested language modifications. The modifications appear primarily within Plan sections, and center around staff's referring to Land Use Plans A through E. this language was amendedto refer to the also approved language clarifications Measures sections; Circulation measure no. no. 8, Greenbelt Buffering Measure no. 1 measure no. 2. the Executive Summary and Land Use use of the term "preferred" when At the property owner's request, Plans as "examples ". The Council to the following Implementation 8, Development Regulations measure and Common Greens and Landscaping All of the final language changes have been reviewed and accepted by the property owner's representatives. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow Up Actions: None Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: .Property would continue to be ,regulated by the Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD) Zoning Ordinance, without benefit of specific development guidelines indicating what the City finds to be appropriate land use controls and configurations for the site. Development proposals would be considered following the submittal of an application to the City. Attachments: 1. Resolution Adopting Paul Masson Specific Plan 2. City Council minutes dated August 4, 1993 3. Paul Masson Specific Plan City Council Minutes August 4, 1993 A. Specific Plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site at northeast corner of Saratoga Ave. and Route 85, with the associated Negative Declaration. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to ensure that appropriate development guidelines are in place for any future development plans for the 24 -acre property. Planning Director Curtis noted that Planner Walgren has been involved in this project and will present the staff report. 1. City Manager Peacock noted the City received a written communication dated August 3, 199? from Matteoni Saxe & Nanda Lawyers. Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated August 5, 1992. He stated the primary components of the specific plan include the site analysis section, development opportunities and community response, goals statement section and the implementation section. He addressed the land use plans as shown to the Council. Planner Walgren addressed the letter, as noted by the City Manager, from Matteoni Saxe & Nanda and outlined the changes requested. In response to Councilmember Monia's question regarding the changes requested by the applicant, Community Development Director Curtis stated staff is responding to the property owners latest information submitted after the Planning Commission's last public hearing. He noted staff is requesting that the City Council make the final decisions regarding the additional changes. Councilmember Anderson asked if it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the additional language. She noted . there should be no language change between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Planner Walgren continued his presentation. He presented the Council with copies of language change to the land use plans. He stated the amended land use language, as presented, was distributed to the Planning Commission at their July 6th meeting for the specific purpose of reviewing the changes. He stated staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Paul Masson specific plan with the changes outlined in thelstaff report and adopt a Negative Declaration. In response to Councilmember Monia's question, Planner Walgren noted the Planning Commission did not review the final changes requested by the applicant. Mayor Tucker opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Councilmember Monia stated he did talk with Mr. Tom DeRegt and Mr. Matteoni prior to the meeting. Mr. James Ousley, 20702 Seaton Ave., noted he owns a condominium in the Vineyards and expressed concern about the visibility of the Paul Masson site. He noted he would like to see this property appropriately developed and soon. He feels the plan will not result in near term development. Mr. Ousley stated a development plan should have two objectives, one, making sure development is compatible with adjacent properties and two, the development plan should be structured so the developer can have a reasonable potential of improving the land and selling at a profit. He stated he faults the plan, proposed by staff, on both these issues. Mr. Ousley stated the plan should be more flexible regarding density and buffers. He expressed concern about the economic viability of the site. He addressed the storm water being kept on site and noted this is an environmental nightmare. Mr. Ousley stated 24 acres is a lot of land and one developer may not be able to develop the whole site and this may deter development of the site. He noted as a resident and property owner he would like to see this site developed, and encouraged the City Council to send the plan back to the Planning Commission with his comments and also comments from the City Council. City Council Minutes August 4, 1993 In response to Councilmember Kohler's question, Mr. Ousley stated he does not disagree with the use of the plan and the comments he made are technical details which need to be discussed. He noted it is his personal assessment that the plan is too demanding on open space. Regarding the storm water, Councilmember Burger stated it should read storm water detention. Mr. Tom DeRegt, representing property owners, stated they have worked with staff and the neighbors on this project. He presented the background information on this property. He noted the goal is to create a specific plan which is flexible so as not to eliminate development which may be. good for the. City and the site itself. Regarding density, Mr. DeRegt stated there may be other types of density which may be acceptable to the City once development plans are submitted. Mr. DeRegt pointed out that the plan assumes land use ratios are consistent with the underlying zoning ordinance. He added this ordinance provides for .flexibility, at Planning Commission and City Council level, to amend the ratios if a plan warrants such amendments. He asked the Council what type of flexibility would be considered. In response to Councilmember Monia's question regarding using the word "shall" as opposed to "should" in the plan, Planner Walgren stated the word "shall" will not be: deviated from and "should" is deemed to be appropriate, but allows for flexibility. Ms. Rebecca.Chainey, 18859 Afton Ave., noted she has attended all the public meetings regarding this issue. She expressed concern regarding traffic and density. She noted if major changes are to be made at this time, the neighbors should be given the opportunity to respond. In response to Councilmember Kohler's question, Ms. Chainey stated alternate land use options was not a major concern at the meetings, but the neighbors expressed concern about commercial use on the site. She noted the plan approved did address the neighbors needs. Ms. Sheila Arthur, Chamber of Commerce, noted it is her job to promote business in Saratoga. She added, a lot of money is sent out of Saratoga because Saratoga can not house people who want to stay in the City. This results in the loss of taxes to the City and she suggested the City Council consider a hotel and keep the tax dollars in Saratoga. Mr. Gary Lang, 13712 Montrose St., stated he has attended many of the public meetings and feels changes should not be made at this time. He stated this development should not attract more traffic by adding more commercial use. He spoke in support of the wording in the plan limiting the access onto Afton Ave. to 15 homes. Mr. Eric Morley, Los Gatos /Saratoga Board of Realtors, stated the board did review the plan but took no formal position. He added the City should, consider as much flexibility as possible, especially with regards to the density. Resident, Saratoga Ave., stated a hotel was proposed many years ago on this site. He noted staff has done a lot of work and the public have been involved. He added the Council should approve the plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Dr., representing Bank of America, stated they do not wish this plan to go back to the Planning Commission. Regarding the changes proposed at this meeting, Mr. Matteoni stated they did not have an opportunity to respond to the plan because the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. He believes the Planning Commission addressed neighbors concerns. Mr. Matteoni addressed the proposed changes as outlined in his letter to the City Council. He presented proposed changes to language regarding land use plans to the Council. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern about receiving so much extra material at this meeting and not having adequate time to review it City Council Minutes 7 August 4, 1993 before making decisions. Councilmember Monia stated the issue is the acceptance of the plan approved by the Planning Commission, not the changes being addressed at this meeting. He noted the City Council asked staff to prepare this plan and involve the public and this was done, now the Council have to make a decision whether to approve it or not. Councilmember Monia stated Mr. Matteoni's proposed changes were not addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Matteoni stated the changes are the fine tuning of decisions made at the final public hearing session with the Planning Commission. Mr. Paul Jacobs, Planning Commissioner, addressed the letter dated August 2nd from Mr. Matteoni regarding the proposed changes. Regarding the buffer, he noted in.the Planning Commission's minutes of June 23rd, the specific language is proposed and this was the language approved by the Commission. Regarding the Greenbelt/ Common open space, he noted Chr. Moran-directed staff "to draft language that would specifically exclude greenbelts and buffer zones from this section's requirements and provide language that calls for development of parks on the site to be in conformance with the guidelines in the Recreation Element of the General Plan ". He noted the Commission concurred with this. Regarding the Land Use Plan, the Commission, on June 23rd, was not given specific language concerning the land use plan. He stated this was not a matter of discussion at the July 6th meeting. He noted that in his opinion none of the plans submitted were preferred plans, but intended to be examples. He suggested the term "preferred" be replaced with "examples ". Mayor Tucker closed the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Councilmember Burger stated it is her understanding that the property owner was advised during all the meetings that this was a city process and the owners were not invited to participate at that time. Any suggestions for changes and clarification would come at City Council level. Mr. DeRegt, stated they got involved with the property last October. He noted between October and April they requested a joint study session with Council and Planning Commission. He added there was a delay in this meeting. He noted at the joint study session they were told that the specific plan process was moving forward and the property owner should 'work with this process. He noted they did work with staff and the neighbors, but felt they were restricted as far as comments, because it was a City plan. He stated the preferred plans are examples and noted the property owner was not allocated the time to give adequate input. He added the property owner did not request a specific plan. Councilmember Monia stated, on a 3 -2 vote of the Council, this was to be a staff project with limited access of the Planning commission. Community Development Director Curtis explained the specific plan process: He noted staff did not set property lines or get more specific, but dealt with general land use configurations. He noted the plans are reflective of concerns and issues raised by adjoining residents and a site specific plan is the next step. Councilmember Monia expressed concern about the process this plan went through. Community Development Director Curtis stated staff prepared a draft specific plan and initiated public comment. He noted they took the information to a Planning Commission workshop and public hearing. He added the applicant was available at the workshop and the public hearings. Mr. Curtis stated staff conducted the meetings with the neighbors. Councilmember Burger believes the Planning Commission was involved in this process and the plan before the Council tonight is a recommended City Council Minutes S August 4, 1993 action which included the Planning commission, staff and the neighbors. MONIA /KOHLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ACCEPTING AMENDED PAGE 22, SUBMITTED BY STAFF AND REMOVE THE WORD INPREFERRED" FROM THE FIRST SENTENCE ON PAGE 22. Councilmember Burger spoke in support of the revised page 22, submitted by staff. She expressed concern about limiting density and precluding possible development similar to the Vineyards. She also expressed concern about restricting commercial use if a plan was submitted that would help the community. She expressed concern about stifling creativity. She noted she does agree that there should be no commercial use anywhere along McFarland or Afton perimeters. Councilmember Burger addressed page 20 of the specific plan, #5 and expressed concern that this statement may lead people to believe there will be a public park on this site. City Manager Peacock explained the requirements for park fees. Councilmember Kohler stated they have received input from neighbors and need to move ahead. He believes the neighbors do not want much commercial on this site. He spoke in favor of the plan recommended by the Planning Commission and noted the multiple use is flexible. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question regarding the storm water, City Manager Peacock stated the word should read "detention" as opposed to "retention ". Councilmember Anderson stated this plan resembles a plan which existed in 1985. She noted in 1989 the voters elected to have the freeway interchange on Saratoga Ave. and she expressed concern about traffic. She noted that the traffic impact will occur from the interchange and not from the commercial on this site. Councilmember Anderson spoke in support; of a hotel and density similar to the Vineyards. She also spoke in support of multifamily with open space and 50% commercial. She noted there should be no houses along the freeway and feels a hotel will provide a good buffer from the freeway. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern about the 15% maximum for commercial. She would like to see rental senior housing and also the possibility of affordable housing. She noted she opposes strip shopping. Councilmember Anderson stated she would like to see buffering to the housing more substantial than 30 feet. The Councilmembers noted they did meet individually with Mr. DeRegt. Mayor Tucker stated she agrees with the motion regarding page 22. She expressed concern about limiting the commercial and noted her primary concern is that this should remain a residential neighborhood. She spoke in support of rental senior housing and affordable housing. The Council discussed the Greenbelt/ Common Open Space and Community Development Director Curtis stated staff indicated it was appropriate to exclude Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Ave. perimeter. He also noted on Page 16, regarding commercial the word "should" allows flexibility for more commercial. Councilmember Anderson stated that hotels do not usually have open windows and therefore will not be affected by noise and pollution from the freeway. She noted this building would buffer residents from the freeway. City Attorney Riback stated the ordinance sets forth the NPD standards and these may be modified if the Planning Commission can make the findings. He noted the flexibility is in the MUPD standards. Councilmember Monia stated Page 16, regarding the buffering, should not be changed. - He suggested creative development while protecting sensitive areas at the same time. Councilmember Monia suggested amending the motion to add the following language suggestion by City Manager Peacock "These greenbelts should City Council Minutes 9 August 4, 1993 not be allowed to contribute to the 50% (approximately 4.6 acres) common green landscape requirement where they abut Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avenue." The Council discussed the amount of commercial use proposed. Councilmember Monia stated there is not a lot of support for commercial use in this area. He also expressed concern about other areas of commercial pockets in Saratoga which are not occupied. Mayor Tucker reiterated the motion, the Council approved the plan as recommended by staff, adding the new language for the buffer and the greenbelt /common open space, substitute page 22, eliminating -the word preferred, replace the word retention with detention. Councilmember -Anderson stated that any housing should include affordable housing and this should be included in the mission statement. Regarding page 22, Community Development Director Curtis suggested the first sentence read "The following Land Use Plans A through E represents examples of the community's land use configurations for the former Paul Masson Winery site." The Council agreed that the word "preferred" as used in the plan should be eliminated. In response to Councilmember Monia's question regarding bonuses for affordable housing, Community Development Director Curtis stated there is a 25% density bonus for affordable housing, but it would be a tough goal to obtain. Councilmember Anderson stated she would prefer to see some affordable housing units throughout the City as opposed to a total low income housing- project. City Manager Peacock suggested the following language, "Any multiple housing provided should, at the very least, provide for some affordable housingi as part of the development ". Councilmember Kohler and Burger noted they would not support the above language: The language suggested by the City Manager in response to Councilmember Anderson was not to be included in the plan. The above motion, with all the amendments was passed 4 -1 (Anderson No). B. Change in garbage rates for residential, commercial and Drop Off Box services, to become effective on September 1. The rates will include amendments to the basic rate to recover added costs of operations and increased landfill costs, and amendments to rates to finance state mandates for Integrated solid Waste Management, Household Hazardous Waste Disposal and Storm Water Management. City Manager Peacock presented the staff report dated August 4, 1993. He noted over the last three years the methods used for the rates and the amount of money that is raised has been changed by the number of mandate's by the State of California regarding disposal and the Non - Point Source Pollution. Mr. Peacock presented slides outlining the following: Rates for Solid Waste Management Services; Census Changes 1993 -94; Rate Composition 1993 -94. He noted there is approximately a 17 1/2% increase for residential and commercial. He noted Green Valley has proposed that there be a limit to the tonnage that the base rate covers for Drop Off Boxes and if the tonnage exceeds this, there will be an additional cost. Mr. Peacock added that costs will continue to rise. He noted during the performance audit, the consultants will look at the methodology used to determine the rates and also the methodology used for charges in the hard -to -serve areas. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 23C,L MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 AGENDA ITEM ORIGINATING DEPT. Community Development ip SUBJECT: Fee Waiver for Variance Application CITY MGR. Recommended Motion: Deny the requested fee waiver Report Summary: Mr. Alan La Fleur, Deputy Director, Planning and Development, representing the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department, has requested waiver of variance application fees. The Variance application is required to construct an 8 ft. high fence where a maximum 6 ft. high fence is allowed. The fence is part of a renovation project to the Villa Montalvo property. Attached is a letter of request from Mr. La Fleur. Staff's position on fee waivers has been represented to the City Council on previous occasions. The City Council has also taken a policy position that fees would not be waived except in extraordinary circumstances -- the recent waiver of fees for a homeless shelter Temporary Use Permit, for example. Staff feels that in light of budget constraints, personnel layoffs and projected revenues from applications to fund planning programs, it is necessary to maintain the policy of no fee waivers. Staff has taken into consideration the idea of "mutual aid" to another government agency that has experienced similiar budget constraints. However, there are no free rides. Animal control services were withdrawn, LAFCO application fees are still required, etc. The application fee is just one of many expenses incurred as part of this project. Therefore, staff is recommending that the request for fee waiver be denied. Fiscal Impacts: The application fee for a Variance (requires a public hearing by the Planning Commission) is $1550. Waiver of the fee would result in a loss to Community Development Department and City revenues of the "recovery costs" as directed by the City Council. Follow -up Actions: The application for the fence height variance must be filed by.the County for public hearing by the Planning Commission. My�� Page 2 Fee Waiver Request - Santa Clara County Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: I The Community Development Department will process the Variance application without being able to recover the costs of processing the public hearing request Countyof Santa Clara Park-,; and Recreation Department 298 Garden Hill Drive LOS Gatos. California 05030 14081 358-374 1. Reservations 358-3751 September 11, 1993 Betsy Cory, City Clerk Saratoga City Council City Hall Council Chambers City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED SEP 2 0 1993 �S NLANNUVG DEPT. 'R5 Subject: Request for Variance Redesign - Historical Renovation of Italian Garden, Villa Montalvo The Santa Clara County Parks Department is currently in the design phase of a historical renovation of the Villa Montalvo Italian Garden. The focal point of the project is fencing for deer and vandal protection. A portion of the fence is a historical replica and as such is 8 feet high, which is two feet over the Saratoga building code. In following the City of Saratoga's procedure, the County will be submitting a variance fee of $1,550.00. The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council consider waiving this fee due to the nature of the project. The project is in that portion of the Villa Montalvo complex which is leased by the Santa Clara County Parks Department and open to all citizens of the County to enjoy. The County is concerned with the quality access and experience of our patrons within the park. The fencing & garden project will be a unique addition to the County- operated portion of Villa Montalvo. The Italian Garden itself, which will be protected by the fencing project, provides a unique botanical experience for the general public to enjoy. Your consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. If there are any questions concerning this request or clarification is needed, please contact Lisa Killough or Alan La Fleur at Santa Clara County Parks, (408) 358 -3741, ext. 154 or 148 respectively. S 'cer4Fe_u_r_ 1 n Deputy Director Planning & Development cc: Harry R. Peacock, City Manager John Gibbs, Aide to Supervisor McKenna City of Saratoga Planning Commission laf Is r/ bets yc.a If. Itr Board of Supervisors: Michael M. Honda. Zoe Lofgren. Ron Gonzales. Rod Diridon. Dianne McKenna County Executive: Salle R. Reed SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL (Yin EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 3(o'� AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works SUBJECT: Leonard Rd. Assessment District - Public Informational Meeting Recommended Motion(s): None required. Report Summary: At your meeting, you will conduct the public informational meeting for new assessment districts required under Government Code Section 54954.6 which took effect on January 1 of this year. The purpose of the meeting is to allow property owners within the proposed assessment district to address the Council about the formation of the district and to ask any questions they may have. No action is taken at the public meeting. Your next action will occur on October 26 when you will receive the bids for the work along with the final Engineer's Report and conduct the Protest Hearing. Attached to this memo are excerpts from the preliminary Engineer's Report which you approved on September 7. Fiscal Impacts: None at this time. Follow Up Actions: The Protest Hearing has been scheduled for October 26. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. EXHIBIT B ESTIMATE OF COSTS CONSTRUCTION 1) 1.75" AC overlay $ 7,200 2) 2.50" AC pavement 6,000. 3) Aggregate base 8,000 4) Pavement fabric 2,625 5) Wedge cut 2,000 6) Grading 10,000 7) Roadway excavation 7,500 8) Subgrade preparation 8,000 9) Curb & gutter 12,750 10) Concrete swale 2,800 11) Raise MHs, Monuments & valves to grade 2,500 12) Driveway conforms 13,500 13) Drain inlet 2,500 1.4) 12" RCP 2,000 15) Traffic control 1,500 16) Finish roadway 1,000 17) Striping & markings 250 Subtotal $ 90,125 Contingencies 9:000 Total Construction 99,125 RIGHT OF WAY 5,000 INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Engineering $ 6,500 Advertising & bidding 1,250 Construction staking 2,500 Inspection 1,500 Testing 500 Construction administration 750 Total construction incidentals 13,000 PROCEEDINGS & ISSUANCE COSTS Bond counsel $ 6,000 Assessment.engineer 5,500 Cash flow consultant 2,500 Original issue discount 15,000 Funded interest 9,000 Miscellaneous 875 Total proceedings & issuance costs 38,875 TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1561000 EXHIBIT C ASSESSMENT ROLL ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ASSESSMENT NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT 1 503 -19 -080 $ 16,227 2 503 -19 -078 $ 15,481 3 503 -19 -142 $ 15,481 4 503 -19 -029 $ 15,481 5 503 -19 -030 $ 11,717 6 503 -19 -072 $ 11,717 7 503 -19 -073 $ 11,717 8 503 -19 -074 $ 11,717 9 503 -19 -032 $ 10,631 10 503 -19 -033 $ 10,631 11 503 -19 -034 $ 8,400 12 503 -19 -035 $ 8,400 13 503 -19 -036 $ 8,400 'TOTAL ASSESSMENT $156,000 EXHIBIT D METHOD OF ASSESSMENT The amounts to be assessed against the parcels of property to pay the cost and expenses of the work and improvements are based upon the benefits to be derived by the properties within the Assessment District. The total assessment to be levied against any parcel of land in the District shall be the sum of the amounts determined by the following formulas: Item 1 - Thirty percent (30 %) of the cost of each construction item shall be spread equally to each parcel whose frontage is benefited by said item. Item 2 - Thirty percent (30 %) of the contingency allowance and the incidental construction costs shall be spread to each parcel in the assessment district in proportion to the amounts assessed for Item 1 above. Item 3 - Thirty percent (30 %) of right of way acquisition costs shall be spread equally to each parcel fronting on right of way which is to be acquired. Item 4' - Thirty percent (30 %) of the proceedings and issuance costs shall be assessed to each parcel in the assessment district in proportion to the amounts assessed for Items 1, 2 and 3 above. Item 5 - The remaining seventy percent (70 %) of the total assessment district costs and expenses shall be spread equally to each parcel in the assessment district. T EXHIBIT I ASSESSMENT SPREAD CALCULATIONS --- ---- -- --- --- ------ -- --- - --- Assessment Construction Item Right General Totals Number-------------------------------------------------------- -- -- ----------- -- -- --- --- --- --- of Benefit - ---- ----- 1; 3 -5 ---- -- - -- -- -- 2 - 3, 6 -8 --- --- -- -- --- 9 --- --- ---- --- - ---- 10 -- - - - - -- 12 --- ---- --- - -- 10 11 13-17 ---- --- - -- --- --- Way ---- --- --- ------- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- - ---- 1 4,810 792- 1,492 533 200 8,400 16,227 2 4,810 792 746 533 200 8,400 15,481 3 4,810 792 746 533 200 8,400 15,481 4 4,810 792 746 533 200 8,400 15,481 5 1,046 792 746 533 200 8,400 11,717 6 1,046 792 746 533 200 8,400 11,717 7 1,046 792 746 533 200 8,400 11,717 8 1,046 792 746 533 200 8,400 11,717 9 1,046 452 533 200 8,400 10,01 10 1,046 452 .533 200 8,400 10,631 11 8,400 8,400 12 8,400 8,400 13 8,400 8,400 Base Cost 3,787 11,610 3,825 546 4,050 3,219 1,500 66,588 95,125 Construction 0. H. 925 2,835 933 133 990 - - - - -- 784 -- - - -- - - ---- 15,400 - - - - -- 22,000 - - - - - -- Subtotals - - - --- 4,712 - -- - -- 14,445 - - - --- -- 4,758 - - -- 679 5,040 4,003 1,500 81,988 117,125 Proceedings 0. H. 1,564 4,795 1,578 225 -- 1,674 - - - - -- 1,327 ---- -- -- -500 27,212 - -- -- 38,875 - - -- - -- Totals ------ 6,276 - --- -- 19,240 ---- -- - 6,336 --- 904 6,714 5,330 2,000 109,200 156,000 20540 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 September 25, 1993 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Councilpersons: I am most happy that the improvement of Leonard Road is going ahead, but I do have some questions about the procedure that has been followed. 1. The cost. At the outset the City told us cost would be about $80,000 to $85,000. In a letter of April 8, I suggested this seemed very low, but got no response. In the petitions of June 18 an estimate of $200,000 was quoted, but the covering letter stated that the City still believed the "total project cost" would be in the $80,000 - $120,000 range. When the "Total Assessment" of $156,000 was presented to us on September 7, items such as "right of way ", "contingencies ", "incidental construction costs" and "proceedings and issuance costs" alone totaled over $65,000. One would, think that; the City would have had sufficient experience with assessment districts to have anticipated at least a part of these. 2. The right of way. In letters of April 8 and 19 I mentioned the prior dedication of the right of way. At the meeting of August 10th I pointed out that we could not quitclaim the right of way to the City because we did not have title to it. All of these remarks were ignored, so, on August 11th I wrote to Mr. Peacock advising him that the owners of the Leonard right of way were Peter Donald Ljepava and Ethel Ann Ljepava and that on September 20, 1965 they had recorded an offer of dedication of the right of way. Mr. Peacock replied thanking me for the information and stating that since the City had not accepted the dedication within 25 years, it was no longer valid. At the meeting on September 7 Mr. Peacock stated that it was not certain who the owners of the right of way were. The fact is that Mr. and Mrs. Ljepava still reside in Saratoga, are listed in the telephone book, and are quite willing to give the City a deed to the right of way. In these circumstances it would seem that the $5,000 right of way costs should be removed and our assessments proportionately reduced. 3. The "Assessment Engineer" costs.' In the meetings prior to September 7 a number of us had discussed the assessment allocations. It was agreed that neither a frontage nor an area basis, would be fair,to.the property owners at the west end of the road. A number of us had suggested a straight 13 way split but that was not agreed upon by all. The City advised that it would be up to the owners to agree to an allocation. With no further consultation with the property owners, the City committed $5,500 of our money to the employment of Mr. John Heindel to come up with an allocation allegedly based on "benefit" to the respective property owners. When Mr. Heindel's calculations produced a result that John Gearhart, who would actually use about 10% of the roadway, would be paying over 300% as much as those owners who would be using 100% of the road, even those property owners who benefited most from the calculations agreed they were preposterous. These calculations, when carefully examined, reveal the application of sixth grade arithmetic to the City's estimated costs with a "benefit" based on the amount of work and materials that would be applied before each parcel of property. When first presented the figures were so jumbled as to be incomprehensible. However a careful examination reveals that the work and materials benefits allocation proportions were also applied to the items identified as "Contingencies ", "Incidental Construction Costs" and "Proceedings and Issuance Costs ". The result is that Lots 1 - 4 carry 65% of the allocable costs of these items. When I asked about the disparity at the meeting on September 7th I was told that this would apply to actual construction costs. I agreed to this, but not to the $65,000 of miscellaneous items. 4. My two driveways. At the meeting of September 7th I pointed out that I have two driveways. The City claimed it could not see them and apparently they were not included in the assessment computation. I would greatly appreciate it if you would send someone out to count my driveways. I do not wish to have to tear out a curb to recreate them. As I stated at the outset, I am happy the project seems to be going ahead, and I will pay whatever I have to, to get it done. I nevertheless think you should be a lot more forthcoming, and concerned with the interests of your constituents, in any future proceedings such as this. Sincerely, aurice L. Martin a C LF W E OCi _ 6 1993 CIT x Ur' SARA` 0GA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 20520 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 October 6, 1993 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Councilmembers: Based on the conformation of the intersection of Leonard Road and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, I am taldng this opportunity to suggest to you and the City Engineer Larry Perlin that a storm drain be installed at the Northwest corner of Leonard and the highway. This will serve the purpose of collecting rain water from the proposed swale type gutter on the North side of Leonard Road, as well as collecting water from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to the North where the gradient appears to descend toward Leonard. It appears to me that the installation of this drain would be consistent with Sam Engineering Practice. In the long run we will surely find the drain necessary. Let's do it now to save the city and taxpayers money. Some times we miss the obvious and are "penny wise and pound foolish ". Sincerely, Edwin A. Kennedy Parcel 503 -19 -078 P.S. We have a storm drain on our side of the intersection, but believe the other drain would benefit everyone. E.A.K. 20540 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 September 25, 1993 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, `-CA 95070 Dear Councilpersons: I am most happy that the improvement of Leonard Road is going ahead, but I do have some questions about the procedure. that has been followed. 1. The cost. At the outset the City told us cost would be about $80,000 to $85,000. In a letter of April 8, I suggested this seemed very low, but got no response. In the petitions of June 18 an estimate of $200,000 was quoted,. but the covering letter stated that the City still believed the "total project cost" would be in the $80,000 - $120,000 range. When the "Total Assessment" of $156,000 was presented to us on September 7, items such as "right of way ", "contingencies ", "incidental construction costs" and "proceedings and issuance costs" alone totaled over $65,000. One would think that the City would have had sufficient experience with assessment districts to have anticipated at least a part of these. 2. The right of way. In letters of April 8 and 19 I mentioned the prior dedication of the right of way. At the meeting of August 10th I pointed out that we could not quitclaim the right of way to the City because we did not have title to it. All of these remarks were ignored, so, on August 11th I wrote to Mr. Peacock advising him that the owners of the Leonard right of way were Peter Donald Ljepava and Ethel Ann Ljepava and that on September 20, 1965 they had recorded an offer of dedication of the right of way. Mr. Peacock replied thanking me for the information and stating that since the City had not accepted the dedication within 25 years, it was no longer valid. At the meeting on September 7 Mr. Peacock stated that it was not certain who the owners of the right of way were. The fact is that Mr. and Mrs. Ljepava still reside in Saratoga, are listed in the telephone book, and are quite willing to giu the City a deed to the right of way. In these circumstances it would seem that the $5,000 right of way costs should be removed and our assessments proportionately reduced. 3. The "Assessment Engineer" costs. In the meetings prior to September 7 a number of us had discussed the assessment allocations. It was agreed that neither a frontage 'nor an area basis would be fair to the property owners at the west end of the road. A number of us had suggested a straight 13 way split but that was not agreed upon by all. The City advised that it would be up to the owners to agree to an allocation. With no further consultation with the property owners, the City committed $5,500 of our money to the employment of Mr. John Heindel to come up with an allocation allegedly based on "benefit" to the respective property owners. When Mr. Heindel's calculations produced a result that John Gearhart, who would actually use about 10% of the roadway, would be paying over 300% as much as those owners who would be using 100% of the road, even those property owners who benefited most from the calculations agreed they were preposterous. These calculations, when carefully examined, revea' the application of sixth grade arithmetic to the City's estimated costs with a "benefit" based on the amount of work and materials that would be applied before each parcel of property. When first presented the figures were so jumbled as to be incomprehensible. However a. careful examination reveals that the work and materials benefits allocation proportions were also applied to the items identified as "Contingencies ", "Incidental Construction Costs" and "Proceedings and Issuance Costs ". The result is that Lots 1 - 4 carry 65% of the allocable costs of these items. When I asked about the disparity at the meeting on September 7th I was told that this would apply to actual construction costs. I agreed to this, but not to the $65,000 of miscellaneous items. 4. My two driveways. At the meeting of September 7th I pointed out that I have two driveways. The City claimed it could not see them and apparently they were not included in the assessment computation. I would greatly appreciate it if you would send someone out to count my driveways. I do not wish to have to tear out a curb to recreate them. As I stated at the outset, I am happy the project seems to be going ahead, and I will pay whatever I have to, to get it done. I nevertheless think you should be a lot more forthcoming, and concerned with the interests of your constituents, in any future proceedings such as this. Sincerely, Maurice L. Martin SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 (o MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works �. AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. 4Srl1 SUBJECT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement No. SAR -5 with Santa Clara County Traffic Authority concerning Warner Hutton House Landscaping Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the Cooperative Agreement and authorize its execution by staff. Report Summary: Attached is another Cooperative Agreement (No. SAR- 5) between the City and the Traffic Authority for the Council to approve. This agreement concerns the Warner Hutton House landscaping and essentially specifies how the City will advertise and administer the construction of the improvements and the Traffic Authority will pay for them, up to a specified amount of $123,000. The final construction plans and specifications are in my office should you care to see them. The City Attorney has reviewed the Agreement and is satisfied with its contents. Assuming the Council approves the Agreement, the project can be advertised within the next couple of weeks and construction can begin in early December. Fiscal Impacts: The estimated cost of the landscape improvements is $123,000 which will be reimbursed by the Traffic Authority. The project is funded through Capital Project No. 9301 in the adopted FY 93 -94 budget. Follow Utz Actions: Staff will execute the agreement and return it to the Traffic Authority. Upon return of a signed copy from them, the project will be advertised for bids. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The agreement will not 'be approved and the project will not move forward. Any changes which the Council would like to see made to the agreement would be conveyed to the Traffic Authority. r COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 5 -SAR ROUTE 85 WARREN HUTTON HOUSE LANDSCAPE This AGREEMENT is entered into on the day of , 1993, by and between the SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY, a public entity of the State of California (referred to hereinafter as "AUTHORITY ") and the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (referred to hereinafter as "CITY "). RECITALS 1. AUTHORITY and CITY contemplate constructing improvements consisting of landscape I restoration to the Warner Hutton House, including, but not limited to site work, installation of an irrigation system, planting of trees, turf establishment and construction of walk -ways located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, in the City of Saratoga, in Santa Clara County at Route 85, herein referred to as "PROJECT ". Construction of temporary walk -ways and handicapped ramp has already been provided by CITY, hereinafter referred to as "TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS." A diagram identifying the location of the PROJECT is attached as EXHIBIT A and EXHIBIT B, and is hereby incorporated by this reference. 2. Construction of PROJECT is necessary to facilitate the historic mitigation of the Warner Hutton House which is part of the AUTHORITY's Measure A Program. 3. AUTHORITY will fund the costs of design and construction of PROJECT. 4. CITY will fund the cost of construction administration of PROJECT. 5. AUTHORITY is willing to provide plans, specifications and estimates (PS &E) for PROJECT. 6. CITY is willing to provide construction administration and construct PROJECT by contract. COOPmsa.no 106 -20 Agreement No. 5 -SAR September 28, 1993 Page 1 of 8 Construction administration shall include- pre- contract administration (processing of PS &E through a bidding process for advertising, bid evaluation and award of contract for constructing PROJECT), construction contract administration, construction engineering, inspection, materials testing, claims processing and closeout. 7. Sixty day maintenance of PROJECT, will 'be provided by contractor as specified in the PS &E package. 8. CITY shall assume maintenance of PROJECT, as specified in Section 11, Article 11. 9. AUTHORITY and CITY do mutually desire to cooperate in the design, construction, and construction administration of the PROJECT, and to set forth herein the terms avid conditions under which the PROJECT is to be designed, administered, constructed, and maintained. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: i SECTION I AUTHORITY AGREES: 1. To provide technical plans, specifications, and estimates (PS &E) for PROJECT at no cost to CITY. 2. To bear one hundred percent (100 %), estimated to be $123,000, of the total actual cost of construction of PROJECT and TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS including all materials; COOPmsa.no 106 -20 Agreement No. 5 -SAR September 28, 1993 Page 2 of 8 supplemental work, changes and claims associated with construction of PROJECT. 3. That AUTHORITY's obligation for the total actual cost of construction required for PROJECT and construction of TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS under this Agreement is $123,000. This amount may be exceeded only by vote of AUTHORITY, the certified results of which will be incorporated into the Agreement without the necessity of a written amendment. 4. To pay CITY within thirty days after receipt of invoice from CITY, as described in Section II, Article 12 and Article 13 below. SECTION II CITY AGREES: 1. To proceed with PROJECT following execution of this cooperative agreement between CITY and AUTHORITY; or, in the event the PROJECT does not proceed for any reason, to so notify AUTHORITY. 2. To provide all permits and clearances required for PROJECT at no cost to AUTHORITY. i 3. To provide its standard Bid and Contract Documents in conjunction with the AUTHORITY's PS &E for PROJECT at no cost to AUTHORITY. 4. To notify AUTHORITY of amount of construction contract award for PROJECT within fifteen days of award of said contract. COOPmsa.no 106 -20 Agreement No. 5 -SAR September 28, 1993 Page 3 of 8 5. To provide, or arrange to have provided, construction administration for PROJECT as defined in RECITALS, Article 6 above, at no cost to AUTHORITY. 6. To construct PROJECT by contract in accordance with its standard Bid and Contract Documents, and the technical PS &E provided by AUTHORITY. 7. To implement CITY's goal of 10% for utilization of DBE for PROJECT. 8. To submit to AUTHORITY each month a DBE utilization report which describes DBE expenditures for the current month, states the cumulative DBE amount expended to date and any significant events affecting DBE subcontractors such as schedule delays and changes in scope of work. 9. To submit to AUTHORITY each month a construction progress report which describes the work performed and completed during the reporting period, states the cumulative percentage complete to date, and reports on change orders issued (current and cumulative), progress payments made (current and cumulative), and significant events affecting progress of the work, such as bad weather, work stoppages. 10. To consult with AUTHORITY on any change order or extra work order exceeding $1,000, before implementation, except when necessary for the safety of motorists and /or pedestrians or for the protection of property. COOPmsa.no 106 -20 Agreement No. 5 -SAR September 28, 1993 Page 4 of 8 11 . To provide for maintenance of all facilities as constructed under this PROJECT in accordance with RECITALS, Article 8 above, and make no claim against AUTHORITY for any portion of such maintenance expense. 12. Within ten days after execution of construction contract with contractor, to provide to AUTHORITY an invoice for the total amount of the construction contract for PROJECT and total cost of TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS as specified in Section 1, Article 4 above. 13. Upon completion of PROJECT and all work incidental thereto and resolution of all claims filed by the construction contractor, to provide to AUTHORITY an invoice and a detailed statement of the total actual costs of construction of PROJECT as specified in Section I, Article 4 above. 14. Within sixty calendar days of completion of construction of PROJECT and all work incidental thereto, to provide to AUTHORITY a detailed final statement of the total actual DBE /MBE/WBE costs expended for PROJECT. If the final DBE /MBE/WBE achievements have not met the goal of 10 %, a written explanation must be submitted to AUTHORITY. COOPmsa.no 106 -20 Agreement No. 5 -SAR September 28, 1993 Page 5 of 8 SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. If the lowest responsible bid is more than the Engineer's Estimate, AUTHORITY and CITY shall consult upon a course of action. If a course of action is. not agreed upon within 25 calendar days after bid opening, this Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated by mutual consent pursuant to Article 2 of this Section III. 2. Prior to award of the - construction contract for PROJECT this Agreement may be terminated by either AUTHORITY or CITY or by mutual consent. In the event of such termination, AUTHORITY and CITY shall each bear their respective total actual costs expended for PROJECT to date of termination. 3. Should the value of the construction contract award be lower than the total estimated cost of construction of PROJECT, the estimated cost of construction and construction administration of PROJECT in Sections I and II above shall be proportionally reduced without the necessity of an amendment to this Agreement. 4. That neither AUTHORITY, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by CITY or any contractor hired by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and hold AUTHORITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury, as defined by Government Code Section 810.8, occurring by reason of COOPmsa.no 106 -20 Agreement No. 5 -SAR September 28, 1993 Page 6 of 8 anything done or omitted by CITY under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. 5. That neither CITY, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by AUTHORITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to AUTHORITY under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, AUTHORITY shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury, as defined by Government Code Section 810.8, occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by AUTHORITY under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to AUTHORITY under this Agreement. COOPmsa.no 106 -20 Agreement No. 5 -SAR September 28, 1993 Page 7 of 8 6. Except as provided in Articles 1 and 2 of this Section III, the portions of this Agreement pertaining to the construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT by CITY and upon fulfillment by AUTHORITY and CITY of their respective financial obligations under this Agreement. SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY By JAMES T. BEALL, JR. By Chairperson HARRY PEACOCK City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: KEVIN D. ALLMAND Deputy County Counsel MICHAEL RIBACK City Attorney Attest: Attest: PHYLLIS A. PEREZ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and GRACE E. COREY Secretary, Santa Clara County Traffic Authority Deputy City Clerk COOPmsa.no 106 -20 September 28, 1993 Agreement No. 5 -SAR Page 8 of 8 Measure A Project DWIBIT A Santa Clara County Traffic. Authority . Warner Hutton House Landscape Project LOCATION MAP —' TOP OF DANK • / I/ GP T P OF LANK \ -\ 1VIW V SUCH / , \ O _ 00 PATH 0A o0 4 M � �� ` 1�Ab �CYC<l10 Mq �L�OOOIWO! A," wb= an" Funm r Master Plan Warner Hutton House Santa Clara Courrty Traffic Authorfly CItY of Saratoga, calfornla a off— � �f —� ! 1- Naree �. w. apr a+v ae a.swtiar. L ArMaWr .r..wM.a..wa.bbr.nw.b.�Mrr. . .. L 1►r Frr mAnsarbrb brtl ralal r.m b/ —a o.r r�r.�bse�ierr •arrrwrrarb. _. .e.a. r.. aa..p. EXHIBIT B uw jha 4..rq. AIS►trwu. J4P Hu�6J A Haws AmcYr. 711J1Ia0vJpr.p.Ab AfwdA GrjA.wY owl SCALE: r.1a 1 \ � \\\\\\\\\\\\ �� SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 ?J'7 1 MEETING DATE: October 6, ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public AGENDA ITEM 1993 CITY MGR. Works 4� SUBJECT: Award of Consulting Services Agreement with Greening Associates of Santa Cruz for Landscape Replacement along Rodeo Creek Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the attached proposal from Greening Associates of Santa Cruz for professional services in connection with revegetation of the Rodeo Creek corridor and authorize staff to issue a Purchase Order to them in the amount of $5,480. Report Summary: At the suggestion of the Traffic Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, staff has solicited proposals from qualified firms to provide landscape consulting services in connection with the revegetation of Rodeo Creek downstream of Route 85. As you may recall, this stretch of creek was significantly denuded of vegetation during the construction of improvements associated with the freeway project. Since then, the residents abutting the creek, along with staff, have persuaded the Traffic Authority to bear responsibility for revegetating the creek corridor rather than mitigating for the loss of vegetation at an off -site location in'San Jose. The firm of Greening Associates was selected from a,list of qualified consultants provided to the City by the Water District. Due to the small scope of this project and the need for personal interaction with the residents, it was determined that this firm was the best qualified to perform the work. The attached proposal outlines the services to be provided in connection with this project for what I believe is the modest sum of $5,480. If the Council approves the proposal from Greening Associates, the work will begin this month and the planting will be completed during the current planting season. Fiscal Impacts: As noted, the lump sum fee for this work is $5,480 which will be reimbursed to the City by the Traffic Authority. Follow Up Actions: Staff will execute a standard professional services agreement with Greening Associates and will then issue a Purchase Order for $5,480 along with a Notice to Proceed. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The proposal will not be accepted and staff will act according to whatever other directives the Council may give. If this happens, then it is possible that the revegetating of the creek may not occur during this planting season. reenRng a s s o c i a t e s August 28, 1993 Mr. Larry Perlin City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Rodeo Creek Revegetation Dear Mr. Perlin, After I met with you on August 17, I met with the Rodeo Creek neighbors to introduce myself and to obtain some input from them about prospective future plantings along their creek. Among their differing viewpoints I found a common fondness for the creek and a congeniality and reasonableness that I believe I would enjoy working with. Accordingly, Greening Associates submit the following proposal to replant the east bank of Rodeo Creek behind the 12000 - 12100 block of Saraglen Drive, and the residential side of the Highway 85 sound wall. PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES Develop a schematic planting plan to plant approximately 100 trees and shrubs; all plants to be native to California, most native to riparian corridors in the Saratoga area, and many grown from Santa Clara Valley seed sources. Coordinate planning with Santa Clara Valley Water District ( SCVWD) personnel, city staff, and adjacent homeowners. Plant, mulch, and initially irrigate the plants. Provide as-built plans to the City of Saratoga and adjacent homeowners, including a minimum maintenance plan to be carried out by the homeowners. Conduct two followup consulta- tions. TASK I: PLANNING A. Map existing trees (old and recently planted). B. Meet with SCVWD staff on site to determine dimensions of areas required for access and turnaround. C. Develop schematic planting plan, including minimum mainte- nance plan to be carried out by neighbors; present plan to neigh- bors and City Engineer; revise plan as needed. 1820 Graham Hill Road • Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • Fax (408) 438 -1881 • Phone (408) 438 -3103 California Landscape Contractor's License #552336 Mr. Larry Perlin August 28, 1993 Page Two TASK II: PLANTING A. Inspect plants at nurseries; finalize purchase orders to nurseries; purchase mulch and fertilizer. B. Schedule auger and water truck. C. Flag planting sites. D. Pick up plants at nurseries. E. Plant, water and mulch the plants per industry standard specifications. TASK III: POST- PLANTING A. Develop as -built plans; distribute to neighbors and City Engineer. B. Make two follow -up visits to consult with homeowners and city staff, May -June and August - September 1994. PROPOSED BUDGET Our proposed cost for the above tasks is a lump sum of $5,480.00. Our planting would address several needs expressed by the adja- cent homeowners. 1. Plants at the soundwall will be predominantly, if not all, evergreen. 2. Although more trees were removed at the south end of the block than at the north end, trees are desired along the entire length of the block to absorb traffic noise from Prospect Road (which now apparently bounces off the residential side of the sound wall). The species we anticipate planting are: Coast Live Oak! Quercus agrifolia Valley Oak i Quercus lobata Blue Elderberry; Sambucus mexicana Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia California Rose Rosa californica Flannel Bush Fremontodendron californicum Creeping Wild Rye Elymus triticoides A dozen or more of the oaks would be 15- gallon size. We would plan to complete the planting by the end of October. Our payment terms are as follows: two percent discount within ten days of the invoice; net due in 30 days. MG-15 s 0 c f a't ems Mr. Larry Perlin August 28, 1993 Page Three If the above scope, budget and terms are agreeable to you, we will begin purchasing the plants immediately upon receipt of your purchase order, while the greatest selection is available. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss any modification of this proposal, please feel welcome to contact our office. I look forward to the possibility of working with you on this project. r Sincerely, ^ Suzan e chettler Princ� pal ma s_s\o c 1 a t e s SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 3 7V AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works SUBJECT: Bonnet Way Soundwall, Capital Project No. 9113 - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the project. Report Summary: All work on the Bonnet Way Soundwall, Capital Project No. 9113, has been completed by the City's contractor, Serrano and Cone, Inc., and inspected by City staff. The final construction cost for�the project was $378,013, which is 6.3% above the awarded contract amount of $355,394. The additional costs were due to extra work resulting from utility conflicts, which necessitated a redesigned footing for the wall along its westerly half. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the contract so that the requisite 30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts: The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Project No. 9113, Account No. 4510, to cover the cost of the project including the executed change orders. Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the contract and will release the contract sureties and retention thirty days thereafter. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. 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 6th day of October, 1993. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: December 16, 1992 Contractor's Name: Serrano & Cone, Inc. Contractor's Address: 2092 Omega Rd., Suite F, San Ramon, CA 94583 Description of Work: Bonnet Way Soundwall - C.I.P. 9113 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 Clara, State of California on 19 CITY OF SARATOGA BY: Larry I. Perlin Director of Public Works ATTEST: Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 'S&) MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 ( CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works �Ll, SUBJECT: Award of contract for Crisp Ave. storm drain repairs Recommended Motion(s): Move to award a contract for repairs to the Crisp Ave. storm drain to Mello Pipelines of Campbell in the amount of $5,900 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Report Summary: Staff has solicited bids for repairs to the Crisp Ave. storm drain using the informal bidding procedures contained in Article 12 -15 of the City Code. A section of the storm drain system along the northerly side of Crisp Ave. between Andrew Ct. and Granite Way is plugged with debris that cannot be removed using conventional methods. Consequently, a section of the storm drain system needs replacement between an inlet structure along the curb and the outfall structure at the tributary to Wildcat Creek which flows under Crisp Ave. Two contractors submitted bids and copies of them are attached. Mello.Pipelines of Campbell submitted the lower bid of $5,900 and since this contractor has successfully worked for the City in the past, it is recommended that the Council award a contract to Mello Pipelines in the amount of their bid and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Fiscal Impacts: Sufficient funds for this work are contained in the Water Quality Management budget, Program 20, Account No. 4510. Follow Up Actions: Staff will execute a contract with Mello Pipelines and authorize them to proceed with the work. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Council may either reject the low bid or reject both bids. If the Council rejects both bids, the repairs will not be made unless the Council directs staff to rebid the project. . AIELLO PWEUNES. 260 McGlincey Lane CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 377.6103 PROPOSAI SUBMITTLO TO PHONE DA7� CITY OF SARATUGA 867 -3438 +11tLLl - - -- -- — J08 NAi k • —_ - 13777 FRUITVAIJ.' AVE CITY, 9TATF AND ZIP COUk lOR Ifii•AtrfJN SARATOGA, CA 95070 CRISP AVE ANCHITLCT PLAN DATE Of JOa "+nNF We hereby submit suecificatinns and rctimrdnr. Inr —`— Replacp 12'.x.CMP. from hack of curb to the eximting rip rap. Tnatall new rip rap where needed. Remove all excesH roil and dolirl at out — fall. EXCLUDES AT.J. PERMIT$., .. FEES AND .130ND.S. P.XCLUDES ANY LANDSCAPE REPLACEMENT, Ile propogr hereby to furnish material and labor complete in accordance with above specificatiun�;, for the s ;um of: - -__ _ FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND _00 1100 (101lar5($ Payment to bn madp as follows: -- -- , All rlrAfA /{AI i4 gl1ArAntAArl trr fir A- 111Ar•i11Ai1 All wrrY4 1.. IfA n.YM111AtAA in . wn /k.i.anlik!• u.rnuar A-4my lu atar J.W pa,�t ws. Auy rllurrl.uu w Jw.rt.w. Luu. .Ibuve :yea.nia Authnri7Ad Will, inv.due.g A.1ttA su►1. will Iw .u.A..ul.d unly ul.uu wo-ti— -dom, w d will hocorM an 5lanaturC - .. extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements cunbrivent uuun slrihes. xccidenle or delay beyond our control. Owner to earry rare. turnado and ulhvr rrcw «!•.•ary irn........... IS pr OSzi may bA Our wurkArr orr lolly uu *A 1 by Wurk -.W. C..... .wn. L.aurar»o, withdrawn by u5 if not ar- r:epted within .Arr�#nr>e ofru�nBaal — I Me above prices. specifications. and conditions are satisfactory and ore hereby oceopted. You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified. Payment will bit made at outlined above. D t 1 A Signature o c o ecuptoncc. SEP -07 -1992 13 :22 FROM L &T & GLhGE UNDERGROUND TO 7411049 P.01 1116 DELL AVENUE r% POST OFFICE BOX 112492 CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95011 •;' Sr' Telephone: (408) 379 -3010 ''JOHN GLAGE Underground Construction UCENSE #5046a 9 -5 -93 CITY OF SARATOGA 1377 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA. 95070 RE: CRISP DR. I PROPOSE TO INSTALL AS PER OUR FIELD THE FOLLOWING. REMOVE AND REPLACE 12" CMP WITH 12" CMP. BREAK AND ENTER ONE CATCH BASIN, REMOVE AND REPLACE SMALL SECTION OF RIP RAP. MAX DEPTH OF PIPE IS 5 FOOT DEEP. THE COST IS LUMP SUM $6,309.00 THE COST TO CLEAN BOTTOM OF RIP RAP AREA 1S LUMP SUM $1,000.00 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO GIVE ME A CALL SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL -7)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works SUBJECT: Award of contract for weekly arterial street sweeping Recommended Recommended Motion(s): Move to award a three month contract for weekly arterial street sweeping to Don and Mike's Commercial Sweeping in the amount of $7,500 and' authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Report Summary: In accord with the City's stormwater pollution control responsibilities, staff is working to develop a citywide street sweeping program. Ultimately, the program will result in regularly scheduled sweeping of all city maintained streets. At your previous meeting, the Council awarded a contract for weekly sweeping of the commercial area of Saratoga Village along with the four public parking lots in the Village to begin the initial phase of the program. At this time, staff is prepared to expand the program to the next phase which includes weekly sweeping of all arterial, thoroughfare and major collector streets (see attached map). However, in order to give staff the ability to gauge the effectiveness of the program and to work out any; bugs which will undoubtedly develop, it is recommended that this next phase be initiated for a three month trial basis and reevaluated at the end of the three months. At that time, staff can: amend the contract to optimize the sweeping program based on experience gained during the three month trial period before a longer term contract is developed and before the program is expanded into the residential neighborhoods. Don and Mike's Commercial Sweeping, the firm which was awarded the Village area sweeping contract, was offered the opportunity to submit a proposal for the three month trial program in accordance with the terms of the attached contract. Staff believes that using the same contractor during the trial period will greatly facilitate the development of the city -wide sweeping program. The proposal submitted by Don and Mike's Commercial Sweeping is based on compensation of nine dollars ($9) per curb mile swept which, when compared against rates neighboring cities are paying, we have determined to be a very competitive price. The trial period would run for 13 weeks and would involve weekly sweeping of approximately 60 curb miles of streets so the anticipated contract amount is $7,020. However, to allow for overages in quantities and any unforeseen occurrences, it is recommended that the Council award a contract in the amount of $7,500. Fiscal Impacts: Sufficient funds for this work are contained in the Water Quality Management budget, Program 20, Account No. 4510. Follow Up Actions: Staff will execute a three month contract with Don and Mike's Commercial Sweeping and will authorize them to proceed with the work beginning on November 1. An evaluation of the trial program will be conducted upon its conclusion on January 31, 1994. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff will not execute the interim contract and will await further suggestions from the Council on how to implement a city -wide street sweeping program. DI I MEAdOW NK - 'µ T DR cR R� - CT v = o n ` >I - p1DGEOR o f z o_ � SCINSION r-' v �9 z CT 4 c OAKHAVE ATRIDMoo ��y G� DR Z Pt3HT 0> z " H. it S° vMELIND z° v yA CT Y �GIR z KNOLLWOOD DR CT �L0 WE NA C K " `01, KEVIN ° e r Blue - ORAL OMERVILLEO m v CIR _ ST. JOAN Cz ■ Hills \�p5��PK.' °� I v 2 >V BR MANOR �q '� OLL A AVE ��/ 3` _� MILLER FA( SLER CT z GORTON U41't A Q` \(T '' a` 2 N HILlM00RDR � CT � VER �"�AV a c� A \O`1 �� Py J PUENiE G < ORCHESTER DR MOOR of �56i�C�?�i[r _JV• t RT CIRC ��0� tmu�. CKET o S -,',L ynbr A+D c' g USSE Rz : Lane y lE or A W u 'mACSi CT M9Y -i � Saritep Craakw � AAVE Park South �NBROOK yNBROOK CT R, Q /% /Prospect I r C BERN ��REENBROOK o foC SP ,:SAN F ��0� oOSICN DROQ �;J USE - ELMWOOD3, Q �ANSlfY J�2 v� C9 `�Q e s � _3 I BEQ' tCO��S LN NORTHIAWN � _ a rag RBO. S4 /'c`O w> 5 }r= �PA5E0 2^ (I S < nululY - - �•7 I �nn�cn U O ABERDEEN CT '1O ) my I C/ ,Y z I� uQ \E o �T DR W et <JUNIP Q v D C7j v f 9ulto 3 % ~PASEOPUEBL BE1L0 °o Iv< OR 9 RCL au CT R AVILUNDc .i o, < T P yl RAI EN C! 3 RO DEH � PALERMO 9 I C PK o I < �m ?Z � ,\ COX <YI' 60 E A1� � �USTON 2 = qp0 - pli LATER — ACCAR NDA i BAYLORi-:' -'AV ` M6' z �, � � 3. < PASEO lADO Av W Ci vISCT 9 I R N� < tqR ° PURDUE OR CHgiENV ES E1 HICKORY ,� DR R O�Rz�� L NW AVE VANDERBILTD ° o z °DR rwYC a HILL WAY R $o CHgR�CCRT o �ANDEz z °DR SCt \ft �� i AVE a DERO CT. ooh CUhNINGNA EPA pR i TfRS Cr u gr< D. o ` CLEMSON AV a )0 0.10E OT PLKI IBRIDE �ArQonauAGUS CT S` CNN < e " CT d aF¢�,r MARTHA AVE z 2 o x I o W > SWARTHMOREg i McCOY- DR - > q LEONARD ROAD aSV =gOGKHN Q ♦Fiy f N ° v r '3MONTREAL 3 F^ B S� DINBURGH DR 5 IE R \O J�! MO� �! !\ O ?•BD, gy q� FE o a ` cc m v �'a TISDALE f DEB I a�CFf �� v i C u00 3 C99 f ° eaE RK s Ct f TOS �� B�P� �< ao� ORKTON i IEWW3 o w r 0. SSE(( LN � � i� ` U c Cr - _< t �i T r v o P. <u3 ti= S I < < m c � �+�, r�pR Ci�'L1 4,CL P X05 •2y' !? c ` �. C Ruf[ � SON MANDARIN U BRAEMAR �o �O�p \O!Q CA SA � ♦ v �,TSOUSA SEVIL IN� HAL\ V U ANCA <, LN NISTA El DO2ADO 3 FRANKLIN AVE< ; ' A 'PO.t, fJ' o`'� J G Q� O ?� PE gNINEq a LN �` • WESTMOA, �= CT CIAIET� aSARATOG�� VISTA pCT rs rB oc ?O Cy�oZ�OQ J PK ASPESI Sw � ° IERDEVIS A` LNG LN t' > Cz OLD $ ° C 9 0� W�0 mo5 ~o,��xaE HARLEIGH DRS CT J �'u �R�DR \� 1 MERRICK' t E W00 WARD <W�� DR o 3 G /OQ n co z TWAIN a z iH i� IC�l�c 1 .' < r y ON w,�°HE U < B9 �_ ( <' - ° CO = q� Py A •Pz SE IE Foothill f o D� R DEERPARK a . Tatoxa!', G ESPE a A G JCT p A West Valley TY AVE z O, p p gZAPELLI 1! $ Redwood College ♦ 'g R �. ISaratoja Campus) ` a RAVEN P� 0. A �' 1� 'S'A 0� ° s yG N �+ R •a Dq � I :: LS no y \EW RED o a SOV`pNy� < +r o nor HESt T yo z 2 RSHALL y a 5 'S- vQ4' Q IN LOUA ' Marshall Lane SOBEY BRO O gAM 3 ¢ tc fN ao ROAD ARAB A ET % .n CT p. O �r 'PC � Vv 1� z ° DOUC S LN •' S�`� `^ � - 3 - : � o ,A �/ 00 ti0 RD �mEl rl O A �P PL '` D z c o /� ° OLD 3 CDR VI T P� $� BUCK WALNUT `C A R (' A o C OO a r�OAi�'?F OQ CEO LEN \ y ANVMARCOS RD 5�� ,ri� t z cc t �g G t EOQa`�5511EO �PNOQ v VERSAILLES WAY YWAY a �> •Y r`J► n J SaraiPt� t 9 3 z <' CkAB u 3 CL yiC VESSING E4� VQ 3 FAR ELL ; AVE ``I �I� �5 Cr sou ° No06 , �� LO5 Alj Ij PA QBr tw !� �f f Op��\N a \V'� ANDELET G9 0 D� 1ST A fl WAY t' i? Q� f ` j i E1 lid i m It \LAG MD,y BUTANOIERR � OJ R�4j0, 'I 3 ¢ = U p C� SPRROO WOODBAN PUUA S�DA.� i , X99 (W FA WELL <CRISP Ct LN —c WA LA 16 p a E m`b CT r ARBOLADO RANCHO y HILL AVE L. rEN THREE A °�t9! < iiiWJ INN RDz c OR W v C� NO►•SPE ` N yO�hFI PARK VA uOQ�O� \ SE o, I r✓ OQ W W� ?o`� f ? . \ R qlp S PARK DR DR = !� vl . x ALONDRA „ O! 4Q ' MAUDE AVDNou ' Y c SIGAL �� PIE T yy c L \W E� W`.y�AVE P MOHT III 3 Y ROBIN WAY 0 4C LARK WAY 3BUIEOJ J S J Nq Cr s STq 0� > VIAENCHANiADA D u m c�- ®R TEy! ( CH" 4 f CITYWIDE STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA A. Definitions and General Information 1. The City desires to contract a professional street cleaning service for a period beginning November 1. 1993 and ending January 311 1994. 2. The contractor selected will meet all minimum requirements of this proposal. 3. The City has approximately thirty (30) miles of roadway to be swept, equaling approximately sixty (60) curb miles. 4. The term debris shall mean all materials normally picked up by a mechanical sweeper, such as sand, glass, paper, cans and other materials. 5. The term street shall mean the paved area between the normal curb line of a roadway whether an actual curb line exists or not. It shall not include any ways that would cause damage to the equipment used. It does not include sidewalks, areas adjacent to the roadway or parking lots. 6. Adverse weather conditions shall mean heavy rains, extreme cold and other inclement weather conditions as so designated by the Director of Public Works. 7. Holidays shall be New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans'!Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. H. Scope of Work 1. The contractor will clean designated streets currently owned and maintained by the City. 2. The contractor will sweep each street once per week, except in the case of adverse weather conditions. 3. Sweeping will be done between the hours of P.M. and A.M. days a week during the contract period. 4. The contractor will supply and maintain all equipment necessary to accomplish these sweepings. 5. The contractor will dump all debris swept up at locations designated by the City. 6. The contractor may be required to sweep certain areas at times other than stated above. Compensation will be on a per diem basis equal to the rate paid under the terms of the contract. 7. All streets shall be swept with the normal flow of traffic. C. Equipment specifications 1. The contractor must have proof of ownership, or a signed lease for the duration of the contract, of at least two (2) motorized machines suitable for meeting the requirements of this contract. A list of machines must be enclosed with the contractor's bid. Where new equipment will be purchased, the contractor should provide a signed quotation from an equipment dealer, with a guaranteed delivery date, in order to ensure that work can begin on time. 2. All machines must not be over five (5) years old at the time of the bid. 3. Machines must be capable of transporting debris to locations designated by the City. 4. Machines must be equipped with an efficient water spray system for dust control, ;and. the spray system must be maintained in good operating condition. 5. Machines must !be properly registered anad insured in accordance with the motor vehicle laws of the State of California. 6. Machines must be in good working condition and kept that way throughout the life of the contract. 7. A sufficient supply of spare brooms and other parts must be kept on hand to ensure the timely and continuous fulfillment of this contract. 8. Equipment must be capable of removing litter, leaves and debris sufficiently to meet city cleanliness standards. 9. Equipment must conform to all federal, state and local safety regulations. 10. Vehicles must 'be of the regenerative air type and equipped with' dual gutter brooms and a main broom capable of sweeping at minimum a nine -foot path. D. City's obligations 1. The City will provide and maintain adequate disposal site(s) for dumping debris picked up by the contractor. 2. The City will provide safety efficiency checks. E. Contractor's obligations 1. The contractor must be able to meet all requirements of this project. 2. The contractor will be responsible for securing adequate hydrant access throughout the City for filling water spray systems. 3. The contractor will provide fuel and maintenance for all vehicles and for equipment. 4. The contractor'must have a supervisor or foreman available at all times to direct operations. This supervisor or foreman will report to the Director of Public Works or his designee any problems that occur, and provide summary reports of sweeping activity on a weekly basis on forms provided by the City. 5. The contractor shall maintain the agreed upon frequency of sweeping as closely as possible, subject to adverse weather conditions, defined under the terms of this contract. The contractor will not be required to do any hand sweeping or to return to sweep an area previously blocked by illegally parked vehicles. 6. The contractor must show, by past performance, capability of performing a contract of this magnitude. A list of other cities and towns for which contracts have been completed must be provided to the City. 7. The contractor agrees not to sublet or assign this contract in whole or in part without the written authorization of the Director of Public Works. F. Payment Schedule 1. As full compensation under the terms of this contract, the City shall pay the contractor at the unit rate of Nine Dollars ($9) per curb mile of street swept. G. Insurance Requirements 1. The contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance of at least one million dollars, and property damage insurance of at least one million dollars. The contractor shall also maintain property damage and bodily injury insurance of at least one million dollars. Employees will be covered by worker's compensation insurance. The contractor will hold the City harmless from all damages and the City shall be named as an additional insured on all policies. Evidence of current insurance shall be provided to the City prior to the start of work. H. Contract Renewal 1. The City and the contractor, by mutual agreement, may renew the contract for monthly periods at the contract price, plus an increase reflecting the increase in the U.S. Department of Labor's "Consumer Price Index." 2. If the City does not intend to renew the contract, it must give the contractor thirty (30) days written notice. 3. The contractor may seek to have the contract rebid by making a written request at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the contract. 4. This contract expires January 31. 1994 if option 1 above is not exercised. The City reserves the right at that time to rebid any subsequent contract that may be desired. 1' Commercial Sweeping i 1 Proposal Submitted To (Billing Address): CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA. 95070 ATTN: GARY ENRICQUEZ I Phone: ( 408) 867_3438 Date: I 10 -01 -93 Job Address: CITY OF SARATOGA CITY STREETS We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: Sweeping the City Of Saratoga. We will sweep the main arterials on a weekly basis at $9.00 a curb mile. Sixty curb miles four times a month. We propose to furnish labor and materials for the above described service for the sum of $2,160.00 per month Payment terms: NET 30 day basis. 0 Signature: THIS PROPOSAL IS GOOD FOR A PERIOD OF 30 PAYS 90; DOI Awry. Cjrmpp@ll, Cal 95088 •;08.866.2012 • F&A 408.g"4611