The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-20-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: April 20, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 LAWSON; 12375 Farr Ranch Road Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a request to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,610 sq. ft. by 531 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 706 sq. ft. pool house. A second Variance is requested to allow the pool house to be constructed on an average slope of 39 percent where 30 percent is the maximum permitted. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. Recommended Motion: Deny the appellant's request and uphold the Planning Commission's action to deny the Variance and'Design Review requests. Report Summary: I On March 8, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request for the following: 1. Site Modification to construct a pool, associated decking, and arbor. 2. Modification of a fencing plan approved for the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association to allow an exception to a condition that requires all fencing to be setback 20 feet from the side property lines. 3. Variance to exceed the site's permitted floor area and to construct a structure on an average slope of 39% where 30% is the maximum permitted. Design Review approval was also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. The Planning Commission accepted staff's analysis, opened the public hearing to take testimony and then deliberated on the request. At'the applicant's request the;_Planning Commission continued the application to the March 23 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to discuss the proposal with an objecting neighbor. At the March 23 meeting, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's requests, for Site Modification for the swimming pool and Modification to the approved Parker Ranch Fencing plan, per staff's recommendation, by adopting Resolutions SM -93 -010 and FE -90 -001. The applicant's request for Variance and Design Review approval to allow construction of the pool house was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the Variance and Design Review request. Lawson Appeal April 20, 1994 Page 2 As the attached minutes from the meeting indicate, the Commissioners did not feel the findings could be made to support a floor area Variance. The applicant stated that she felt a hardship did exist due to how-far back the existing house is located on the property and the family's need for additional recreation space. The Planning Commissioners agreed this could be a hardship to support the location of a pool house, but that it did not constitute the need for a square footage Variance to the maximum permitted floor area. Fiscal Impacts: None Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The property owners of all properties within 500 feet of the subject property (a total of 84) were mailed notice of this application on April 6, 1994. A notice was also published in-the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Approval of the Variance would allow the applicant to construct the pool house as submitted. Follow Un Actions: None Attachments: 1. Resolution V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 2. Planning Commission Minutes, dated 3/23/94 and 3/8/94 3. Staff Memorandum, 3/23/94 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO. V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Lawson; 12375 Farr Ranch Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to exceed the site's maximum - -allowable floor area of 5,610 sq.' ft. by 531 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 706 sq. ft. pool house. A second Variance is necessary to allow the structure to be constricted on an average slope of 39 percent where 30 percent is the maximum permitted. Design review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 square feet. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the request for Design Review and the slope Variance approval is contingent on the approval of the floor area Variance application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said floor area Variance application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings do not exist which would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that the applicant's own desire to exceed the site's maximum permitted floor area does not constitute a special circumstance. (b) That the .granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that no special physical circumstances exist applicable to the property to support a Variance and the floor area formula specifically takes into account the size and topography of each parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of. the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of LAWSON for Variance and Design Review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File Nos. V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046; 12375 Farr Ranch Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning commis- sion, State of California, this 23rd day of March 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Caldwell, Moran, Kaplan, Jacobs, Wolfe & Murakami. NOES: None. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Chairperson Moran inquired if anyone wished to remove Item #1 (the only item) from the Consent Calendar. No one indicated a desire to remove the item. 1. DR -93 -020 - Goese; 20661 Fifth St., request for Design UP -93 -004 - Review approval to construct five residential SD -93 -005 - townhomes, ranging from 2,241 to 2,610 sq. ft. in size (including below grade garages), on an 8,468 sq. ft. parcel located within the Saratoga Village. Use Permit approval is also necessary to permit the construction of residential dwellings having street frontage within the Village and Subdivision approval is necessary to allow the parcelization of the future units. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared (cont. to 4/13/94 at the request of the applicant; application expires 7/19/94). -------------------------------------------------------------- CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SM -93 -010 - Lawson; 12375 Farr Ranch Rd., Planning FE -90 -001.1 - Commission consideration of the following: V -93 -031 - DR -93 -046 - 1. Site Modification approval to construct a pool and associated decking and landscaping pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 2. Modification of a fencing plan approved for the Parker Ranch Homeowners to allow an exception to a condition that requires all fencing to be setback 20 feet from the side property lines. The proposed fence is a five foot high open style (4" x 4" steel gauge) fence and is located approximately five feet from the north side property line and immediately adjacent to the south side property line. The fence will not enclose more than 50 percent of the site area. 3. Variance approval to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,610 sq. ft. by 531 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 706 sq. ft. pool house. A second Variance is requested to allow the pool house to be built on -an average slope of 39 percent where 30 percent is the maximum permitted. 4. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 6 area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within an HR zone district (cont. from 3/8/94 at the request of the applicants to discuss the project with an objecting neighbor; application expires 7/13/94). -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Stanchina presented the Report dated March 23, 1994, and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the applications, the project and Resolution FE -90- 001.1. Chairperson Moran explained that she had been contacted by telephone by the next door neighbor (who also submitted a letter at the last meeting) and requested that she (Chairperson Moran) deliver their comments on the issue. Chairperson Moran inquired of City Attorney Riback as to the appropriateness of this and at what point during the meeting should she deliver these comments. City Attorney Riback explained that Chairperson Moran was under, no obligation to reiterate the comments unless she believed the comments were pertinent and provided new information that should be given to the Commission. He stated that if she wished to deliver these comments that she could do so at this point in the meeting. Chairperson Moran stated that the neighbors requested that she explain that they (the neighbors) were delighted to have the Lawsons as neighbors and want the Lawsons to be able to develop their land, but would, however, like the CC &Rs of the subdivision and the regulations of the City to be followed. She stated that the neighbors expressed concern with the proposed fence setbacks and would like the 20' (City) fence setback regulations followed. In terms of landscaping, the neighbors expressed a preference for the installation of mature landscaping to help mitigate privacy impacts as a result of the new pool and play area. Chairperson Moran stated that the neighbors also requested that the landscaping not be install right on the property line, but back 5 or 6 feet so as to allow it to grow without encroaching across the property line or interfering with the drain. Chairperson Moran reported that the neighbors requested the proposed pool be located farther (to the north) away from their house. Chairperson Moran referred to their letter expressing opposition to the pool house entirely. With regard to the installation of the drainage for the new structure, the neighbors asked that the City inspect the drainage and the installation to ensure that the drainage would adequately serve its purpose. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 7 Marcia Lawson, applicant introduced the project's landscape architect. Tim Hoagland, Landscape architect, clarified issues mentioned in the letter from the neighbors. Mr. Hoagland assured the Commission that the landscaping referred to in the letter and which is slated for removal is located on the applicant's property. Mr. Hoagland explained that if the proposed southwestern property line fence is constructed in a way as to point back in toward the house, the fence would be more visible than it would be if built as proposed. Mr. Hoagland presented a plan of the site which depicted improvements (steps and etc.) made on the Lawson's property by the Greenleafs', the neighbors. He stated that the applicant's proposal may impact these improvements and this may contribute to the neighbor's opposition to the applicant's project. Mr. Hoagland also discussed the issue of the drainage and noted that currently the Greenleaf's property drains onto the Lawson's property and that the project would not reverse this process. With regard to the pool location, Mr. Hoagland commented that the pool is located as close to the house as possible. Commissioner Jacobs inquired, if allowed (by the City), if there would be a problem with moving the pool even closer to the pool house thus rotating the pool upwards and cutting into the slope somewhat so as to move the fence in to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Hoagland explained that the reason the applicant is asking for an exception to the setback regulations has to do with other reasons pertaining to the construction of the pool and providing a safe play area for the family children. He stated that the applicant, at this point, was not looking at that option. Commissioner Jacobs reiterated his question of whether the pool location could be slightly shifted to allow the fence to closer meet the City regulations. Mr. Hoagland stated that the suggestion could be possible, however, moving the pool in this manner would cause the pool to be a greater visual impact to the Greenleafs. Marcia Lawson, applicant, addressed the question /suggestion posed by Commissioner Jacobs and explained that moving the pool would make it virtually impossible to screen (the pool) for privacy. In response to Commissioner Jacobs question regarding the distance between the fence and the street, Planner Stanchina noted that the fence is at least 60 feet from the street. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Hoagland, Landscape architect, explained that extensive landscape screening is planned for the site. Marcia Lawson, applicant, expressed surprise at the neighbor's concern with regard to the shrubbery. She stated that the fact that the Greenleaf's were required to install landscaping during their construction should have no bearing on her proposal. She stated that she feels her property is in need of additional landscaping and would like to be able to install the landscaping according to her plan. Ms. Lawson explained that her property poses a hardship in the way that the house is placed on the lot. She explained that the house is sited far back on the lot and strictly limits the possibility of additional construction within the City regulations. She noted that her family is in need of additional recreational space and that the pool house would provide the space needed as well as serve as a retainer for the hillside. She pointed out the existence of other similar pool houses and pools in the area and commented that these were built prior to the implementation of the regulations. She noted that if the pool and pool house had been built simultaneously with the main structure there would be no issue. Terry Martin, project architect, offered to answer any questions the Commission might have with regard to the project. There was no one else wishing to speak. CALDWELL /JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. PASSED 6 -0. Chairperson Moran outlined the issues of the project and asked the Commission to commence discussion. Commissioner Murakami stated that he could not make the findings to support the variance and design review. Commissioner Caldwell expressed her appreciation for the applicant's attempt to meet the required findings, however, she stated, that the placement of the house on the lot does not warrant a square footage variance for a pool house. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was in agreement with the staff report and could not support the variance. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the statements made by Commissioner Caldwell and the recommendations made in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Jacobs explained that he had a problem with the project exceeding the allowable square footage for the lot. He pondered the possibility of the slope of the lot constituting a variance thus setting precedent for variances on other similarly sloped lots. He stated that he could not find the legal basis to support the variance. Commissioner Wolfe stated that the unfortunate location of the house on the site severely restricts the construction possibilities, but did not constitute the need for a variance. He stated that he could not make the necessary findings to support the variance. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt that the location of the house was not the problem. He stated that he had a problem with the fact that the pool house would exceed the allowable square footage for the lot. CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUEST BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046. PASSED 6 -0. With regard to the fence plan modification, Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like to see the pool moved in order to allow the fence to meet the setback requirements. She stated that she would have difficulty approving a modification to the fence plan if there was a way to relocate the pool and the meet the fence setback requirements. Commissioner Caldwell asked staff if it was their position that the pool and the fence, placed according to staff's recommendation, could co- exist. Planner Stanchina confirmed that staff was of the opinion that the pool and the fence placed according to their (staff's) recommendation could co- exist. Chairperson Moran asked if there was a City requirement as to how far or close a pool enclosure fence could be placed from the pool. Planner Stanchina stated that there was no regulation governing the placement of a pool fence. Chairperson Moran inquired if the fence could be brought in closer to the pool if the plan was somewhat modified. Planner Stanchina noted that any modification to the plan that would shift the pool would require modifications to the grading and retaining wall design. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 10 Commissioner Caldwell inquired if Chairperson Moran was interested in asking the applicants if they were agreeable to shifting the pool. Chairperson Moran pointed out that if the applicants agreed to shift the pool, the application would need to be continued to allow the applicants to make the necessary modifications to the plans. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that moving the pool would essentially eliminate the side yard. Commissioner Kaplan expressed confusion with regard to the proposed fence location and the existing fence location. Planner Stanchina presented photos to assist Commissioner Kaplan. She also explained the applicant's proposed location of the fence, the existing location of the fence, and staff's recommendation for the location of the fence. Planner Stanchina explained the basis of staff's recommended fence location. She explained that staff recognized the site limited usable yard area and that this warranted an exception to the 20 foot setback rule. She noted that unless the neighboring properties applied for an exception to the fence setback requirements, there would be a minimum 25 foot corridor on the left side and a 30 foot corridor on the right side. She stated that staff felt these corridors would be adequate to serve as wildlife corridors. She further explained that if exceptions were granted to the neighbors a 10 foot wide wildlife corridor in this particular case would be acceptable. CALDWELL /WOLFE MOVED APPROVAL OF FE -90- 001.1. Commissioner Caldwell stated that based on the comments made by staff, the site visit, and the unique circumstance of the lot, she was convinced that the fence location would still allow adequate passage /space for the wildlife corridor. Commissioner Wolfe and Murakami agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had nothing further to add. Commissioners Jacobs expressed support for the motion. Chairperson Moran stated that she was troubled by what the action may mean to other properties in the area. She stated that she could not support the motion. THE MOTION PASSED 4 -2 (CHAIRPERSON MORAN AND COMMISSIONER Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 11 KAPLAN OPPOSED). . CALDWELL /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE SM -93 -010 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Chairperson Moran stated that she had no problem with the pool, but that she would prefer the fencing be at the standards set by the Parker Ranch Homeowners. THE MOTION PASSED 6 -0. The meeting was recessed at 8:57 p.m. and then reconvened at 9:07 p.m. 3. DR -94 -005 - Denari; 20300 Orchard Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 600 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 2,189 sq. ft. one -story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 7,850 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zone district. Planner Stanchina presented the Staff Report dated March 23, 1994. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:10 P.M. Michael Davis, project designer, spoke in favor of the application. He explained that the proposed design was sensitive to the neighbors and their privacy. He also discussed the height of the proposed structure and the existing landscaping on the site. There was no one else wishing to speak. AT 9:11 P.M., CALDWELL / KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6 -0 KAPLAN /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -94 -005 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Chairperson Moran stated that she thought the project was designed nicely and thanked the designer for his efforts to design a nice addition which was not only compatible, but also sensitive to the neighbors. Commissioner Murakami explained that he had visited the site and concluded that the proposed addition would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Planning Commission Agenda Page 12 3/8/94 ASFOUR /CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR -93 -047 SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND SUBCONCLUSIONS OF THE HEARING. Com. Caldwell thanked staff for a thorough staff report. THE ABOVE MOTION PASSED 7 -0. 3. SM -93 -010 - Lawson; 12375 Farr Ranch Rd., Planning FE -90 -001.1 - Commission consideration of the following: V -93 -031 - DR -93 -046 - 1. Site Modification approval to construct a pool and associated decking and landscaping pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 2. Modification of a fencing plan approved for the Parker Ranch Homeowners to allow an exception to a condition that requires all fencing to be setback 20 feet from the side property lines. The proposed fence is a five foot high open style (411 x 411. steel gauge) fence and is located approximately five feet from the north side property line and immediately adjacent to the south side property line. The fence will not enclose more than 50 percent of the site area. 3. Variance approval to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,610 sq. ft. by 531 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 706 sq. ft. pool house. A second variance is requested to allow the pool house to be built on an average slope of 39 percent where 30 percent is the maximum permitted. 4. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City'Code. The subject property is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within an HR zone district. -------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated March 8, 1994. Chr. Moran questioned the removal of the olive trees which provide screening. Planner Walgren stated they do provide screening but are not ordinance protected and the applicant has proposed to replace these with landscaping which, overtime, will provide screening. Com. Caldwell commended staff for a thorough report. Chr. Moran opened the public hearing. Mr. Tim Holglen, Landscape Architect, stated the most important issue is the variance for the pool house and noted the guidelines they are working with are guidelines and should be treated as such. He noted the pool house will have no negative impact and he sees no Planning Commission Agenda 3/8/94 Page 13 solid reason why this project should not be approved. He stated he worked with staff throughout this process. Com. Jacobs stated other that the natural topography of the lot, is there any existing structures that would cause a hardship, in terms of the pool house? He stated he is struggling to find an exception. ~Ms. Marcia Wells Lawson stated the reason for the fence is for her children and because of a lime disease problem. She stated she does not want the deer creating a path were her children play. Planner Walgren reviewed the proposed fence as outlined on the plans. Chr. Moran read a letter into the record from John E. Creenleaf and Carol Greenleaf, at 12391 Farr Ave., dated March 3, 1994. Chr. Moran stated she talked to Mr. Greenleaf and it is her understanding that he would like to talk to the Lawsons. Mr. Lawson stated if his neighbor is in objection to this project he would like a continuance to discuss this with him. Mrs Lawson stated the main reason for the pool house is because they need a large room for gatherings and believes the design proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. She noted the formula used in 1983, when the house was built would have allowed the pool house. Com. Jacobs asked was there any consideration given to expanding the family room by 200 ft., as opposed to building a separate structure? Mrs. Lawson stated this is a possibility. Com. Jacobs stated the Planning Commission have rules to follow and he is having problems making the findings to grant the variance. Com. Asfour stated he has no problem with the site modification, but cannot make the findings to grant the variance request. He stated they have to be careful not to grant a special privilege. Com. Kaplan stated she did visit the site and still cannot make the findings to grant the variance. Com. Murakami questioned the wine cellar. Mr. Lawson stated this was his personal design and would be convenient when having large parties to use as a large refrigerator. Com. Wolfe stated he is impressed with the staff report and would support staff's recommendations. Com. Caldwell spoke in favor of the continuance. She stated the applicant should obtain a list of the variance findings and the Greenleaf's letter. Planning Commission Agenda 3/8/94 Page 14 Mr. Tim Holglen stated the olive trees are in poor health and what they propose will provide better screening. He expressed concern about delays in receiving information from staff. CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS APPLICATION TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1994. PASSED 7 -0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Planning Director Curtis stated he received a letter from the applicant of the 5th street development who requests a continuance to the first meeting in April. He noted the Commission will have to continue this at the March 23, 1994 meeting. . COMMISSION ITEMS Com. Jacobs passed out an article regarding Greenbriar. Com. Asfour stated he will be out of the Country for the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Grace United Methodist Church re: Noise Complaints The Commission agreed to ask the Pastor of Grace United Methodist Church to address the Commission. Mr. Curtis stated he will inform the neighbors of this request. 2. City Council Minutes -.2/16 & 2/22/94 3. Planning Commission Notices for 3/23/94 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on March 23, 1994, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Respectfully submitted Catherine M. Robillard. U DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: , "ITE if S; I MY 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 - (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: MEMORANDUM March 23, 1994 Planning Commission Lynette Stanchina,�Assistant Planner SM -93 -010, FE -90- 001.1, V -93 -031, DR -93 -046 LAWSON; 12375 Farr Ranch Road Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker This application was continued from the March 8 Planning Commission meeting at the applicants' request to allow them an opportunity to discuss the proposal with an objecting neighbor (see attached letter). The applicants have stated that they have discussed the project with the neighbors who intend to withdraw their concerns. However, no additional correspondence had been received as of March 17, 1994. RECOMMENDATION Since the proposal remains unchanged, please reference the attached staff report for the project discussion and staff's recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Correspondence, 2. Resolutions dated March 3, 1994 3. Staff Report, dated March 8, 1994 Printed on recycled paper. March 3, 1994 Gillian Moran, Chair Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Moran: This letter is in response to Notice of Hearing SM -93 -01'0 (A.P.N. 366 -49 -027): Lawson, 12375 Farr Ranch Road. Our property (12391 Farr Ranch Court) is located adjacent to the West of the Lawson's property. We will receive the greatest impact from the proposed site modification. While we support the rights of our friends(the Lawsons) to develop their property according to their desires and tastes, we feel that their proposed plan significantly violates some of the provisions of the Parker Ranch Homeowners C C & R's that we all signed, as well as those of the city code. The main provisions are the extensive use of fencing that does not-conform to the 20 -foot setback, and the proposed con- struction of a so- called pool house. Rules against fencing were one of the reasons we decided to build in Parker Ranch which, in addition to the designated open space areas, contributed to the overall concept of open space. Construction of the pool house will require removal of a volume of soil equal to approximately 50% of the volume of the pool house. It is unfortunate that the location of the main house is so far back on the lot which results in in- sufficient room for optimal backyard pool construction. One provision of the occupancy permit for our home was that a row of dense shrubbery be planted on the property line with the Lawsons to provide privacy and noise attenuation. This barrier is in place now and it works well. The Lawson's construction plan calls for removal of those shrubs and that trees be planted along the property. It is doubtful that trees will provide a sufficient privacy barrier as intended in,the original occupancy permit. The Commission should be aware that there is presently no Architectural Control Committee in place for the Homeowners Asso- ciation. Even when we had such a committee, the Homeowners Board of Directors in effect made the final decisions concerning -com- pliance with the C C & R's. Thus, if some honeowners wished to get a variance passed, they arranged to become board members which seemed to make the.process easier. Mr. Lawson has been a member of the Association Board of Directors for about 3 years which would seem to constitute, at least, a conflict of interest. Res. FE -90 -001, . ,t-sr Ranch, Tracts 6526 �.i. 5. All proposed fence plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director for'review and approval. 6. Prior to the Director's approval of the fence plan, a com- prehensive landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Landscaping shall include indigenous and drought tolerant species that will be complementary to the vegetation currently within the open space areas. Upon completion of the fence and landscaping, the Director shall conduct an inspection to ensure satisfactory completion of the landscape plan. 7. Fence style deemed approved by this exception shall be limited to open styles shown in Exhibit "A" attached. S. No fences shall be contiguous with any neighboring fences. 9. Side and rear yard fencing may be located on the property. line with no.setbacks when such fencing is adjacent to dedicated open space. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, Coun- ty, City and other governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 8th day of August, 1990, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST• ec a ry, )?Ianning Commission Planni - Qommiss The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: �-'sf /(�f J y RESOLUTION NO. FE -90 -001. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARKER RANCH - TRACTS 6526 and 6528 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has re- ceived the petition for hillside fencing exception for increased fence enclosure from more than 60% of the Parker Ranch Homeown- ers, and; WF.EREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed fence regulations do not allow more than 50% of the lot area to be enclosed. The proposed fence style is open and contains no sharp points possibly injurious to wildlife. No open space areas will be enclosed by proposed fencing. Conditions required by this resolution require that all fencing be setback twenty (20) feet from side and rear property lines, and thirty (30) feet from front property lines, to ensure the adequate passage of wildlife through open spaces. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration: of the proposed regulations and other exhibits submitted in connection with. this matter, the application of the Parker Ranch Homeowners for hill- side fencing exception be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than 50% of a lot area, exclusive of any portions designated as open space may be enclosed by a fence. 2. No solid fencing shall be permitted as stipulated in Section 15- 29.020 of the Saratoga City Code. - 3. All fence enclosures greater than 50% of the lot area in existence as of August 8, 1990, may be approved by the Planning Director. Future requests for fence enclosures exceeding 50% of the lot area shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning.Commission as a modification to the approved fence plan. 4. All fences shall-be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from property lines except that fences shall be setback thirty (30) feet from the front property line.. J, �' "' HCdAG •LAND - DESlGN LANGSCAPF A(,f�HITEGTUf2� February 15, 1994 City of Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Subject: Hillside Fence Resolution Dear-Commissioners, This letter is to request a minor exception to Resolution FE-90 -001 for the proposed fence program at 12375 Farr Ranch Road in Parker Ranch Tract #6528. A site modification application is currently under Planning review. This involves the construction of a swimming pool and Small pool house in the rear yard of the above mentioned property. The fence layout and design we are proposing meets all of the conditions of Fe-90 -001 except for one item (refer to section 1, item 4), We are proposing a regulation swimming pool fence along or just adjacent to a portion of the south property line as well as a similar fence along a portion of the north perimeter approximately 10 feet off the north property line. Due to the careful planning of the swimming pool and adjacent landscaping we are unable -to achieve the required 20 ft. side yard setback, However we are not minimizing the adequate room needed for wildlife passage. Currently, the neighboring properties to the north and south have no perimeter fencing along the respective common property lines so deer and other wildlife should be able to roam freely around these properties. I have also observed a number of properties in the Parker Ranch tracts and have noticed that most of the side yard fences that adjoin properties are common or "good neighbor" fences. I am more than willing to meet with the planning staff in order to come up with a compromise on this issue in hope that we can both walk away content with the final decision. Respectfully yours, Tim R_ Hoagland Landscape Architect cc: Hank Lawson Terry J. Martin 513 MONTEWY AVENUE • SUfTE D LOS GATOS. CA 95030 • PHONE: 406 1354 -9509 File NOS. SM -93 -010, FE -90- 001.1, V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 12375 Farr Ranch Road , is also proposed on the roof to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code since the roof is accessible from the above hillside. The overall design of the structure is consistent with the residence. Staff's review of the proposal reveals that the proposed design satisfies the required Design Review findings in terms of being compatible with the neighborhood, minimizing the perception of bulk and mass, and not impacting the views and /or privacy of surrounding - properties. Recommendation: Since all of the required findings for the floor area Variance cannot be made, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution V- 93- 031/DR -93 -046 denying the applicant's request to construct a pool house. File Nos. SM -93 -010, FE -90- 001.1, V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 12375 Farr Ranch Road increase to 20 feet in the areas beyond the pool retaining wall. • Along the north side property line in the areas adjacent to the residence and proposed retaining walls the fence shall be setback a minimum of ten feet. The setback shall increase to 20 feet beyond the retaining wall. Recommendation: Staff recommends. the Planning Commission adopt Resolution FE -90 -001.1 approving the applicant's request for Modification to the approved Parker Ranch.fencing plan. r ;6163 M 11-CO � Proposal: The applicant is requesting a Variance to the allowable floor area to allow the construction of a 706 sq. ft. pool house. The Variance would permit the applicant to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,610 sq. ft. by 531 sq. ft. The pool house is proposed to be constructed on an average slope of 39 percent where 30 percent is the maximum permitted, which also requires Variance approval. Variance Findings: Staff is unable to make the required Variance findings contained in Section 15- 70.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to recommend approval of the request to exceed the maximum permitted floor area. • No special circumstance applicable to the property exists which would support the granting of a Variance to the maximum permitted floor area. • Granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zone district in that the formula for calculating the maximum permitted floor area is based on the size and slope of each individual parcel. If the Planning Commission does make the findings to support the floor area Variance, staff feels the findings can be made to support the slope Variance. Design Review: Design. Review approval is also requested to allow the gross floor area of all structures on the site to exceed 6,000 square feet (per Section 15.45.060). The proposed structure has a service room with a wet bar and washer and dryer, game room,,full bathroom, wine cellar, and storage room. The structure is proposed to be cut into the hillside, which will decrease its visibility from the surrounding properties. The structure will have a flat roof with an approximate height of 10 feet. A three foot railing File Nos. SM -9.3 -010, FE -90- 001.1, V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 12375 Farr Ranch Road • No solid fencing. • A minimum setback of 20 feet from the side and rear property lines and 30 feet from the front property line. No setback is required from the property line if the fencing is adjacent to dedicated open space. • Installation of landscaping per the Community Development Director's approval. • 1 Fencing shall be open style. • Fencing shall not be contiguous with adjacent fences. Proposal: The applicant is proposing a five foot high open style fence that is located approximately five feet from the north side property line and immediately adjacent to the south side property line. An area of approximately 35 percent will be enclosed by the fence. This proposal is consistent with all of the conditions of FE -90 -001 except the 20 foot side setback requirement (see attached correspondence from applicant). Analysis: After visiting the property and reviewing the appli- cant's proposal, staff feels that an exception to the 20 foot setback requirement is necessary for the following reasons: • The useable yard area is limited by the site's existing topography, configuration, and location of the existing residence. A significant amount of grading would be required if the applicant was to relocate the pool and /or lawn area to meet the 20 foot fencing setback requirement along the south side property line. • Chapter 16 of the City Code (Building Regulations) requires a five foot high fence around swimming pools. In the HR zone district, swimming pools are permitted to be located as close as 20 feet to the side property line. Since the useable yard area is limited, it would be difficult to shift the pool to accommodate the pool decking and proposed landscaping. Staff feels some setback should be maintained from the property line to ensure adequate passage of wildlife, which was the purpose of the 20 foot setback requirement. Therefore, a condition of approval is included in Resolution FE =90 -001.1 that requires the following modifications to the proposed fencing (see attached Exhibit "B"): • Along the south side property line in the areas immediately adjacent to the residence and pool the fencing may be setback a minimum distance of five feet. The fencing setback shall File Nos. SM -93 -010, FE -90- 001.1, V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 12375 Farr Ranch Road SITE MODIFICATION FOR POOL Proposal: The applicant is proposing to extend the existing level area of the rear yard by approximately 10 feet to accommodate the proposed pool, patio, and arbor. This will require approximately 136 cubic yards of cut at a maximum depth of five feet (not including the actual pool cut). A retaining wall that varies in height from three to five feet is located at the perimeter of this area. The finish of the retaining walls and stairs throughout the project is proposed to be natural or cultured stone. A ten foot high arbor and BBQ are located adjacent to the pool and pool house. Landscaping: The applicant has also proposed a landscape plan to provide privacy and screening from the adjacent properties and to provide replacement trees for the eight olive and two palm trees proposed for removal. The proposed plan is conceptual and therefore a condition of a approval requires that a final landscape plan, which is consistent with the approved fencing plan and the City's Xeriscape Guidelines be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a zone clearance. If the Variance and Design Review requests for the pool house are not approved, this final plan must also address the necessary revisions to eliminate this structure and the associated retaining walls from the proposal. Analysis: Although the proposed grading will make the total cumulative site grading greater than 1,000 cubic yards, staff feels the proposed grading is acceptable and can be supported. The 1,000 cubic yards grading limitation for the HR zone district was adopted in 1991 after the house was constructed and therefore does not strictly apply to the grading quantities approved and completed in 1983. The proposed grading is primarily cut and will not negative- ly impact any of the surrounding properties. The pool and landscaping will not obstruct any existing viewsheds. The proposal is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance regulations with regard to site impervious coverage, setbacks, and grading. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution SM -93 -010 approving the applicant's request to construct the proposed pool, patio, and arbor. MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION FENCING PLAN CONDITION Background: In 1990, at the request of the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association, the Planning Commission approved a hillside fencing exception (FE -90 -001) for the Parker Ranch subdivision per Section 15- 29.020 of the City Code. The exception permits a maximum enclosure of 50 percent and is subject to the following conditions: File Nos. SM -93 -010, FE-90-001.1,,V-93-031 & DR -93 -046' 12375 Farr Ranch Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 1.2 acres SITE SLOPE @ POOL AREA: 15% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 15% AVERAGE SLOPE @ POOL-HOUSE: 39% GRADING PROPOSED: Cut Pool and Decking 136 cu. yds. Pool House 328 cu. yds. TOTAL 464 cu. yds. GRADING APPROVED @ DESIGN REVIEW: 475 Cu. yds. LOT COVERAGE: SETBACKS: Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: HEIGHT: OVERVIEW PROPOSAL 25% (13,328 sq. ft.) POOL NA 23 ft. NA >200 ft. NA ARBOR POOL HOUSE NA NA 55 ft. 65 ft. NA 35 ft. >200 ft. >200 ft. 10 ft., 10.25 ft. Fill 0 40 cu. yds. 4 0 cu. yds. 450 cu. yds. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 25% 30 ft. 20 ft. 20. ft. 50 ft. 12 ft. The subject property is lot #9 of the Parker Ranch subdivision. Existing on -site there is a 5,607 sq. ft. two -story residence with an attached garage which received Design Review approval in June 1983. The front 1/3 of the property has a gentle uphill slope and the remainder rear portion has a moderately steep slope. The house and useable rear yard are on a graded level area. An open space easement crosses over the last 100 feet of the property. Several oak trees are located. on the, hillside of the rear yard. These are. not in the vicinity of construction and are proposed to be undisturbed. There are also eight olive trees and two fan palms which are proposed to be removed. File Nos. SM -93 -010, FE -90- 001.11 V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 12375 Farr Ranch Road 2. Approve a modification to the approved Parker Ranch fencing plan subject to the conditions of approval by adopting Resolu- tion FE -90- 001.1. 3-. Deny the applicant's Variance and Design .Review requests to construct a pool house by adopting Resolution V- 93- 031/DR -93- 046. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions SM -93 -010, FE-90- 001.1, and V- 93- 031/DR -93 -046 3. Correspondence 4. Resolution FE -90 -001; Parker Ranch Fencing Exception 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" 6. Modified Fencing Plan, Exhibit "B" File Nos. SM -93 -010, FE -90- 001.11 V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 12375 Farr Ranch Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 12/17/93 Application complete: 01/13/94 Notice published: 02/23/94 Mailing completed: 02/24/94 Posting completed: 02/17/94 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission consideration of the following: 1. Site Modification approval to construct a pool, associated decking, and arbor pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code; 2. Modification of a fencing plan approved for the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association to allow an exception to a condition that requires all fencing to be setback 20 feet from the side property lines. The proposed fence is a five foot high open style (4" x 4" steel gauge) fence and is located approximately five feet from the north side property line and immediately adjacent to the south side property line. The fence will not enclose more than 50 percent of the site area. 3. Variance approval to exceed the site's permitted floor area of 5,610 sq. ft. by 531 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 706 sq. ft. pool house per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A second Variance is requested to allow the pool house to be built on an average slope of 39% where 30% is the maximum permitted. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. The subject property is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within a HR zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following actions: 1. Approve the Site Modification to allow construction of the pool, associated decking, and arbor by adopting Resolution SM 93 -010. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: SM -93 -010, FE -90- 001.1, V -93 -031 & DR -93 -046 12375_FARR RANCH ROAD Applicant /Owner: LAWSON Staff Planner: Lynette Stanchina Date: March 8, 1994 APN: 366-49-027, Director Approval: 1 12375 17ARR RANCH ROAD_ f' The point -is that there is" little if any filtering of proposed plans by the Parker Ranch homeowners Association; thus, the Planning Commission is the one and only group to protect the social and en- vironmental aspects of proposed construction in Parker Ranch. - Sincerely, l John E. Greenleaf Carol J. Greenleaf SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 ��; AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 20, 1994 CITY MA. R146�15 ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE fff;&� cL SUBJECT: OPERATING RESERVE POLICY Recommended Motion(s): Adopt the, proposed Operating Reserve Policy and direct the City Manager to implement the policy with the 1994- 95 Fiscal Year. Report Summary: In response to the City Council having expressed an interest in looking at the structure and level of the Operating Reserves of the city, the Finance Advisory Committee evaluated the existing Cash Reserve Policy. We discussed various types of reserves and methods for their implementation. We discussed the limitations of including Restricted Funds (Special Revenue, Debt Service, Capital Improvement, and Agency Funds) in the calculation of Reserved Funds when only the General Fund Balance of the City is available for most Operating Expenditures. We reviewed a survey made in 1992 by the. City of Camarillo of the practices of selected California cities and found that a reserve level of 15% to 25% of Appropriations was the norm for the cities surveyed. There are many approaches which can be taken when defining a Reserve and establishing its level. A Cash Reserve can be established which pools the Cash and Investments of all funds for the purpose of assuring that adequate assets are available to preclude short term borrowing. This type of reserve anticipates the funds flow of the City and assures that funds are available when revenues do not match Expenditures. This is the nature of the current operating reserve which is set at 50% of current year appropriations and is not restricted to the General Fund Balance. A Contingency Reserve can be established for extraordinary and unanticipated expenditures which become necessary during the course of the fiscal year. This type of reserve can be appropriated in the budget process and used when State and Local mandates for new program levels become evident. An Emergency Reserve can be set aside for the funding of extraordinary expenditures due to disasters. Reserves can also be set aside for the funding of other policies, such as, the Housing Assistance Policy for recruitment of Department Managers and the policy of supplementing the funding of the Pavement Management Program with interest for.the sale of the Cox Avenue property. The recommended level of the City's Reserves is dependent.upon how the City chooses to define its Reserves. City Staff recommends and the Finance Advisory Committee concurs with the following conclusions: 1. For cash flow purposes, to avoid the necessity of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be reduced below $2,000,000. 2. An Appropriation for Contingencies of 3% of General Fund Appropriations will allow for operating budget adjustments to account for new unfunded mandates and changes in program priority during the fiscal period as determined by the City Council. 3. A General Reserve of 250 of General Fund Appropriations should be set aside to buffer the City against short term economic uncertainty. 4. Remove all other reserve requirements, such as retention of the proceeds of the sale of the Cox property, the income from which is to be used to help finance Pavement Management. Since the pooled reserve can also include Restricted funds, and the General Fund Reserve is recommended at more than $2,000,000, this Policy should focus on the General Fund. If these reserves are budgeted, the General Fund level of appropriations as currently anticipated would have, budgeted reserves of $2,142,399 leaving some $857,600 available, for example, for additional appropriations in 1994 -95. With this policy in place, it would be Management's responsibility to bring to the Council a balanced budget each year with General Fund Expenditures and General Fund Reserves equal to General Fund Revenues and General Fund Balance. Fiscal Impacts: The General Fund Balance is estimated for year -end at approximately $3 million. If reserves are set at the recommended levels, this General Fund Balance is adequate. No Revenue increases or Expenditure cuts would be required in order to meet the funding levels proposed. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Existing policy remains in place. Follow Up Actions: Reformulate the Budget Adjustments for 1994 -95 to implement the policy. Attachments: Twelve month trend in Fund Balances. Cash Flow Analysis, as currently anticipated (taking into account the supplemental Appropriations approved to date and the known Revenue increases). Summary of Reserve Survey results. HISTORICAL 12 MONTH TREND IN FUND BALANCES 1/93 2/93 3/93 4/93 1 5/93 6/93 7/93 8/93 9/93 10/93 11/93 12/93 AVG GENERAL 1,864,952 1,914,308 1,538,431 1,916,966 1,492,231 1,221,804 1,546,950 1,538,453 1,277,250 1,076,515 1,464,598 1,465,940 1,526,533 RESTRICTED 2,803,829 3,035,137 3,090,197 3,110,978 3,090,885 3,300,629 2,913,320 2,939,177 2,981,521 3,255,858 2,306,236 2,329,803 2,929,798 4,668,781 4,949,445 4,628,628 5,027,944 4,583,116 4,522,433 4,460,270 4,477,630 4,258,771 4,332,373 3,770,834 3,795,743 4,456,331 General Fund has declined to 79% of 1/93 Restricted Funds have declined to 83% of 1/93 General Fund Balance at 12/93 is 96% of 12 month average Restricted Funds at 12/93 are 80% of 12 month average PREPARED BY: PATRICIA $HRIVER 30- Mar -94 CITY OF SARATOGA CASH ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND W/O U.U.T. WITH U.U.T ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED 1992 1993 1904 1995 1996 1996 REVENUES 7,038,372 6,630,132 7,730,239 7,615,795 7,215,715 7,959,515 EXPENDITURES OPERATING EXPENDITURES 8,072,427 7,991,802 7,432,401 7,692,230 7,259,329 8,003.129 CAPITAL OUTLAYS 1,941,255 596,591 219,025 240,000 .84,395 84,395 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,' X13,602 8,588,393 7,651,425 7,932,230 7,343,724 8,087,524 NET REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (2,975,320) (1,058,261) 78,812 (316,435) (128,009) (128,009) ' LESS: INCR /(DECR) IN CURRENT ASSETS 371,623 178,703 (436,616) , (INCR)/DECR IN CURRENT LIABILITIES 690,154 NET CASH FLOW BEFORE OTHER SOURCES /USES (3,346,943) (2,136,964) (174,726) (316,435) (128,009) (128,009) FINANCING SOURCES (USES) PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF PROPERTY PROCEEDS FROM DEBT ISSUANCE 1,707,970 DEBT SERVICE - PRINCIPAL (10,402) (5,201) TRANSFERS IN 207,529 947,528 1,404,174 270,014 389,991 389,991 TRANSFERS OUT (357,994) (350,733) (374,974) (224,482) (208,087) (208,087) TOTAL FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 1,547,103 561,594 1,029,200 45,533 181,904 181,904 TOTAL CASH FLOW (1,799,840) (1,555,370) 854,474 (270,903) 53,895 53,895 BEGINNING CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCE 5,711,799 3,911,959 2,356,589 3,211,063 2,940,160 2,994,055 ENDING CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCE 3,911,959 2,356,589 3,211,053 2.940,150 2.994,055 3,047,950 SOURCE: ANALYSIS OF TRANSFERS IN T.D.A. FUND C.D.B.G. FUND 45,000 35,000. 68,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND GAS TAX FUND 0 565,128 965,846 225,014 344,991 344,991 STORM DRAIN FUND 154,389 30,821 LIBRARY DEBT SERVICE FUND . ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS FUND 261,728 PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND' 316,579 PARKING DISTRICT FUNDS LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 8,140 PARKING DISTRICT #3 108,600 LEONARD ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUND TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 207,529 947,528 1,404,174 270,014 389,991 389,991 ANALYSIS OF TRANSFERS OUT T.D.A. FUND C.D.B.G. FUND 5,296 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 31,275 116,953 GAS TAX FUND 159,245 17,274 5,009 5,009 LIBRARY DEBT SERVICE FUND CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION DEBT SERVICE 180,273 210,433 207,208 203,078 203,078 PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND 63,507 PARKING DISTRICT FUNDS LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 326,719 LEONARD ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUND TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT 357,994 360,733 374,974 224,482 208,087 208,087 01/13/94 10:15 2C 510 713 3294 P.01 Survey Results of Cities 50,000 to 100,000 Population Reserve Levels - April, 1992 City of Camar1110 Anita Bingham The effects of the recession coupled with the antics at the State level during the budget process have placed mony cities' reserve levels in jeopardy. As the results of this survey show, even the majcrity of those cities responding that do not have a reserve level policy think they should have one and think the policy should specify a reserve level in the 10% to 15% of annual expenditures range. The cities that have respond._d with formal written olicies are Burbank, Costa Mesa, Merced, A'adonal City, Palmdale. Richmond. Upland, Vista and Yorba'Linda. . Surveys issued - 81 - Respondents - 55 (68%) Population GF Operating Dept. of Fin 1/91 cities percent, Budget ($M) i i percent. 50,000 - 60,000 22 40.00% • $ 8.1 - 10. 2 3.64% 60,001 - 70,000 12 21.82% $10.1.- 20. 16 29.09% 70,001 - 80,000 6 10.91% $20.1 - 30. 18 32.73% 80,001 - 90,000 9 16.36% $30.1 - 40. 8 14.55%. 90,001 - 100,000 6 10.91% $40.1 -60. 6 16.36% $60.1 + _ 5 9,09% 55 1 00.0096 55 100.00% assaaz:. tazzz== oc�aacvz= oxsazacos= znc-: ap= szas= zas= maaccazrxamacaammmaamaimam�tsoamaamamaaa .as Does your city have a policy specifying an undesignated reserve level? Responses: - # _ I No 25 45.45% Yes, a formal,. written. policy . 9 16.36% Yes, informal 21 38.18% The undesignated reserve level policy is expressed as: # 9%' % of annual expenditures 19 34.55% % of annual revenue 3 5.45% Flat dollar amount •6 16.36% Other 2 3.64% N/A 25 45.45% Comments: 1,lIG - Soon to have a formal, written Policy - In the process of setting one. - Council has designated 25% of operating budget in a "working capital reserve." - No policy. However, in practice we designate reserves for catastrophic events and economic contingencies. ($2 m.) Comments: - Currently we have 16% of operating budget in reserve; however, the stated goal is 25%. - Short term goal is to maintain existing $2 million undesignated reserve. - The greater of $5 million or 33% of ann. operating expenditures. - An average of 2 months expenditures. - Have tried to set up one for eater fund. - $6 million designated for economic uncertainty. - $5.7 million plus 8%. - Minimum of $3.5 million. - • $375,000, $2.5m, $4m, $6m, $12m & $16m.. N1 %13 %94 1b: 17 $ 51e 713 3294 F.02 The undesignated reserve level policy applies to: R=onses: i The general fund only 25 47.27% r The general and other funds 3 5.45% Other 2 3.64% N/A 25 43.64% r r r r r Did your city find it necessary to in response to the recession? Responses: # Yes, but no layoffs 28 Yes, including layoffs 15 No 12 cut back services I 50.91% 27.27% 21.82% In your opinion, should a city have sufficient reserves to meet economic downturns and other catastrophic events? Responses: ] No 2 3.64% Other 2 -. . 3.64%---- Yes 596 - 6% of ann. exp. 4 7.27% 10% ann. expend. 21 38.18% 15% ann. expend. 10 18.1896 209v ann. expend. 8 14.55% _25% - 50% ann. expend. 7 12.73% 100% of ann. expend. 1 1.82.96 is \affil \csmfo \bingham.svy m n - Includes general fund supported funds. - General Liability Reserve Frnd - not a formal policy, i.e., informallyset at $6 million maximum at earliest Possible date and to be maintained at that level. Comments. Potential of future layoffs unknown. (5 cities) - Yes. including layoffs (only through retirements or attrition). No layoffs. However, a hiring freeze was implemented. (3 cities) Layoffs are questionable for FY92 -93. No layoffs now, but will in FY92 -93. Pending FY92 -93, hiring freeze and 5% cut in maintenance and operation budgets. Comments- - 10% of annual expenditures minimum. - 5% of annual expenditures (not always r)ossible).- - - Acceptable level of 3% to 10%. - Equal to 3 months expenditures. - 5% - 15% of annual expenditures. - 20% of annual expenditures or 20% of revenues, whichever provides the greatest reserve amount. - Base level on cash flow and prior experiences for downturns /emergency needs. - 5% to 15% dependent on City Council desire to reduce or maintain service over short term (1 -2 years). SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �''3 5 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: April 20, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Comruinity Development CITY MGR. APPROVAL)41fe P. SUBJECT: Proposal for Heritage Lane Signs on Saratoga Avenue Recommended Motion: Approve the request from the Heritage Commission to appropriate funds to pay for the construction and installation of two heritage lane signs. Report Summary: At the March 22 joint meeting with the Heritage Commission, the Council reviewed a preliminary cost proposal for two signs to be constructed and installed at either end of the Heritage Lane portion of Saratoga Avenue. The proposed design of the signs was also presented and is attached for reference. At that time, the Council directed the Heritage Commission to present a formal proposal for the signs at the April 20 regular meeting. The cost breakdown of the two signs is as follows: Construction: Materials = $ 811.86 Labor = 0 Installation: Materials = 492.00 Labor = 0 Total: _ $1,303.86 Fiscal Impacts• The Historic Preservation Trust Fund has $4,100 in it. After this expense the new balance will be $2,800. An Appropriations Resolution will be required for this expenditure. Follow -up Action: Work with Public Works Department to finalize sign locations. Prepare Appropriations Resolution for approval on May 4, 1994. Conseuuences of not Actina on the Recommended Motion: Signs will not be constructed. Attachments: 1. Sign Plans 2. Cost Estimates Motion and Vote: M Signage Work Order M No. ■� Name: I IORHAUS EN Address: P.O. Box 966 City /State /Zip: San Jose, CA 95108 Telephone: 971-9636 Norman Koepernik Order date: 2-22-94 Size and type: As per sketch OV-141 11 %: 11 NO VAP011 0(� 0-01 MURALS • ARCHITECTURAL GLASS • SIGNAGE JOHN ESPINOLA (408) 379 -6002 186 E. SUNNYOAKS, STE. B CAMPBELL, CA 95008 Estimated delivery date: 7-10 Days Material: Colors: Whig Dk. Brown Exact copy: - 2 sets- K.D. Redwood S/B Signs; Ready for install $750.00 } Sales Tax 61.86 811.86 2 sets- MEDEX S/B signs; Ready for install $615.00 Sales Tax 50.74 '665.74 Mask all boards for sandblasting only; Redwood .$320.00 MEDEX $235.00 Sandblast mask ready to apply to boards $90.00 50% Deposit required to start; Balance is COD Cost: Tax: Installation: Total: Approved: Less deposit: Date: Balance: Terms: Balance due upon completion. 11/2% per month interest will be charged on all invoices not paid within 30 days NORHAUSEN, INC. P.O. Box 966, San Jose, CA 95108 (408) 971 -9636 April 11, 1994 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Attn: George.White The following is a list of material and equipment rental needed for the sign installation. Receipts for all materials and equipment will. be provided to you so that you may reimburse me directly. Materials Needed: Redwood 2 8x8x12 $212.00 Misc. Redwood Trim 100.00 Misc. Nuts /Bolts Washers /Glue (Mounting signs on posts) 75.00 Post hole auger rental 75.00 Concrete 30.00 Total Cost $492.00 If you have any questions, please call me at the number above. Sincer y, / i f-7 P,-A& Orman Koepernik • � i ' (x3 Q 2 JJ �9 i PAINT SA RATOG A AVEhl E ' '-WHITE lc�►Lr °� ,- SAND eLA -T PAINT BR.OW1� IIZh i JJ CUT :PROM 1 X 10 --- — -� n�� — V) �'n SIMILAR TO -' ABOVE C u MILE. CHAMFER f` 54S J I .GRADE 11 of (n I =-1 .:.WOOD PRESERVATIVF_ m i J :SCALE _ _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL z 4's MEETING DATE: April 16, 1994 ENDA ITEM. T MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE DEPARTMENT �d�,�,. SUBJECT: MARCH FINANCIAL REPORTS Recommended Motion(s); Note and file the 9 -month Status Report: Cash and Investments, Treasurer's Report of Fund Balances and Comparative Financial Reports of the City of Saratoga. Retort Summary: I have prepared the attached reports and commentary for your review and consideration. CASH, INVESTMENTS AND CASH RESERVES The City's Cash, Investments and Cash Reserve balances at March 31, 1994 are $5,785,406. Cash invested at one -year or less, $4,448,150, remains below the current Operating Reserve of $4,685,316. The distribution of Cash, Investments, and Cash Reserves is as follows: Demand Deposits (Banks) Investments (L.A.I.F.) Invested in CDs Invested in Gov't Issues Restricted Cash (Quarry Cr) Invested in Long -Term Loans C.D.B.G. Cash Accounts Bond Reserves 6.6% 383,605 65.9% 3,814,545 1.6% 95,000 4.3% 250,000 1.0% 59,466 9.9% .574,250 3.5% 200,893 7.0% 407,647 Current investment yield is estimated at 4.2% earning $20,508 for the current month. TREASURER'S REPORT OF FUND BALANCES The City began this Fiscal Year with audited Fund Balances of $4,844,933. The General Fund accounted for $2,029,989 or 42% of the balance and Restricted Funds accounted for $2,814,944 or 58% of the balance. During the first nine,months we have collected $685,892 more than we have spent. The current Unreserved Fund Balances, including Trust and Agency funds, are $5,047,997. The General Fund accounts for $2,709,045 or 53.7% of this balance and Restricted Funds account for $2,338,952 or 46.3% of the balance. The growth in the General Fund balance is due to Interfund Transfer's from the Gas Tax Fund ($461,505)ato fund street expenditures, the Environmental Programs Fund ($261,728) to reimburse for 1st year costs of • Environmental Management charged to the General Fund, and Parking District #3 ($108,600) to offset the General Fund contribution to the construction of the Parking District. Current projections: $12,404,561 in Revenue, $12,493,842 in Expenditures and $4,755,652 in Fund Balance will be adjusted as part of the budget process to reflect changes in both revenue source and amount and changes in program priorities. COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Revenues collected for the first nine months, which include $1,600,000 of Bond financing, total $7,776,126 or 63% of adopted Revenue Estimates. Results compare favorably with last year with the exception of Intergovernmental Revenues which are dependent upon grant expenditures. Our current effective yield on cash and investments remains at 4.2 %. This is not a Cash Flow Budget - -many revenue sources lag one month or more. The re-- estimates of Revenue to be used for current budget planning are not reflected in the Budgeted Revenue on this schedule. Expenditures for the first nine months, which include $1.244 million in Bond refinancing, total $7,090,234 or 57% of adopted Appropriations. Capital Project spending is well below schedule due to workload requirements and bid scheduling. Expenditures by classification follows Salaries and benefits 35.8 %, Contracts 30.8 %, Other Operating Costs 11.5 %, Debt Service 21.5% and Fixed Assets .4 %. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: File. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: No recommendations. Attachments: Cash and Investment Report - March 31, 1994 Treasurers Report of Fund Balances - March 31, 1994 Comparative Financial Statements - March 31; 1994 C: \WPFILES \MISC \41694FIN The Prior Year Adjustment column records interfund transfers, year -end accruals and other adjustments. Special sessment Tax Receipts are forwarded by the County Treasurer in January & July. UBMITTED BY: PATRICIA SHRIVER, FINANCE DIRECTOR PPROVED HARRY PEACOCK, CITY TREASURER CITY OF SARATOGA TREASURER'S REPORT OF FUND BALANCES MARCH 31, 1994 TRANSFERS/ FUND 6/30/93 P.Y. ADJUST REVENUE EXPENSE 3/31/94 0001 GENERAL 1,829,989 (173,790) 4,770,831 3,717,985 2,709,045 0010 T.D:A. (68,852) 84,996 12,393 3,751 0012 H.C.D.A. 147,629 68,191 147,040 68,780 0013 TRAFFIC SAFETY 0 13,042 (1,046) 14,088 0014 GAS TAX 461,505 5,641 539,690 1,006,837 (0)* 0018 HILLSIDE DEV 1,078,443 12,368 1,090,811 0021 LIBRARY DEBT 0 91,590 70,234 21,356 0022 STATE PARK BONDS (7) 977 970 0* 0024 CERTS OF PART. 192,948 (144,656) 337,604 0028 ENVIRON PROGRAMS 344,026 291,327 440,513 194,839 0031 PARK DEVELOP (4,853) 146,478 8,148 149,773 0* 0033 STATE URBAN PARKS 0 0 0060 HERITAGE 4,155 4,155 0061 QUARRY CREEK TRUST 661-595 991 10,321 57,266 0062 S.C.A.C.TV FOUND TRUST 14,900 30,000 44,900 0063 PARKING DISTRICT #2 (520) 6,708 8,624 14,812 0* 0064 PARKING DISTRICT #3 106,490 1,486,456 1,482,430 110,516 0071 LANDSCAPE /LIGHT 154,000 106,646 87,215 173,432 0073 PKG DIST BONDS #1 & 4 30,660 13;986 32,553 77,199 0* 0075 LEONARD ROAD A. D. -------------------------------------------------- 4,995 230,674 18,214 21.7,455 TOTALS 4,362,104 0 7,776,126 7,090,234 5,047,997 *The General Fund has advanced $173,790 to these funds for current Expenditures in excess of current Fund Balance. Note: Trust Fund Disbursements are included on this report but do not appear on the Comparative Financial Statements creating the appearance of a difference in the reporting of year -to -date expense. The Prior Year Adjustment column records interfund transfers, year -end accruals and other adjustments. Special sessment Tax Receipts are forwarded by the County Treasurer in January & July. UBMITTED BY: PATRICIA SHRIVER, FINANCE DIRECTOR PPROVED HARRY PEACOCK, CITY TREASURER CITY OF SARATOGA CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT BALANCES AT MARCH 31, 1994 ACCOUNT TYPE INSTITUTION DATE 3-01761-3 MF L.A.I.F. N/A 23P -07033 SECS LAKE ELSINORE PUB FINANCE AUTH 10/27/93 CD FIRST REPUBLIC THRIFT & LOAN 02/07/94 TOTAL C.D.s & GOVERNMENT ISSUES TOTAL L.A.I.F. & INVESTMENTS CASH ACCOUNTS 3- 60009 -5 DD PACIFIC WESTERN —QUARRY CREEK 3-01761-3 DD PACIFIC WESTERN BANK — SAVINGS 734 - 001151 DD SEAFIRST — PROCEEDS OF COPs 3- 01056 -8 CK PACIFIC WESTERN, BANK —CHECKING TOTAL CASH ACCOUNTS LONG —TERM INVESTMENTS AND CASH RESERVES TRUSTEE RES BANK OF AMERICA —BOND REFINANCING HAKONE NOTES RECEIVABLE (NON — INTEREST) HAKONE 5 —YEAR NOTE RECEIVABLE PEACOCK SECURED NOTE RECEIVABLE 734 - 001224 RES SEAFIRST — RESERVE FOR DEBT VARIOUS CDBGSARATOGA NATIONAL BANK VARIOUS CDBG WELLS FARGO BANK $59,466 $292 194,426 $1,622 CLOSED 189,179 N/A $443,071 5.184% (AVG YLD) $1,914 $193,919 69 EARNED CURRENT RATE MATURESTERM IN MONTH $3,814,545 4.261% OPEN OPEN $12,642 ESTIMATED 250,000 8.000% 10/21/94 360 $1,722 $95,000 4.750% 02/07/97 1095 $389 $345,000 $2,111 $4,159,545 4.256% (AVG YLD) $14,753 $59,466 $292 194,426 $1,622 CLOSED 189,179 N/A $443,071 5.184% (AVG YLD) $1,914 $193,919 69 $20,000 N/A $354,250 6.500% $1,953 $200,000 6.827% $1,575 $213,728 —0- $147,437 $313 $53,456 N/A TOTAL OTHER INVESTMENTS & RESERVES $1,182,790 3.897% (AVG YLD) $3,841 TOTAL OLED CASH, INVESTMENTS & RESERVES $5,785,406 4.254% (AVG YLD) $20,508 MITTED BY: PATAICIA SHRIVER, FINANCE DIRECTOR APPROV BY: HARRY PEACOCK, CITY TREASURER The ratio of Deposits and active investments with a term of one year or less to the Operating Reserve is: Original Reserve— Budget Adopted 6/16/93 $4,685,316 94.94% THIS RATIO DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT CASH RESERVE POLICY. Demand Deposits available for April expenses: $4,448,150 Please note: The cash balances appearing on this report will not reconcile to the-Treasurer's Report of Fund Balances due to a combination of the Reserves for Loans Receivable and various accruals. This report includes Long —Term Investments and Cash Reserves which are not available to fund current operations. Due to the level of Interest Rates currently being offerred by Banks and Savings and Loans, the City is investing its idle and matured funds with the State's Local Agency Investment Fund. REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OTHER LOCAL TAXES INTERGOV. STATE INTERGOV. FEDERAL FRANCHISE FEES USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES BOND PROCEEDS BUDGET 1,089,177 399,725 2,258,079 1,693,419 368,052 667,800 769,471 1,850,296 1,800,343 CITY OF SARATOGA COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MARCH 31 MARCH 1992 ACTUAL 614,599 180,195 1,472,265 1,143,452 128,734 335,030 433,867 1,243,832 1,707,970 VARIANCE — 43.57% —54.92% — 34.80% — 32.48% — 65.02% — 49.83% — 43.61% — 32.78% —5.13% BUDGET 1,362,000 409,651 2,342,092 2,488,554 1,046,466 707,868 665,028 2,924,159 MARCH 1993 ACTUAL 622,239 184,005 1,537,288 1,607,204 215,357 335,963 283,678 1,257,084 VARIANCE — 54.31 % —55.08% — 34.36% — 35.42% —79A2% — 52.54% —57.34% —57.01% BUDGET 804,523 394,057 2,650,954 2,082,479 801,513 736;183 484,049 2,850,803 1,600,000 TOTAL REVENUES ----- - - - - -- 10,896,362 ----- - - - - - 7,259,944 — 33.37% --- - - - - -- 11,945,818 ------- - - - 61042,818 -_ - - -- 49.41% ----- - - - - -- 12,404,561 EXPENDITURES ------------ BUDGET ---- - - - - -- ACTUAL VARIANCE --- - - - - -- BUDGET ----------- ACTUAL - - - - -- VARIANCE ----- - - - - -- BUDGET PUBLIC SAFETY 2,168,690 1,459,608 32.70% .2,208,924 1,503,648 31.93% 2,484,507 COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 1,695,072 1,077,811 36.42% 1,772,059 940,093 46.95% 1,054,339 MAINTENANCE SERVICES 2,101,512 1,637,617 22.07% 2,113,858 1,638,300 22.50% 2,180,589 COMMUNITY SERVICES 583,657 366,085 37.28% 632,734 467,537 26.11% 667,118 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 1,053,610 721,865 31,49% 700;658 398,447 43.13% 2,151,013 COMMUNITY SUPPORT 167,628 122,669 26.82% 169,017 141,000 16.58% 119,093 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,062,754 933,238 12.19% 1,029,278 841,062 18.29% 983;164 - INTRAGOV. SERVICES 1,108,470 775,542 30.03% 1,037,914 829,730 20.06% 1,140,200 PROJECTS 2,334,296 1,242,840 46.76% 2,961,015 1,075,508 63.68% 1,713,819 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,275,690 8,337,276 32.08% 12,625,457 7,835,324 37.94% 12,493,842 CONTRIBUTION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE (1,379,328) (1,077,332) (679,639)" (1,792,506) --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ------------------ --------- --- - - - - -- --------------- - -- NOTES: THIS IS NOT A-CASH FLOW BUDGET! 1 Includes Teeter Plan buyout $58,000 + T.E.A. of $165,225. 2 Includes Leonard Rd Prepaid Assessments of $30;674. 3 Timing differences. 4 Engr fees-, Hillside Fees, Park Dev fees, Veh Code Fines not meeting estimates. 5 S.H.A.R.P. loan program expenditures at 29% of budget, Water Quality Mgmt at 36% of budget. 6 Pavement Mgmt program delayed until -early summer. 7 Includes refinancing (payoff) of $1.244 Parking Dist #3 bonds. 8 Reflects $70,000 savings in Benefits and deferral of Fixed Asset purchases. 9 Project expenditures delayed. 4. r_ez'f-'� UBMITTED BY: PATRICIASHRIVER APPROV BY: HARRY PEACOCK ACTUAL 755,412 —6.10% 1 — 43.83% 2 — 39.93% — 41.50 %3 — 82.08% 3 — 51.94% — 43.75 %3 — 43.21 %4 221,330 1,592,328 1,218,332 143,650 7,776,126 VARIANCE --------------- ACTUAL - - - -- VARIANCE 1,481;233 40.38% 509,784 51.65%5 956,549 56.13%6 28.72% 353,810 16.43%7 272,253 18.61% 1,619,012 25.78% 1,600,000 0.00% ACTUAL 755,412 —6.10% 1 — 43.83% 2 — 39.93% — 41.50 %3 — 82.08% 3 — 51.94% — 43.75 %3 — 43.21 %4 221,330 1,592,328 1,218,332 143,650 7,776,126 — 37.31% --------------- ACTUAL - - - -- VARIANCE 1,481;233 40.38% 509,784 51.65%5 956,549 56.13%6 475,507 28.72% 1,797,667 16.43%7 96,931 18.61% 729,713 25.78% 747,348 34.45%8 295,502 82.76 %9 7,090,234 43.25% (89,281) 685,893 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a q 3 7 MEETING DATE: APRIL 20, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS, AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract for Warner Hutton House Landscape Improvements, Capital Project No. 9301 Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to declare Landscape West-North Inc. of San Jose to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Move to award a construction contract in the amount of $46,526 to Landscape West -North Inc., and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract on behalf of the City. 3. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to an additional amount of $7,000. Report Summary: Sealed bids for the Warner Hutton House Landscape Improvements, Capital Project No. 9301, were opened on March 22. A total of five contractors submitted bids for the work and a summary of the bids is attached. Landscape West -North Inc. of San Jose submitted the lowest bid of $46,526 which is over 53 percent below the Engineer's Estimate of $99,207. Because of this large discrepancy between the low bid and the estimate, staff has very carefully checked the bid and conferred with the low bidder about it. Staff sought explanations for why certain bid items were bid as low as they were in an effort to determine if any errors were made estimating unit quantities or interpreting the plans. The low bidder was offered an opportunity to withdraw their bid if any errors were discovered. Instead, the low bidder assured staff that their bid was valid and was able to satisfactorily respond to all of staff's concerns. After checking listed references, including recent ones in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, and at Hewlett Packard in Cupertino, staff is convinced that the bid submitted by Landscape West -North Inc. is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids dated February 22. Consequently, it is recommended that the Council declare Landscape West -North Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. Further, it is recommended that the Council award the attached construction contract to Landscape West -North Inc. in the amount of their bid, and that you authorize the City Manager to sign the contract on behalf of the City. Lastly, it is recommended that you authorize staff to issue change orders to the contract up to an additional amount of $7,000, in order to cover any increases in quantities or changes in the scope of the work which might arise during construction due to any unforeseen or unanticipated circumstances. Fiscal Impacts: The entire cost of the project, except for construction administration costs, is being paid by the Traffic Authority. Construction administration costs will be absorbed by the City in accordance with the terms of the Cooperative Agreement between the City and the Traffic Authority, and should not amount to more than $2,000. Upon execution of the contract by the City, staff will invoice the Traffic Authority for the amount of the construction contract. The Traffic Authority will also pay for the services of the Landscape Architect which are necessary during construction. The revenues and expenditures for the project are budgeted in Capital Project No. 9301. The Traffic Authority has committed up to $113,000 for the landscape improvements at the Warner Hutton House. As a result of the bid being as low as it is, there is a strong possibility that the Traffic Authority will finance the Phase 2 improvements which were designed but not let out for bid. These improvements include some additional landscaping, but mostly site furnishings and structures. Particular items include the gazebo structure at the rear of the property, two pergolas, an arbor, benches, a sundial and a bird bath. I am currently negotiating with the Traffic Authority to fund the Phase 2 improvements and preliminary indications as of the date of this memo (April 7) appear promising. Hopefully, by the night of your meeting, I will be able to confirm that the Traffic Authority will fund the Phase 2 work. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Council may determine that the low bid is not responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids and reject it. In that event, the Council may then declare the second low bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder and award the construction contract to that firm. Or, the Council may declare both the first and second low bids to be non- responsive, and declare the third low bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, and so on. Or, the Council may reject all of. the bids and order the entire project to be bid again. I've attached the bid submitted by Landscape West - North Inc. to this report. If any councilmembers would like to see any of the other bids, they are in my office. Follow Up Actions: The contracts will be signed and the contractor will then be issued a Notice to Proceed. If the Council awards the contract to the low bidder, I am advised that work -would begin at the beginning of May and last through the end of the month. Also, the City will invoice the Traffic Authority for the amount of the contract. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Construction Contract. 3. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids. 4. Bid submitted by Landscape West- North, Inc. CITY OF SARATOGA BID SUMMARY PROJECT: WARNER HUTTON HOUSE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, C.I.P. NO. 9301 BID DATE: MARCH 22, 1994 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE LANDSCAPE WEST-NORTH, INC. ITEM # --------------------------.---------------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------------- ITEM.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION 1 LS N/A $3,850.00 N/A $3,128.00 2. IMPORTED TOPSOIL 1 LS N/A 56,000.00 N/A $3,450.00 3. ROUGH GRADING 1 LS N/A $2,097.00 N/A $2,228.00 4. DRAINAGE WORK 1 LS N/A $6,296.00 N/A 52,533.00 5. ELECTRICAL WORK 1 LS N/A 51,200.00 N/A 5875.00 6. ASPHALT CONCRETE PATCHING AND CURB 1 LS N/A 5720.00 N/A $1,215.00 7. IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1 LS N/A $11,642.00 N/A 56,168.00 8. CONCRETE WORK 1 LS N/A 51,200.00 N/A $1,264.00 9. BRICK PAVERS 1 LS N/A $8,100.00 N/A 51,500.00 10. NATIVE ROCK WALLS 1 LS N/A $1,679.00 N/A 51,350.00 11. REDWOOD AND COBBLE HEADERS _ 1 LS N/A $6,225.00 N/A $1,122.00 12. STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE 1 LS N/A 54,995.00 N/A 51,713.00 13. PICKET FENCE AND GATES 1 LS N/A 518,200.00 N/A $1,875.00 14. METAL TUBE HANDRAIL 1 LS N/A $2,120.00 N/A 5770.00 15. PAINTING 1 LS N/A $1,305.00 N/A $1,235.00- 16.- SOIL PREPARATION 1 LS N/A 54,454.00 N/A $960.00 17. FINISH GRADING 1. LS N/A $1,986.00 N/A $900.00 18. PLANTING 1 LS N/A 510,743.00 N/A 57,750.00 19. SOD LAWN 1 LS N/A $2,660.00 N/A $3,300.00 20. SITE FURNITURE 1 LS N/A 5855.00 N/A 5910.00 -21. \ SPREADING OF MULCH 1 LS N/A $1,680.00 N/A $1,380.00 22. 60-DAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PERIOD 1 LS N/A 51,200.00 N/A 5900.00 GRAND TOTAL 599,207.00 GRAND TOTAL $46,526.00 PROGRESSIVE PACIFIC JOHN CLAY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LONE STAR LANDSCAPE, INC. COLLISHAW CONSTRUCTION UNIT PRICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL UNIT PRICE •TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL N/A $5,120.00 N/A $4,000.00 N/A $5,200.00 N/A $16,900.00 N/A $2,830.00 N/A $4,805.00 N/A $4,000.00 N/A $2,800.00 N/A $3,890.00 N/A $10,955.00 N/A $7,800.00 N/A $7,900.00 N/A $2,360.00 N/A $8,080.00 N/A $5,000.00 N/A $10,000.00 N/A $1,020.00 N/A $2,400.00 N/A $1,300.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $1,060.00 N/A $2,400.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $9,120.00 N/A $14,000.00 N/A $32,500.00 N/A $29,000.00 N/A $5,220.00 N/A $1,300.00 N/A $3,000.00 N/A $4,000.00 N/A $5,520.00 N/A $7,900.00 N/A $6,536.00 N/A $4,500.00 N/A $1,920.00 N/A $1,900.00 N /A $1,000.00 N/A $3,200.00 N/A $1,305.00 N/A $5,000.00 N/A $6,000.00 N/A $4,800.00 N/A $2,930.00 N/A $5,700.00 N/A $6,000.00 N/A $7,800.00 N/A $5,360.00 N/A $12,600.00 N/A $10,519.00 N/A $13,500.00 N/A $1,620.00 N/A $1,800.00 N/A $3,000.00 N/A $1,600.00 N/A $780.00 N/A $1,600.00 N/A $2,900.00 N/A . $1,300.00 N/A $400.00 N/A $3,600.00 N/A $1,600.00 N/A $1,500.00 N/A $500.00 N/A $3,000.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $13,600.00 N/A $7,000.00 N/A $12,232.00 N/A $14,500.00 N/A $2,500.00 N/A $4,300.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $1,600.00 N/A $1,500.00 N/A $900.00 N/A $1,000.00 N/A $900.00 N/A $750.00 N/A $1,000.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $1,200.00 N/A $500.00 N/A $1,000.00 N/A $2,000.00 N/A $800.00 GRAND TOTAL $69,805.00 GRAND TOTAL $105,240.00 GRAND TOTAL $119,587.00 GRAND TOTAL $133,800.00 CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION WARNER HUTTON HOUSE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 9301 THIS CONTRACT, made this 20th day of April, 1994, by and between the City. of. Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation,. in, Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter.called the City, and Landscape West- North, Inc. hereinafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared in the manner prescribed by law, plans, specifications and other contract documents, for the work herein described and shown and has approved and adopted these contract documents, specifications and plans and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law, a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10 %) of the amount bid for the construction of all of the proposed work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a contract for all of the work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE: That the Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction; shall furnish all materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever nature necessary to construct all of the improvements for the City of Saratoga in conformity with the plans, specifications and other contract documents and according to such instructions as may be given by the Saratoga Director of Public Works or his authorized agent. 17 ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications ( "Changes and Extra Work "), the City shall pay the Contractor according to the prices stated in the bid proposal submitted by the Contractor, which shall include all applicable taxes, for complete performance of the work. The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to complete the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work or from action. of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruction or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabili- ties and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other ex- penses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for well and faithfully performing and completing the work within the time frame specified in the Notice to Proceed, all according to the contract plans and specifications, the details and instructions, and the requirements of the City. ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT: That the complete contract document consists of the following: 1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 7. Labor and Material Bond 2. Bid Proposal 8. Plans 3. Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty 9. Specifications 4. Contract for Public Works 10. Insurance Certificates Construction 11. Prevailing Wage Rates 5. Hold Harmless Clause 12. City of Saratoga DBE 6. Performance Bond Requirements In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of the contract, this Contract shall be binding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year hereinabove written. 18 AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL: Date: April 20, 1994 ATTEST: City Clerk The foregoing Contract is approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney M CITY OF SARATOGA: CONTRACTOR: By Title License No. Tax ID or SSN CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS FOR WARNER HUTTON HOUSE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 9301 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids will be received by the Director of Public Works of the City of Saratoga, California, on or before TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1994, at the hour of 2:00 P.M., in his office at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, 95070, for the following work and improvements in and for the City, at which time they will be publicly opened and read: Bids are required for the entire work described herein. Item Estimated _No. Item Description Unit Ouantity 1. DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION LS 1 2. IMPORTED TOPSOIL LS 1 3. ROUGH GRADING LS 1 4. DRAINAGE WORK LS 1 5. ELECTRICAL WORK LS 1 6. ASPHALT CONCRETE PATCHING AND CURB LS 1 7. IRRIGATION-SYSTEM LS 1 8. CONCRETE' WORK ' LS 1 9. BRICK PAVERS LS 1 10. NATIVE ROCK WALLS LS 1 11. REDWOOD AND COBBLE HEADERS LS 1 12. STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE LS 1 13. PICKET FENCE AND GATES LS 1 1 Item Estimated No. Item Description Unit Ouantity 14. METAL TUBE HANDRAIL LS 1 15. PAINTING LS 1 16. SOIL PREPARATION LS 1 17. FINISH GRADING LS 1 18. PLANTING LS 1 19. SOD LAWN LS 1 20. SITE FURNITURE LS 1 21. SPREADING OF MULCH LS 1 22. 60 -DAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PERIOD LS 1 Each bid must be accompanied by a cashier's check, certif ied check, or Bidder's Bond executed by a corporate surety authorized to engage in such business in the State of California, payable to the City of Saratoga, in an amount not less than ten percent (10 %) of the amount of the Base Bid. The successful bidder will be required to furnish a Performance Bond in an amount equal to one - hundred percent (100 %) of the contract price, and a Labor and Material Bond in an amount equal to one - hundred percent (100 %) of the contract price. Said bonds shall also be executed by a corporate surety authorized to engage in such business in the State of California and be made payable to the City of Saratoga. Plans, Specifications and Bidding Documents may be obtained at the office of the Director of Public Works, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, 95070, or by calling (408) 867 -3438. A $20 deposit is required for each set of Bidding Documents requested. Said deposit will be refunded upon return of Bidding Documents in satisfactory condition. The sealed bids must be addressed to the City of Saratoga and must be submitted in a single sealed envelope labelled: WARNER HUTTON HOUSE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 2 wITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto ._set our h=ds and seals on. Tjs 15th day of Marc„ h , 19 94 PRINCIPAL: (seal) (Seal.) MICHAEL LEC VA6��_ (Seal) SURETY: PLANET (Seal) n �--- (heal) mats ha U. Garrison Attorney -in -Fact (Seal) 1 •� • 1 ADDRESS —(81 R) S47-679'1 TELEPHONE NUMBER Note. Signatures of those c'xecTxting for the Surety must be properly acknowledged. Important: Surety companies executing bonds must appear on the State of California Treasury Department!g: most current list (CirCUIar'570 as amended)r.and be authorized to transact, business in the State of California. -' L ur UMUf UHNIA COUNTY OF _ Santa Clara �.I (Seal) ACKNOWLEDGMENT —All Purpose— Nblcotts Form 237CA —Rev. 1.91 1991 WOLCOTTS. INC. (price class 8 -2) • '• •••; •;'• LYNNETTE KONORAT . a - ''_ =Yt� '� •� COMM. � 1010406 Z Notary Public — Cclifornia My SANTA CLARA COUNTY Comm. Expires NOV 28. 1G97 ss. On March 16 199[ before me, _ Lvnnette Kondrat 1�iotary Public personally appeared Mi (here insert name and title of the Officer), �h_ael Leonard Corporate Officer , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(V whose names) is4are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hey executed the same in his /hHG�eir authorized capacity(it*, and that by hiskgtll®ir signature(s) on the instrument the person4), or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted; executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official dal. Signature BIDDER'S BOND. . KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE' PRESENTS, THAT PILE, LANDSCAPE WEST- NORTH, INC. as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF SARATOGA, State of California, hereinafter called the CITY, in the penal gum of TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BASE BID of the Principal above - named, submitted by said Principal to the city, for the work described below for the payment of which sum in Lawful money of the United States, well and truly to be ,made, we bind ourselves' our heirs, executors, administrators and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. In no case shall the liability of the surety exceed.the sum of TEN PERCENT OF BID AMOUNT ( 10% of Bid ) DOLLARS. THE CONDITION OIL THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That whereas the Principal has submitted the above - mentioned bid to the City for certain construction specifically described as follows for which bids are to be opened at Saratoga, California, on March 22, 1994, for: V'ARNER HUTTON HOUSE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEDM1TS Now, THEREFORE, if the aforesaid Principal is awarded the contract, and within the time and manner required. Under the specifications, after the prescribed farms are presented:to<.him for signature, enters into a written contract in!. the prescribed- form, in accordance with the bid, and filea two,:. bonds: one t4 .guarantee faithful performance, and one to guarantee payment for labor and materials, as required by law; then this obligation shall:be °null and void; or should the aforementioned, contract be awarded to other than the herein -named Principal, then this obligation shall. be null and void; -. otherwise, -...it shall. be and remain in full.. force and virtue. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall ba included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney.t s fees, incurred- by the City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered: 1s PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10232 STATEMENT In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10232, the Con- tractor, hereby states under penalty of perjury, that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against the Contractor within the immediately preceding two year period because of the Contractor's failure to comply with an order of a federal court which orders the Contractor to comply with n order of the National Labor Relations Board. Michael Leonard for Landscape West - North, Inc. igna o ac or Printed Name of Contractor PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10285.1 STATEMENT In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10285. 1, the bidder hereby declares under penalty of perjury that the bidder has has not .g been convicted within the preceding three years of any offenses referred to in said Section, including any charge of fraud, bribery, collusion, conspiracy, or any other act in violation of any federal or state antitrust law in connection with the bidding upon, award of, or performance of, any public works contract, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1101, with any public entity, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1100, including the Regents of the University of California or the Trustees of the California State University. The term "bidder" is understood to include any partner, member, officer, director, responsible managing officer, or responsible managing employee thereof, as referred to in Section 10285.1. t34Li_4�- Michael Leonard for Landscape West- North, Inc. Sig re o der Printed Name of Bidder Note: The bidder must place a check mark after "has" or "has not" in one of the blank spaces provided. The above statements are part of the bid proposal. Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution. 14 PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QJESTIONNAIRE In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10162, the bidder shall complete, under penalty of perjury, the following question- naire: Has the bidder, any officer of the bidder, or any employee of the bidder who has a proprietary interest in the bidder, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation? YES NO X If the answer is yes, explain the circumstances below. 13 Michael Leonard Printed Name of Bidder NONCOLLUSION AFFIDAVIT TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER State of California ) City of Saratoga ) ss. County of Santa Clara ) Michael Leonard , being first duly sworn, deposes (Bidder's Name) and says that he or she is Vice President & General Manager of (Title) Landscape West — North, Inc. the party making the fore - (Company) going bid, that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to. fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract or anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data.relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Santa Clara Z I LYNNETTE KONDRAT 4 COMM. # 1010406 1 Notary Public — Cclliomla D SANTA CLARA CO 'UNTY ty Comm. Expires NOV 28, 1997 It (Seal) ACKNOWLEDGMENT —All Purpose— Wolcotts form 237CA —Ref. 1.91 c.1991 WOLCOTTS.INC. (once class 8 -21 (S gnat o ss. On March 18, 1994 Public (here insert name and We of the officer), personally appeared Michael Leonard, Corporate Officer before me, Lynnette Kondrat, Notary , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person4) whose names) is/Xm subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heks>**fty executed the same in hisArSAMW authorized capacity*ss):, and that by hisAmDdIkee signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which ke person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand LIST OF PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS List the name and address of each subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to the Contractor on the project in an amount in excess of one -half of one percent (1/2 %) of the total base bid, or $10,000, whichever is greater,. and the portion of the work to be done by each subcontractor. % of Subcontractor's Work to be Total License No. Name, Address Performed Bid and Class &.Telephone No. 1• None 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11: 12. Note: Attach additional sheets as required. 001 NOTICE: In the case of a corporation, give below the address of the principal office thereof and the names and addresses of the president, secretary, treasurer and manager: Shirley Rollins; President, Secretary, Treasurer Michael Leonard; Vice President, General Manager 1540 South 7th Street San Jose, Ca 95112 Tax ID No. or Social Security No. 33- 0511058 Contractor's License No. 656041 Class ification(s) C -27 Acknowledgement of Addendum(s): Receipt of the following adden- dum(s) issued during the time of bidding is acknowledged and the information contained therein has been considered in the prepara- tion of this bid proposal and become(s) a part thereof. Note: Failure to execute the following may be considered as an irregularity in the bid proposal. Addendum No. (None X ) , (1 ), (2 ), (3 ), (4 ), Check appropriate space(s). 9 Michael Leonard for Landscape West - North, Inc. Printed Name of Bidder STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE OF BIDDER The bidder is requested to state below what work of similar magnitude or character bidder has done and to give reference that will enable the City to judge bidder's experience, skill and business standing and ability to conduct the work as completely and as rapidly as required under the terms of the contract. Project Owner's Completion Name and Contract Project Date Telephone No. Amount City of San Jose: The Coy Park Irrigation & Planting Improvements Project Project still in progress City of San Jose (408) 277 -4777 $105,517.25 County of Santa Clara: Remove & Replace Irrigation Systems at Three (3) County Facilit3 Project still in progress County of Santa Clara (408) 299 -3348 $32,945.00 Capitol Drive -In Project still in progress SYUFY Enterprises (415) 885 -8447 $111,782. Landscape Improvements Sept 1993 Regis Property Mangement (408) 244 -0742 $10,142 Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Site Building 440 March 1994 Hewlett Packard (408)447 -0525 $49,982.00 10 BID PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF SARATOGA WARNER HUTTON HOUSE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS BASE BID SUMMARY ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION LS 1 N/A $3,128.00 2. IMPORTED TOPSOIL (INDICATE $ /CY SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL IN PLACE) LS 1 N/A 3,450.00 3. ROUGH GRADING LS 1 N/A 2,228.00 4. DRAINAGE WORK LS 1 N/A 2,533.00 5. ELECTRICAL WORK LS 1 N/A 875.00 6. ASPHALT CONCRETE PATCHING AND CURB LS 1 N/A 1215.00 ' 7. IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS 1 N/A 6,168.00 8. CONCRETE WORK LS 1 N/A 1,264.00 9. BRICK PAVERS LS 1 N/A 1,500.00 10. NATIVE, ROCK WALLS LS 1 N/A 1,350.00 11. REDWOOD AND COBBLE HEADER LS 1 N/A 1,122.00 12. STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE LS 1 N/A 1,713.00 13. PICKET FENCE AND GATES LS 1 N/A 1,875.00 14. METAL TUBE HANDRAIL LS 1 N/A 770.00 15. PAINTING LS 1 N/A 1,235.00 16. SOIL PREPARATION LS 1 N/A 960.00 17. FINISH GRADING LS 1 N/A 900.00 18. PLANTING LS 1 N/AJ 7,750.00 ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL '19. SOD LAWN LS 1 N/A $3,300.00 20. SITE FURNITURE LS 1 N/A 910.00 21. SPREADING OF MULCH LS 1 N/A 1,380.00 22. 60 -DAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PERIOD LS 1 N/A 900.00 TOTAL BASE BID - ITEMS 1 -22 46,526.00 Bidders must provide bids for all Base Bid items for this bid proposal to be considered responsive. Partial bid proposals will be considered non - responsive and will be rejected. The City will award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder complying with the instructions in the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids. The lowest bidder will be determined on the basis of the total of the Base Bid items alone. If the product of an estimated quantity and unit price for an individual bid item does not equal the total amount bid for that bid item, the unit price shall govern and the corrected product shall be deemed to be the total amount bid for that bid item. If the sum of the individual item totals does not equal the total base bid, the individual item totals shall govern and the corrected sum shall be deemed to be the total base bid. The undersigned agrees, if this bid proposal is accepted by the City Council and if a contract for the performance of the work is entered into by. and between the City of Saratoga and the under- signed, to plan the work and prosecute it with such diligence that all of the work shall be completed within SIXTY (60) working days. 7 r' The undersigned further agrees that if this bid proposal is accepted, to sign the contract and to furnish the required bonds with satisfactory surety or sureties within TEN (10) calendar days after the award of the contract and if the undersigned fails to contract as aforesaid, it shall be understood that the contract has been abandoned and that this bid proposal and the bid guaranty shall be forfeited to and become the property of the City. Otherwise, the bid guaranty. accompanying this bid shall be returned to the undersigned. Dated this 21st day of March 1994 9 1540 South 7th Street Signa ur i e Bidder's Address Michael Leonard San Jose, Ca 95112 Printed Name of Bidder City, State, Zip Code (408) 288 -2940 Bidder's Telephone No. NOTICE TO BIDDERS: This bid proposal may be considered void if any sheets are detached from this booklet and not returned with the bid. 8 If the successful bidder fails, neglects, or refuses for TEN (10) calendar days after the award of the contract to enter into the contract to perform the work, the cashier's check, certified check, or Bidder's Bond accompanying the bid and the amount therein named,, shall be declared forfeited to the City and shall be collected by it and paid into its general fund. After the bids have been opened, no bidder will be allowed to withdraw his bid without forfeiting the bid guaranty, unless permitted to do so by the Director of Public Works. The City Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids, waive any irregularities in any bids and its determination as to which bid is the lowest responsible bid and is for the best . interest of the City shall be final. The City Council shall have THIRTY (30) calendar days from. and after the opening of the bids within which to make its determination. The Contractor receiving the award of the contract shall begin work within FIFTEEN (15) calendar days after receipt of the Notice to Proceed and shall diligently prosecute the same to completion within SIXTY (60) working days. At the time the Contractor's bid proposal is submitted, the Contractor shall possess a valid Class A California Contractor's License or combination of Class C Licenses suitable for the project. The Contractor shall also possess a valid City of Saratoga Business License at the time the contract is awarded. The City of Saratoga, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively insure that the contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability. Prevailing Rate of Wages: In accordance with the provisions of the California Labor Code, the City Council hereby determines that the general prevailing per diem rate of wages in the City of Saratoga, for laborers and for each craft or type of worker and mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, is the Union Wage Scale established for Santa Clara County, which wage scale as of the execution date of the contract is incorporated.herein as if fully set forth. Overtime shall be not less than one and one -half (1- 1/2) times the established rates. Sundays and holidays shall be not less than two (2) times the. established rates. In payment of labor, the Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1770 to 1781 inclusive (Article 2, Chapter 1, Part 7, Division 2), and any acts amendatory thereto. 3 For any moneys earned by the Contractor and withheld by the City ;:o ensure the performance of the contract, the Contractor may, at the Contractor's request and expense, substitute securities equivalent to the amount withheld in the form and manner and subject to the conditions provided in Article 8, (commencing with Section 10263), Chapter 1, Part 2, Division 2 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California. Dated: February 22, 1994 Larry I. Perlin _Director of Public Works 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Z 43 ff MEETING DATE: APRIL 20, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM T 4 �- CITY MGR. SUBJECT: SD 92 -004 (13091 Pierce Road): Final Map Approval for 2 Lots, (Owner., Glennon) Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 92 -004 granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No. SD 92- 004 for two lots at 13091 Pierce Road. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 92 -004 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for two lots located at 13091 Pierce Road. I have examined the final map submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the approved tentative map as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 92- 004 have been completed or will be completed concurrent with development of either of the two lots. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been complied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: The subdivider has paid $595.60 in Engineering Map Checking fees and $8,160 in Park In -Lieu fees required for this subdivision. Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If the map is rejected, it would be returned to the .subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: SD -92 -004; 13091 Pierce Road Applicant/ Owner: Glennon Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: October 28, 1992 APN: 503-16-051 Director Approval: 20975 .(A) 50"3 -/b-72 20989 (A) ' 204 74 (Ill So3- /b- g4 -7 z - tc.-47 COMER DR. 20440 (p) 5-1(#-7• Af 20q 64 Lc.') 50'03 -tu -e5 V� v 31291 CA) 503-Ib- W3 1151413 6303-16- g1 1.052 S1 so9 -ifrS3 303- I6 ->si 11:50,71 603- tc. -yo Z06, ,so *3 RESOLUTION NO. SD -92 -004 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF GLENNON; 13091 PIERCE ROAD APN 503 -16 -051 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under.the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of two (2) lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -92 -004 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and e specified in h Plan, reference to the St Staff Report dated 1 /13/93 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code Sections 66474 a subdivision, and tentative approval 6sh exist uld bet granted cintaccord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated September, 1992 and noted as being revised October 6, 1992, and marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby. conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: , Completed by Surveyor. 1• Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer.. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Completed. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. one copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. File No. SD -92 -004; 13091 Pierce Road C. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each.document /deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City.Engineer. Fees paid. 3• The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. Interior monuments set. 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the. setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. All easements offered 5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of on Final Map. Dedication for all required easements and /or rights of way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. Done. 6. The owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County Recorder the requisite statement indicating that there are no liens against the property or any part thereof for any unpaid taxes or special assessments. A copy of the statement(s) shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. Fees paid. 7. waiver signed.as seperate8. instrument. Completed. Acknowledged. 9 The owner (applicant) shall pay. the applicable Park and Recreation in -lieu fees prior to Final Map approval. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the owner (applicant) shall execute an agreement with the City waiving the rights of the owner or any successive owners of any of the lots created by the subdivision to protest the formation of an underground utility district for the purpose of undergrounding existing overhead utility lines in the vicinity of the property. The agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map and reference to the agreement shall appear in the Owner's Certification on the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the driveway improvements to serve Lot A shall be completed, and the existing driveway access along the north side of the newly created Lot B shall be eliminated. 10. The flag corridor shall only provide access to Lot A and in no event shall Lot B obtain ingress and /or egress off this corridor. Access to Lot B shall be off Pierce Road. Parcels annexed. Sewer 11. Both parcels shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system connections will occur during project development. File N.O. 8D -92 -004; 13091 Pierce Road and annexed into the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Map approval. Acknowleged. 12. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company per the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Services Land Development Report. Acknowleged. 13. Site drainage shall be directed to an existing storm drain and all existing wells on site, if any, shall be abandoned per Santa Clara Valley Water District standards. Acknowleged. 14. Prior to the commencement of any site improvements, 6' chain link or welded wire mesh protective fencing shall be placed around the trees under the dripline per, the arborist reports dated September 8, 1992 and October 8, 1992. Acknowleged. 15• No ordinance protected trees shall be removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit, with the exception of the oak tree within the access corridor to Lot A which is identified in the arborist report dated October 15, 1992. The walnut tree proposed for removal within the building footprint shall remain until a design review application is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy of a new home on Lot B, native and /or drought tolerant replacement trees consisting of two (2) 36 inch box trees or five (5) 24 inch box trees shall be planted within the front portion of the property as required by the City Arborist for the two (2) trees to be removed. Fees Paid. 16. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall pay all outstanding arborist fees. Acknowleged. 17. Future development on Lot B shall require design review approval. Design review approval upon finding that the proposed structure is compatible in terms scale and design with the existing adjacent residences, that it is in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines and that all of the necessary Design Review findings can be made. Acknowleged. 18. Residential construction on Lot B shall be within the building pad location per the Site Development plan marked Exhibit "A". Acknowleged, 19. A requirement of design review application review shall be the submittal of a landscape plan indicating native and /or drought tolerant replacement trees per condition #14 in conformance with the City's xeriscape guidelines. Done. 20. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, boards, commis- sions, employees and volunteers harmless from and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such approval, which is brought within the time specified in Section 85.060 of the Municipal C 14- ode. If a defense is requested, the File No. SD -92 -004; 13091 Pierce Road City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from participating in the defense, but in such event, the City shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs. 21. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity' N/A agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 22. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall ACknowd -eged , constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 13th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, MORAN, FORBES, MURAKAMI NOES: none ABSENT: ASFOUR, FAVERO Ch ir, lanning Commission ATTEST. Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date ` SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-43 -/ AGENDA ITEM _7G MEETING DATE: APRIL 20, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT:. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Traffic Data Service in the. amount of $19,500 to perform an update of citywide traffic counts Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the letter proposal dated April 8 from Traffic Data Service of Campbell to perform an update of citywide traffic counts and authorize staff to execute a standard Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $19,500 for the work. Report Summary: Attached is a letter proposal dated April 8 from. Traffic Data Service (TDS) of Campbell to perform an update of citywide traffic counts. TDS proposes to perform 24 hour (ADT) counts at 140 selected locations, and 2 hour (Peak) turn movement counts at 60 selected intersections throughout the City for a total cost of $19,500. All of the count locations are identified on the attached map. (Please do not mark on or otherwise deface your copy of the map as I would like to retrieve it from you after your meeting.) Previous citywide traffic counts were-last conducted in 1989 and the City has historically and intelligently updated its counts every five years. This year's counts are even more significant in that they will represent the final counts which will be taken before the opening of Route 85 in October and will provide the basis for determining the real traffic impacts of the new freeway. To gauge the effects of the freeway, staff plans to take post - freeway counts at around this same time next year at those locations where freeway impacts are anticipated. At this time, staff estimates that about one - quarter to one -third of the locations will need recounting next year. Those locations will again be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission and the Council. The traffic counts provide the raw data which is used by City staff and traffic consultants to perform traffic impact studies, warrant evaluations for traffic control devices, and other traffic related analyses. Clearly, the results,. of- these- efforts can . only be as good as the data which is used. The Public Safety Commission reviewed the proposed count locations at their March meeting and the several comments the Commission made are incorporated into the proposal before you. The Commission was particularly concerned about locations which might be affected by Route 85, as well as locations along routes to the various schools. Traffic Data Service has performed similar services for the City for more than 20 years and their reputation for accuracy and reliability is extremely good. This year, TDS will provide the data in both hard copy and disc format and will assist staff with establishing a computerized data base for storage and retrieval of the traffic data. Also, as noted in the proposal, the unit costs for this year's counts are actually less than what they were back in 1989. Fiscal Impacts: As noted, the total cost for this year's proposed counts is $19,500. The FY 93 -94 budget contains $7,000 for this work in Program No. 3039 (General Engineering), Account No. 4520. It is proposed to fund the $19,500 contract by using these funds and funding the $12,500 difference from Program No. 2029 (Congestion Management), Account No. 5610, where a budget surplus exists due to lower than anticipated Congestion Management Agency dues. For the counts to be accurate, they should be conducted prior to the end of May to capture normal traffic patterns rather than seasonal fluctuations associated with summer. The post- freeway counts will be funded from $8,000 which is already budgeted in Program No. 3039, Account No. 4520 in FY 94 -95 for this purpose. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The proposal will not be approved and an agreement will not be executed. The Council may choose to modify the proposal if you desire, however for the reasons stated above, staff supports the proposal in its present form. Follow Up Actions: Staff will execute a standard Professional Services Agreement with TDA and authorize the work to begin. After the data is received, it will be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission at an upcoming meeting. Eventually, recommendations will be formulated to conduct post- freeway traffic counts in FY 94- 95. Attachments: 1. Proposal from TDS dated April 8. 2. Map of proposed traffic count locations with list. Traffic Data Service Campbell, California • Columbia, Maryland April 8, 1994 Erman Dorsey City of Saratoga, Dept_ of PW 13777 Fruitvale Ave_ Saratoga Calif_ 95070 Dear Erman: This letter is to confirm our previous phone conversations re- garding your FAX to us of March 22, 1994. In the subject FAX you asked for current prices for 24 hour machine counts, and inter- section turn movement counts for the AM and PM peak period. Your list of streets that you would like machine counts on shows 113 locations. It is our understanding that you desire dire(:tional counts on all 4 lane roads on the list and a few of the 2 lane locations_ We thus project that you will need approxima -Uely 140 24 hr machine counts and 30 intersections from 7:30 -9:30 AM and 4:00 -6:00 PM. (a total of 60, 2 hr_ periods) PROPOSAL: Traffic Data Service would propose the following- 140 ea 24 hr machine.counts @ $75 ea ----------------- $10,500 60 ea 2 hr turn counts @ $150 ea ---------------------- $9,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST ------------- $19,5()0 As I mentioned in our phone conversation, we would propose to provide the machine count data in both hard copy and disk format- tt7t= will at no additional cost set up a City wide data base, and load your count data on a City computer. Since TDS has had the that 20 years, I will -p= .: pos,il regarding, f th =.t. the unit costs in for the-.same City wide opportunity to work for the City for more not bother to include information in this irm background_ I would however point out this proposal are less than the unit costs program -we did for you in 1989_ Sincerely,`Keith Manley �') VI-11 Owner, TDS 256 E. Hamilton Ave. Suite K Campbell California 95008 (408) 374 -2970 Fax (408) 374 -1361 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE Traffic Data Service is a consulting firm that specializes in providing traffic engineering technical and data gathering services. By working exclusively in this rather narrow field for the past 15 years, we have been able to develop expertise and equipment resources unparalled in the private sector. TDS currently owns more than 200 machine traffic counters. Because of our extensive experience in data - gathering, we have had the opportunity to work first with Fisher Porter Company and currently with Mitron Corporation as a consultant in the development and testing of new solid -state traffic monitoring hardware and software. Our relationship has continued with Mitron and we are currently their exclusive national distributor. TDS is thus in the very unique position of being directly involved with the Research & Development, Testing, Manufacturing, Sales, Service, and day -to -day usage of traffic monitoring hard- ware and software. This broad base and extensive experience has given our technicians a special insight into the procedures and problems associated with collecting valid, representative, and accurate data in the most time- and cost - effective manner. We are geared to handle anything from an individual count to city -wide count programs. All machine volume, speed, and classification counts are taken with new Mitron solid state counters. There are a number of alternate report formats including graphs, tables, and accumulative volume histories. Data is also available in micro or mainframe computer format. SERVICES AVAILABLE • Machine volume counts .• Machine speed counts • Machine vehicle classification counts • Hand intersection. counts • Hand radar speed studies 9 Hand vehicle classification counts • Pedestrian studies. • Parking studies • Origin & Destination studies • Travel Time & Distance studies • Sales of Mitron counting equipment • Sales of counting supplies • Development & sales of counting software • Traffic signal operations TDS CAN PROVIDE A LOW COST, HIGH RESOURCE, ALTERNATIVE OR SUPPLEMENT TO IN -HOUSE COUNT PROGRAMS WEST COAST: KEITH MAN_LEY, Regional Manager 256 E. Hamilton Avenue, Suite K . Campbell, California 95008 (408) 374 -2970 EAST COAST: JOHN REED, Regional Manager 2000 Century Plaza Columbia, Maryland 21044 (800) 638 -9665 (301) 992 -4563 • EXAMPLE OF MACHINE VOLUME COUNT. YO HMO Count Report 6enetated by NSC3000 Version 2. 00. _.Copyright 1990, 1991 Hitton 6yiteis Corporation Location .......... OLYMPIA BTWN TERRACE AND FREMONT (EB) : Location Code sees. 2 County ............ SEASIDE Recorder Set ...:.. 05/19192 12:10 Recording. Start . ".. 05/19/92 13:00 ; Recording End ..... 05111/92 10:00 Sample Time sees... 15 Minutes Operator Number ... 4 Machine Number sees 19 ,Channel .......sees 1 Divide By .......... 2 Summation ......... No Tvo -May ........... No Tuesday 05/19/92 Channel: 1 Direction: E 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 17001600 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 Totals 73 76 70 87 98 TO . 49 63 47 43 25 701 -17 18 16 20 24 25 11 10 14 -17 7 19 20 15 23 30 9 14 16 12 10 8 17 15 18 19 . 22 22 11 18 12 9 5 - 20 23 21 .25 .22 14 13 19 9 1 5 AMPeak. Hour .................... .................. Unavailahle AM Peak Hour Factor ............. Unavailable PM Peak Hour .................... 16.45 to 17:45 (101 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ............. 84.21 Wednesday 05/20/92 Channel: 1 Direction: E 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 Totals 18 6 5 4 7 13 33 53 54 555 61 58 68 60 80 99 87 At 64 44 45 52 46 40 1133 2 2 2 2 0 2 7 5 21 13 15 '10 24 10 18 16 19 19 18 16 14 15 15 8 5 0 0 0 1 1 7 7 11 15 18 14 13 15 21 31 '21 26 16 9 12 3 13 9 6 3 2 .0 4 5 10# 16 13 11 20 13 iB 17 19 30 23 19 14 9 8 20 8 5 5 1 1 2 2 5 9 25 9 16 8. 21 13 18 22 22. 24 17 16 10 11 14 10 16 AM Peak Hour .................... 01:30 to 08:30 (73 vehicles) AM Peak. Hour.Factor 73.01 ph "reak Hour .................... 15:15 to 16:15 (102 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ............. 82.31 24 -Hour Moving Total 01:00- N/A 02:00 -., N/A 03:00- N/A 04 :00- ..N /A, 05:00 -. .N /A.. 06:00 -. N/A ....07:00 - NIA 08:00- NIA 09:00- N/A 10:00- 'N /A 11:00- NIA 12:00- N/A 13 :00- N/A 14:00- .1136 15:00- 1113 16 :00- 1127 17:.00- 1156 18:00 - ..1156 19:00- 1139 10:00- 1133 21:00- 1118 22:00 -. 1110 23 :00- HIS 24:00- 1118 EXAMPLE OF INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR COUNT SHEET 1 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE Site Code : it PAGE: L N -S Street: IANKER FILE: SJ11 E-H Street: BROKAW Heather : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movements by: Primary DATE: 5/07/92 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru left Total Right Thru left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 7:45 AM 0.75 26 103 104 233 11 44 45 East 7:15 AM 0.93 630 1155 121 1906 33 61 6 South 7:15 AM 0.84 46 765 66 877 5 87 8 West 7:30 AM 0.92 44 388 148 580 8 67 26 Entire Intersection North 7:30 AM 0.74 .25 107 98 230 11 47 43 East 0.93 651 1137 118 1906 34 60 6 South 0.83 45 759 68 872 5 87 8 West 0.92 44 3BB 14B 580 8 67 26 i ZANKER t ... t N ' — — — — — ' W — + —E t i i i. . . . . . . . . . . i S ............ ............ 1 1558 ' t 25 i 107 98 i .............1 ------------------ ------------------ .................. --- 230 — — — — -- 651 .......... 11..1.3 0 ------------------ ... BROKAW 1906 1137 ------------ - - - - -- ------------------ 148 -- -- 118 ------------ - - - - -- ' 388 580 BROKAW ... ------------ - - - - -- .t 531 . . . . . . . . . . 44 -- - -- 872 - - -- .................. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----- --------- - - --lF 9F------------------ i............t 68 t 759 1 45 i i.. 269 ...i i ! ........ .. , i............t i...i ZANKER t. EXAMPLE OF INTERSECTION 1150 2145 220 82 PEAK HOUR COUNT 785 271 6641 PEAK SHEET 2 PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE ........ VOLUMES, .... PERCENTS ... FROM ------------------------------------------=---------------------------------------------------- Site Code : 11 FACTOR Right Thru left Total Right Thru left North 7:45 AM 0.75 26 103 104 PASS: 1- N-S Street: IANKER 44 45 .East 7:15 AM 0.93 630 1155 121 1906 33 61 6 South FILE: 5711 E-W Street: BROKAW 46 765 66 877 5 87 8 West 7:30 AM 0.92 44 3BB 148 580 8 Weather ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 Movements by: Primary North DATE: 5/07/92 Time From North From East 230 From South From West 43 Vehicle Begin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 7:00 AM 10 26 14 113 210 20 5 143 11 7 103 27 689 7:15 9 11 18 135 270 24 13 182 10 12 94 20 79B 7:30 4 18 13 150 298 30 10 169 6 10 111 37 858 7:45 6 32 38 16B 307 39 14 221 27 9 97 42 1002 HR TOTAL 31 87 63 566 1085 113 42 715 56 3B 405 126 3347 8:00 AM 6 31 22 177 280 28 9 193 21 15 BB 39 909 6:15 7 26 25 156 252 21 12 176 12 10 92 '30 819 8:30 5 14 19 118 272 31 10 149 14 7 99 40 778 8:45 8 22 29 133 256 27 9 135 29 3 101 36 788 HR TOTAL 26 93 95 584 1060 107 40 653 76 35 380 145 3294 DAY TOTAL 57 180 178 1150 2145 220 82 1368 132 73 785 271 6641 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES, .... PERCENTS ... FROM ------------------------------------------=---------------------------------------------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru left Total Right Thru left North 7:45 AM 0.75 26 103 104 233 11 44 45 .East 7:15 AM 0.93 630 1155 121 1906 33 61 6 South 7:15 AM 0.84 46 765 66 877 5 87 8 West 7:30 AM 0.92 44 3BB 148 580 8 67 26 Entire Intersection North 7:30 AM 0.74 25 107 9B 230 11 47 43 East 0.93 651 1137 118 1906 34 60 6 South 0.83 45 759 68 872 5 87 6 West 0.92 44 3BB 148 . 580 8 67 26 APR oe Y94 64:4ePM LUNDBERG INSURANCE 209 436 2500 P.2 g a Ulm "wo" 194— PR*cUCEFI THIS CERTIFICATE Is Iss CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOPOLICES AMEN EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE LUNDBERG INSURANCE/LA I BELOW. ES 265 WEST BULLARD # 101 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE FRESNO CA 93704 COMPANY A HARTFORD LETTER COMPANY LIE rrem INSURED TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE MMPAW c 256 E HAMILTON AVE #K LETTER ZAMPBELLo CA 950011-0207 COMPANY uTmn COMPANY E 1w. X4 AT 11 F 4:1k T E Tf � TO THE*AF D 1300 1�? 0 , M a V 10 IS F E '$E $L UtWECTTOALL M NS 0 I to 8 Ue IT M IN *(�l �§%VjjjjrE i C j ON CLUaIO a N 00 Og k a NIK UC A . 4:� P CLAIMS. 04 S 1% IES LIMITS SHOW LIC I POLICY EFFECTIVE Poucyo(PiRATioN TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER LIMITS _TR DATE (MMMWM DATE OMMIDWM GENERAL LIABILITY 51SBACG9147 11/01/93 11/01/94 GENERAL AGGREGATE II; PRODUCT51-COMPIOPAW. 8 -2. 000, Q! MMEMIAL GENERAL LIABILIT" LAIMS MADE Oc F�7 OUR. PERSONAL & AOV. INJURY 9 11000,00 EACH OCCURRENCE s 1,000,00 OWNERS & OONlTRA=FI'8 PF� )T. FIRE DAMAGE AnY one fiffl) s 300, nr MEO.Exp. (MY Ono ponlon) AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 51SBACG9147 1.1/01/93 11/01/94 COMBINED GINOLE ANY AUTO UMIT $ 11000100c BODILY INJURY ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEOULEDAUTOB (Per perm) BODILY INJURY MIRED ALIMEi NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accld@O FROPEKIFY DAMAGE GARAGE LIABIUTY EXCESS IJAIHIUTY EACH OCCURRENCE III AGGREGATE a UMBRELLA FORM — OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM rr aTATuom UR y mr VMRKERIS COMPENSATION EAOH ACCIDENT AND DIBEASE-POLICY LIMIT a EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE 2 OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONKOCATIC NO/VENICLESISPECIAL ITEMS THE CITY OF SARATOGA IS INCLUDED AS AN ADDITIONAL" INSURED'' �4EF 15N. SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR VO TO CITY OF SARATOGA MAIL n ^ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE ATTN! E R UW DORSEY LEFT, BUfT FA ILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR PUBLIC WO KS DEPT LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPt A NTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. 13777 FRU:TVALE ii4! AUTHORIZED REPREGEPWI77F SARATOGA CA 95070 MY{ 0.1.�*""Mi�.".,,.'ll"�.'�i!�l,","!".-�"!"".".",,-..","....'..,",;-,.,-."",...,—i"14�-...".",�!1"�."",�,,.,,,.",.-"""",.,L,,.""",.",..",..—.""",.""","".,....'...",",",��..".,..,.,��,,'...,.,�.",.,.".,.."..,.,..,..,.,.".�"', 011 kov .00, STATE P.O. BOX 420807, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94142 -0807 COMPENSATION INSURANCE SUN D CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE APRIL 11, 1994 POLICYNUMBER: 1108210 — 94 CERTIFICATE EXPIRES: 1-1-95 r CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN, BUILDING DEPT. ERMAN DORSEY 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 L This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' Compensation insurance policy in a form approved by the California Insurance Commissioner to the employer named below for the policy period indicated. This policy is not subject to cancellation by the Fund except upon ten days' advance written notice to the employer. We will also give you TEN days' advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to its normal expiration. This certificate of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term, or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate of insurance may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies. PRESIDENT EMPLOYER MANLEY, KEITH W AND MANLEY, JUDITH E TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE 256 E HAMILTON CAMPBELL CA 95008 L SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. --2(4 ~ AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Aoril 20, 1994 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Request to Authorize 8K /3K Run on Sunday, May 1, 1994 Recommended Motion(s): Approve in concept the holding of a foot race as proposed on Sunday, May 1, 1994, conditioned on compliance with all requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval includes authorization for the City Manager's Office to issue a Special Events Permit when it is determined that all conditions have been satisfied, Report Summary: The Christa McAuliffe School Parent Faculty Group is requesting authorization to hold their third 8K /3K run in the neighborhood of the school on Sunday, May 1, 1994, from approximately 8:30 to 11:00 a.m. The race would be limited to 800 participants,.and proceeds from the race will benefit the children at Christa McAuliffe elementary school. Maps outlining the route are attached. Fiscal Impacts: None are anticipated.. Attachments: 1. Information from sponsor responding to special events permit conditions. 2. Map showing route of foot race. Motion and Vote: Responses to "Summary Of Conditions - Events Permit" A. The Christa McAuliffe PFG would like to put on an 8K (5 miles) and 3K (2 miles) running Road Race as a Fund Raiser for the school. B. The event would be held on Sunday, May 1, 1994 at 8:30 am (3K) and 9:00 am (8K) and would be completed by 11:00 am, possibly earlier. C. The sponsor of the event is the Christa McAuliffe PFG. D. Event contacts are: Hank Lawson 12375 Farr Ranch Rd Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 446 -9063 (home) (408) 432 -4180 (work) (408) 446 -9060 (FAX) Marty Wagner 6353 Tucker Dr San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 252 -5408 (home) E. Check for $62 enclosed (filing fee, non - refundable). F. Check for $250 enclosed (clean -up deposit, fully refundable). G. We anticipate 700 -800 participants and another 200 volunteers and spectators. H. The attached course maps were submitted and approved by the Westside Sheriff's Office from the previous events and will be submitted for the current event. The maps show where the runners will run, where Course Marshals will be stationed and how runners will be moved to the starting line and removed off of the course once they are finished. We do not anticipate having to close off, or even a partial closure, any on the roads in order to run this event (although caution will of course be in order). 1. Traffic will be allowed on the streets prior, during and after the event. The runners will only be on the street from the hours of 8:30 am to 10:00 am. 2. There is sufficient parking on the school grounds and the surrounding area to handle the number of participants that we anticipate. We will be turning the school athletic field into a parking area. 3. Emergency vehicles will have total access to the event and it's surrounding areas. The start and finish areas have been chosen for easy access. I. Currently, Christa McAuliffe has 10 toilets. We also plan on renting an additional 4 Port -O- Potties which will be sufficient for the number of participants /spectators that we plan on having (if needed). J. There will be mineral water (bottles) apples, bananas, oranges (whatever a local market donates), muffins & coffee cake (thanks to Hobees) and yogurt, hopefully (from Yoplait). The volunteers will ensure that the fruit is washed and then sliced up for the runners. The water & yogurt are self contained and will be put out on a table for the runners to take. The coffee cake will be a SHEET CAKE that will be cut and served with napkins by the volunteers. All food will be picked up a day or two prior to the event with the exception to the coffee cake which will be picked up the morning of the event. K. There will be nothing for sale at this event, with the possible exception of left over race T- Shirts. At this time we do not know who that vendor will be, but will forward the information as soon as it is decided. T- Shirts would be sold in the area of race registration which is by the playground area. L. There will be one loud speaker in order to handle general announcements prior to the event and for the awards ceremony. This will be located in the race registration area. There is a possibility that a band, playing "Classic" Rock & Roll, might be performing. If so, they would not begin until 9:30 am (at the earliest) and would be finished by 12:00 noon (at the latest). They would also face towards Prospect Rd so as not to bother the surrounding neighborhood. They performed in previous years and the City suggested where they should be located (the same location as previously) and we did not receive any complaints from the music. M. The race flyer will state all conditions of the race for which this permit is being issued. If there are any additional requirements that come to light after the race flyer has been printed, those conditions will be made known to the participants on the morning of the event. N. General liability insurance is handled by Evergreen Insurance Service. A rider to the current policy has been purchased and sent to Paula Reeve, or his /her equivalent, as the representative for the city of Saratoga. O. The Indemnity Agreement has been filed out and is attached. P. It is understood that the Christa McAuliffe PFG is responsible for any reimbursements to the City of Saratoga in regard to security, traffic control and law enforcement expenses that are associated with this event. I have been in contact with the Westside Sheriff's Office and we feel that the cost of Sheriff's Deputies will not exceed $100 to handle the above mentioned. Q. See attached map layout for all information. R. No portion of this event will be run over a State Highway. — F46 —'*�7 -_mr IT �a 81C ST4t�' r DeT4 1L.. 14'Fr -- PRoSPa T i f WATrR SpyIr r Helk, 1232c r ris 8k SH p�i'�ct..._. RUN TO THE STARS 8K SARA/TOGA CITY COUNCIL —7 /� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO .?`� AGENDA ITEM //4 MEETING DATE: AA ril 20, 1994 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Library Services and Funding Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt a resolution Consenting to Inclusion of the Territory of the City in Formation of a County Library Service Area. 2. Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to execute the Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the City Report Summary: Since July of last year, when the State transfer of property tax revenues from cities, counties, and special districts to schools reduced community library funding by some 40 %, a task force of City Managers and Mayors from cities which are part of the County system has been meeting to work on a proposal to restore funding and strengthen community governance of the library system and its community libraries. The proposals before the City Council are the products of that effort. Discussion: 1. Funding. The resolution allows the City of Saratoga to be included in a County Library Service Area, the purpose of which will be to raise funds for local library use through a parcel tax. The parties have agreed that before proceeding to form the Service Area and levying the tax the question of whether to impose the tax would be placed on the November ballot as an advisory measure within the boundary of the Services Area. A specific amount of the tax would be specified at that time. If the measure passes (only a majority vote is needed) throughout the Service Area the assessment would be levied; if it fails passage, the levy would not be imposed. Should it pass, the levy would go into effect on July 1, 1995. 2. Joint Powers Agreement. The Agreement creates a joint powers agency to oversee the running of the County library system. There would be an eleven member board, nine city members and two county members. The board would set policy, approve budgets, and generally oversee the operation of the County Library District. Fiscal Impacts . None directly. However, should the ballot measure pass, the City may wish to return to Sunday hours year round as in 1992 which would add about $5,000 to the current service budget. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact A community forum on library funding.Was held on December 12, 1993. articles on library funding proposals have appeared in both the Saratoga News and Mercury News. Follow Up Actions: Execute the Joint Powers Agreement, forward both documents to the County. Succeeding steps are shown on the Task Force Work Plan. Conseauences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Saratoga would not have a voice in the governance of the district and no supplemental funding would come to the Saratoga Community Library should the Service Area be successful. Attachments: 1. Resolution Consenting to Inclusion of the Territory of the City in Formation of a County Library Service Area. 2. Joint Powers Agreement 3. Library Task Force Work Plan 1994 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY IN THE FORMATION OF THE COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICE AREA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County is preparing an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the creation of a County service area for enhanced library services (hereinafter County Library Service Area); and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors requests each City within the County Library District to adopt a resolution of consent for inclusion of its territory in the formation of the County Library Service Area pursuant to Section 25210.10(a) of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the County and City agree to the formation of a Joint Powers Authority to govern the provision of library services; and WHEREAS, upon creation of the County Library Service Area, approval of the Joint Powers Authority governing board and LAFCO, and passage of an advisory measure by the electors of the County Service Area, the Board of Supervisors could levy a benefit assessment upon property in the County Library Service Area; and WHEREAS, this Council finds that the public health, safety and economic welfare of its constituency will be promoted by participating in the proposed County Library Service Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga: 1. Approves and consents to the inclusion of all of the incorporated territory, of the City in the formation of the County Library Service Area; and 2. Approves and consents to a levy by the County of a benefit assessment for library services as approved by an advisory vote of the electors of the County Library Service Area; and 3. Directs the Clerk to file certified copies of this resolution with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and with the County Executive of the County of Santa Clara. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 20th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk LIBRARY TASK FORCE —1994 JPA DOCUMENT MARCH APRIL MAY .;uNE JULY AUGUST SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. • Final Draft 3/18 • Adoption Cities /Counties RESOLUTION RE: CREATING CSA • Final Draft 3/18 • Adoption Cities . PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY • Complete Survey 3/24 • Preliminary Information 3/.28 . • Final Document • 4/13 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS LAFCO /CSA • B/S adopt resolution asking LAFCO to approve CS • Preparation of feasibility report for LAFCO app. • File w/LAFCO for August hearing • 6/22 • LAFCO hearing • B/S adoption of resolution creating CSA Public Hearin 8/10 10/11 • File Certificate of Completion with Count Recorder • 12/13 • File with Board of Equalization (By 12/31/94) (after filing w/Recorder) BENEFIT ASSESSMENT • Set hearing (need 45 day notice) • Benefit assessment levied for 95 -96 10/25 • 12/13 CAMPAIGN VOTE • 11/8 i April 5, 1994 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY IN THE FORMATION OF THE COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICE AREA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County is preparing an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the creation of a county service area for enhanced library services (hereinafter County Library Service Area); and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors requests each City wichin the County Library District to adopt .a resolution of consent for inclusion of its territory in the formation of the County Library_. Service Area pursuant to Section 25210.10(a) of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the County and City agree to the formation of a Joint Powers Authority to govern the provision of library services; and WHEREAS, upon creation of the County Library Service Area, approval of the Joint Powers Authority governing board and LAFCO, and passage of an advisory measure by the electors of the County Service Area, the Board of Supervisors could levy a benefit assessment upon property.:in the County Library Service Area; and WHEREAS, this C::�lncil finds that the public health,-safety and economic welfare: ,:f its constituency will be promoted by participating in the ..Dposed County Library Service Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at t:._s Ccu._,.__ . consents to the inclusion of ..._l of the incor:,orated ter-ri_ory of the City in the formation of the County Library Service . __ _ and 2. Approves and consents to a levy by the County of a benefit assessment for library services as approved by an advisory vote of t -e electors of the Countv Library Service Area; and 3. Directs t -e Clerk to file certified copies of this resolution with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and with the County Executive of the County of Santa Clara. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a meeting of the Council of California, held on the day of , 1994 by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: .ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: Clerk of _ X it 27,4 Ear:. arsm +lal memo 7577 pages ► l April 5, 1994 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND CITIES OF CAMPBBLL, CUPERTINO, GILROY, LOS ALTOS, LOS ALTOS HILLS, MILPITAS, MONTE SERENO, MORGAN HILL Al"M SARATOGA, RELA'T'ING TO LIBRARY SERVICES This is an agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the c ties of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga (her °iT after, "Cities ") , relating to the joint exercise Of powers over lvrrary 8E:irvices throughout the Santa Clara County Free Lih.-_ ary *district. Wr ti 'REAS ,k Santa Clara County r ree Library District (4-S' tn� compris� the unincorporated area of the County and the cities of Camp-bell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas; Monte Serene, Morgan. Hill and Saratoga), has authority tc r , • ..de library• services within its -urisd= ction, and is c,TovE.;n1 by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Cities have independent .authority to provide iibrar_y services within their jurisdict;ons; and T,J 1 lfllla:_i �� =f11IC iFj!li_��i IiHTT _d_1 ,LEFEA4 , tie provi_sion, of library services to the residents Of area c` t hE Cou: ty and Cities are enhanced aa:l T:G_ - mQre q ��_lZErt yyr a coordinated proQ r «m among the pub lic t __ cc:ttpr =se the DIstrict; -and ti•HE-'4EAS, there is a direct benefit conferred upon the properties which are served by library facilities which, enhances the value of the properties served; and WH�IREAS, the Joint Powers Taw !Gcvernment Code §s650C, et-seq.) permits public entities, after receiving the prior Consent of their respective legislative bodies, to jointly exerc_'_se powers common tc the contra.ctinng parties, in the Fewer to provide for library services; and WrERE AS, the County p'- rvive.Azea Act (GOVernment Code §252 .10 et.sec.i provides for alternative methods of providing for sPxviCF'c within unincorporated areas of the County and within those cities which choose to p «rticipate in a County l' Service Area; and, Wlt=7AS, the County and the Cities will request the "focal �grrcz m ommissicn�to approve the creation of /� a County Library S =rvicc Area to include the unincorporated area of the and the Cites, to provide for library services. W 3' =IJ1�C - - tiC ".,-, -:1e2 "etorB, in cOnsid °rataC:L of the mutual prOm'iSes and cavenanms contained herein, t'qe parties to this agreement agrea as follows: 1. Purpose of Agreement and Parties The parties to this agreement, with the consent of their respective legislative bodies, hereby join together for the purpose of providing extended library services within their csmmunit44.es and by establishing a joint powers body to exercise t':e powers described herein. The parties agree that addi.tionai cities may become parties to this agreement or, such terms and conditions as may be approved by LAPCO and by a majority of the members of the Library Jcint Pcwers Board. One condition to participation is that all participant me>rbers and their residents shall have reciprocal access to library facilities, mat " " -rials ,-and services of all other members. Term Thi-, joint powers agreement shall commence upon the M ;i'i_i J,JH ? : -7FJ r�; execution of t:ia agreement by thearti?S hereto " ?stahl s. ?dent of a Coun -tv Service Area for library services and the _e'. -v cf a benefit a.ssessmer_t for library serti ►ices_ in. the ':�erefit- ,assessment is not levied, the parties aaree to erga,g� in good faith renegotiat_on of this joint powers agreem -einr W4 thin 45 days of the decision. The agreement shall continue, uninterrupted, as long as the Ccuntti Serv=.ce Area and benefit assessment exist and urtzl such time as a tTLAjority of the governing board members provided herein vote tG terminate the agreement. An individual city may wit,adraw from the joint powers authority and the library district upon the giving of notice no late= than August 1 of any year of its intent to Withdraw from the Authority effective on July 1 of the following year. A city which withdraws shall be subject to all procedural and substantive reaui.rements Of law applicable to withdravial from a joint powers agreement and,a lih -racy district. 3. Governing Board i }e Library Joint Powers Board shall Consist of one council member from each of the Cities and two members of the Board of Supervi _-ors. Each city may designate one alternate member and the Co.inCy._may _ designate two alternate members. Selecti.on pl_ =�s= f�,r each member and alternate shall tP a' -1 ire determined e governing bc'dy of each city -and the Ce,.0 ty. Mermbers shall serve 4 W1J= _0 `F., '74t_I ;�_H, wit:�o's_ com,PP' nsal_ion, but may ire reimbursed for expenses nec°Esaril r inC,=.ed in r2lation to their' � er � y f duties as �.,e>�b�_s of the Board. 4. Craanization of the Board Actions of the Board shall be effective upon approval o.f a majcrity of the members of the Board. The Board shall annually select a chairperson and a vice - chairperson and shall meet quarterly or more frequently as determined by the Board. 51 Employees ?'he County Librarian, and all library personnel, shall continue to be employed, by the County of Santa Clara and subject to the County's labor agreements, and personnel rules. Under the Cc.unty Charter, the County Librarian is appointed by and reports to the County Executive. Pursuant tc this agreement, the County Librarian will also report to the joint powers library board, which may make recommendations to the County Executive relating to -th4 performance of the County Librarian. 61 Support Services The County of Santa Clara w43.1 continue to provide counsel, purchazLng, payroll, budget, and other services to the library 5 51•rstevr and shall be reimburs?d. for she '� s rea onab_e cast of these serv_c �:s . �o u May o � 1 Joaz 11. 4Z� Q � y" it �11t x�� 1.. wit-- 4naividual c`ty-S or "Other' entit-les For library services, facilities, and /or administrative support (such as, but not limited to, counsel, Purchasing, payroll, bud(7et,. etc.)_ 7. Property Library building leases and other agreements relating to library buildings shall remain in full force and effect. Ccnsisterlt with applicable lave, existing library property and libxax�, property acquired.with library district revenues remains property of the County Free Lib-axy District. Property °acquired from benefit assessment reti"enues shall be the property of the Joint Powers Authority. 3. Library Policies policies relating to the provis" of library services, including hours, organization, staffing levels and type, and other :_rvices, shall be ..de*_.ermirled by the Joint Powers Library Board. Current policies with respect to the library shall con}i7ue i:z full force and effect until charged by the Board. In F J.•i!J1�i= addit, -un. libraries are sub -Ject to genera! State laws with rSSr,eCt to 'Libraries, 1T1C '��iii�� the Provi8'.ons of Education Code sectlon 19146 which ve4ts power to select ma` �n the , ..erlals County Librarian:. L:oin-t Powers- Library Board shall also consider and ad--.»t the annual operating and ca?04 J. tal imiarovements budgets for the library system. 9. Finances A. Revenues. The parties to this agreement hereby reconfirm existir.y revenue sources and commit to their continuance at their current pwoportion to the extent permitted by general law, These revenue sources are: a. Property Tax b. Motor Vehicle in Lieu tax distributed to-libraries C. Countywide PERS ._evy for county library employees d. Public Libr'ar'y Fund �. State and Federal Library Services -pct funds f. Special District Augmentation Fund g. IrLer�SL 1. Funding Formula. Patties to this agreement hereby .reco-nf irm the "f,,.inding `o -mula" fcr libr-aries as -- follows . Funding of personnel and library materials at each library facility shall b° a function of three equally Weighted 7 _' � J ll!J1�� =� �3tif•11 It.!�� ,l!!•JI 10_ iJN:-� :rl =! !-F,. _ factors: circulation, assessed value and service area, adjusted so CIS to 1Ele!5 set forth below. T-'-,e = inrary Joint Po:Jers Bcard or,.ula, provided minimum service levels affected. population of each Jrovide minima -xr, service may charge the forecro =ng are not adversely C. Minimum Service Levels. The parties to this agreement agree to provide minimum service levels as follows, providing revenues are maintained at the 1993- 4._fiscal year level and a benefit assessment is levied and collected: 1. 30 hour, 5 day week at every community library 2. 20 hours per week at.branches such as woodland 3. bi- weekly bookmobile service 4, administrative., collection and technical services support appropriate to. public service hours Each participating city and the County may supplemezzt. revenues to the District tc provide for enhanced services at individual library facilities. D. system Support. The parties agree that financial support Of the library system equipment, acquisitions, adt;linistration and centra? sraff is essential. To that end, the followizng shall be provided: 1. A minimum mat.erials budget proportionately equivalent to a $1.1 million budget in fiscal year 1995 -6. 8 tdi r: =: i3_.fJ!�0_ ,�,lt•;i iG_ HHt- T :t:,CD rh, a_ JH . Additional assess rents levied for enhanced sexv ces in a : -.ranch sh -all be apprcpr- ated by r'�ie governin=g board as approved by ..: e board member f s �, representinc the :;ranc:Z librar, service a2ea 'for direct services and Materials. No more -thar: 10s of the additional benefit assessment may be appropriated by the governing board for central support. 10. Mutual Hold Harmless Each party to this agreement sha11 defend, indemnify and hold harmless other panties and their respective officers, emplcyees and agents against ar_y and all claims, actions, loss, liability or expense (includ2-r_g attorneys fees) arising out of, a based •.zpon, or resulting from willfull or negligent acts or Omissions by that party:'s officers,.employees or agents. 11. Amendments. This Joint Powers Agreement may be amended as provided by the Joint Powers Act. In the event there is a change in law affecting a material to =m of this agreement, the parties agree to engage in good faith negotiations on a successor agreement within 45 days of the change in law, adrmood„ libraryiag_eemt 0 i�_:IJ! :H,S i :a.1=1 C F