HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1997 CITY COUNCIL staff reportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �(.�� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1997 CITY MGR.:
arid
ORIGINATING DEPT.:COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: 1997 Street Maintenance Program (Slurry Seal) - Award of
Construction Contract
Recommended Motion ( s
1. Move to declare Valley Slurry Seal Co. Of West Sacramento to be
the lowest responsible bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a construction contract to Valley Slurry Seal Co.
Inc. in the amount of $72,164.
3. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract
up to $7,500.
Report Summary:
Sealed bids for the 1997 Street Maintenance Program (Slurry Seal)
were opened on August 28. A list of City streets programmed to
receive slurry seal is attached (Attachment 1).
A total of three contractors submitted bids for the work and a
summary of the bids received is also attached (Attachment 2) .
Valley Slurry Seal Co. of West Sacramento, which has previously
worked for the City, submitted the lowest bid of $72,164 which is
7.2% below the Engineer's Estimate of $77,772. Staff has carefully
checked the bid along with the listed references and has determined
that the bid is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids dated
August 6.
It is therefore recommended that the Council declare Valley Slurry
Seal Co. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project, and
award the attached construction contract (Attachment 3) to this
firm in the amount of their bid. Further, it is recommended that
the Council authorize staff to execute change orders to the
contract up to an amount of $7,500 to cover any unforeseen
circumstances or quantity increases which may arise during the
course of the work.
Fiscal Impacts:
Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in
Activity 31 (Street Maintenance), Account No. 4510 (General
Contracts) . The adopted budget contains sufficient funds to cover
both the base contract and recommended change order amounts.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Valley Slurry Seal Co. will not be declared the lowest responsible
bidder and a construction contract will not be awarded to that
firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare another
bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the
bids and direct staff to re -bid the entire project. However, staff
does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re- bidding
the project due to the competitive nature of the current bids
received.
Follow Up Actions:
The contract will
Notice to Proceed
through the middle
Attachments:
be executed and the contractor will be issued a
Work will begin in mid September and last
of October.
1. List of Streets
2. Bid Summary.
3. Construction Contract.
I
I
TYPE:
1997/98 STREET MAINTENANCE & PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
_
LIGHT OVERLAY
1 (
LEGEND:
11/2' AC): 1 HEAVY OVERLAY (2' ACI: 2 SLURRY SEAL: 3 D = DELETE, A = ADD, 3,>l = UPGRADE SLURRY TO LIGHT OVERLAY,
-
RFSS = REPAIR FAILED STREET SECTION
I STREET NAME
I TYPEI LENGTHI WIOTHI AREA 111/2' AC I 2- AC 1 AC LEVELING I WEDGE I RFSS 1 ADJUSTI ADJUSTI ADJUST I ADJUSTI
PAVE. I
I FROM< - >TO
I I I I OVERLAY I OVERLAY I COURSE 1 CUT 1 I VALVES[ MON. I STORM MHI SAN MHI
I 1 (FT) I (FT) 1 (SY) I (TON) 1 (TON) I (TON) 1 (LF) I (SF) 1 (EA) I IEAI I (EA) 1 (EA) I
NOTES
FABRIC 1
ISY) 1
JAMESTOWN CT
I
I
I I I I I I
1 31 1451 271 4351 I 1 I I
I
PROSPECT TO
I I I I I
I I I I 4041 I I
I
I END
I SARAGLEN DR
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
1 31 23701 33.51 88221 I I I I
1 PROSPECT To
I I I I I I I I I
I
I SCULLV
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I SARAGLEN CT
I
I
1 31 1901 33.51 7071 I I I
SARAGLEN TO
I I I I I I
I I I I 4041 I I I I
I
1 END
IBROOKHAVEN
I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I
I
I
IDR
1 31 9101 331 33371 I I I
1 JOHNSON TO
I I I I f I
1 I I I I
I
1BROOKGLEN
I I
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I
I
1 BROOKRIDGE DR
I
I
I
1 31 7151 251 19861 I I I I
1BROOKHAVEN
I I I I I
I I I I I
I
1 TO BROOK
I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I
13ROOKNOLL CT
I
I
1 31 1201 251 3331 I I I I
1 BROOKRIDGE
4041 I I I I I
I
1 TO END
IBROOKLN
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
I
I
1 31 5101 251 14171 I I I I
1 JOHNSON TO
I I I I I I I I I I
I
1 BROOKRIDGE
I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I
I DE SANKA AVE
I
I
I
1 31 6701 33.51 24941 I I I I
I SEAGULL To
I I I I I
I I I I 4041 I I I I
I
1 END
1 CHEERY LN
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I I I I I I
1 31 8201 33.51 30521 I I I I
I
1 DE SANKA TO '
I I I I I I I I
I
I
I LIDO
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
IKOSICHDR
I —jj --j I I I I j
I
I
I II— 1j
1 31 4901 381 20691 I I I I
I
1 OBRAD TO
I I I I I
I
1 SARA. CREEK
TOTAL
262681 I 1 I I 262681 DI DI 01 OI 01 01 01 01 01
01
I
I
Tj
I 1997/98 STREET MAINTENANCE & PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
I _
TYPE: LEGEND:
LIGHT OVERLAY ( 11/2' AC): 1 HEAVY OVERLAY 12' ACI: 2 SLURRY SEAL: 3 D = DELETE, A = ADD, 3.>l = UPGRADE SLURRY TO LIGHT OVERLAY, RFSS = REPAIR FAILED STREET SECTION
I _
I STREET NAME I TYPE( LENGTHI WIDTHI AREA 1 1 1/2' AC 2' AC I AC LEVELING WEDGE
I OVERLAYI OVERLAYI COURSE I CUT I RFSS I ADJUSTI ADJUSTI ADJUST I ADJUSTI PAVE. I NOTES
FROM < ->TO 1 1 (FT) 1 (FT) I (SY) I (TON) I (TON) 1 I VALVES( MON. I STORM MHI SAN MHI FABRIC
(TON) I
I I ILF) I (SF) I (EA) I (EA) I (EA) I (EA) I ISYI 1
ISARATOGA
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
(CREEK DR 1 31 1251 381 5281 I I I I I I I I I I
I KOSICH TO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I END I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I cvRIL PL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 31 4001 271 12001 I I I I I I I I I I
SARA. CREEK TO I I I I 4041 I I I I I I I I
I END I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 ANSLEY PL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 31 5501 27.51 16811
1RADOYKA TO I I 1 1 4041 I I I I I I I I I I
I END
1- SARATOGA HTS-
I I I I I I I
IDR
I 31 25001 231 63891 I I
PIERCE TO
I I I I I I I
(TOLLGATE
I
SARATOGA HTS
I I I
I_J -J -J I I I
I I I I I I I
ICT
1 31 1621 231 4141 1 I
ISARATOGA HTS
I I I I 4041
1 TO END
(FOURTH ST
I I I I
I
1 31 4501 331 16501 I I
BIG BASIN TO
1 31 5751 36.51 23321 I I
SPRINGER
I MONTALVO HTS
I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I DR
1 31 16501 23.51 43081 I I
I MONTALVO TO
I I I I 4041 I I
I END
I I I I 4041 I I
I MONTALVO HTS
I I I I 1 I I
I CT
1 31 2651 23.51 6921 I 1
MONTALVO HTS
I I 1 I 4041 I I
I TO END
I
BONNIE BRAE WY
I I I I
I —JJ� I I I
I I I I I I I
I '
1 31 7801 381 32931 I I
MONTALVO TO
I 1 1 I I I I
IMENDELSOHN
SHORTHILL CT
I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I 1
I
1 31 10001 241 26671 1 I
CHESTER TO
I I I I 4041 I I
END
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
(TOTAL
I I I I 279811 01 OI
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I i I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I i I I I I I I
I I I I I I I f
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I f
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
01 01 OI 01 01 0I 01 OI
ZA,
3k.
I
TYPE.
1997/98 STREET MAINTENANCE & PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
LIGHT OVERLAY (
I
LEGEND:
11/2' ACI: 1 HEAVY OVERLAY (2' ACI: 2 SLURRY SEAL: 3 D = DELETE, A = ADD, 3.> 1 = UPGRADE SLURRY TO LIGHT OVERLAY,
—J
RFSS = REPAIR FAILED STREET SECTION 1
STREET NAME
I
I TYPEI LENGTHI WIDTHI AREA 111/2' AC 2' AC I AC LEVELING I WEDGE I RFSS I ADJUSTI ADJUSTI ADJUST I ADJUSTI
I I I I I OVERLAY I OVERLAY I COURSE
PAVE. I NOTES
FROM < ->TO
I CUT 1 I VALVES I MON. I STORM MHI SAN MHI
I I (FT) I (FT) 1 (SY) I (TON) I (TON) 1 (TON) I (EA) I (EA)
I ILF) (SF) (EA) i (EA)
FABRIC I
ISYI
I PARKER RANCH
I _J _J I
I
IRD
1 31 34501 22.51 86251 I I I I I
I 1
1 PROSPECT TO
I I I I I I I I I I
I
IPROSPECT
I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
1
I 1
I CONTINENTAL
I I
I
I CIR
I I I I
1 31 8951 22.51 22381 I I I I
I I
1 PARKER RANCH
I I I I I I I I I I
I
I TO PARKER RAN.
I I
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
I I I I
I 1
I VISTA ARROYO
I CT
I 31 8551 22.51 21381 I I 1 I I I I I I
1 1
1 PARKER RANCH
I I I I 404 I I 1
1
I END
I BURNETT DR
I I I I I I
I I i I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
1 31 7001 291 22561 I 1 1 I I I I
I
1 PARKER RANCH
I I I I I I I I I
I
I TO BEAUCHAMPS
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
1
I 1
I FARR RANCH RD
I
1 31 26151 22.51 65381 I I I I I I I
I 1
1 BURNETT TO
I I I I I I I I
1
I END
I I I
1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
1
I I
I PARKER RANCH
I I
I
I CT
1 31 14051 22.51 35131 I I I I I I I I I
I
I PARKER RANCH
I I I I 4041 I 1 1 I I I I I
I
1 TO END
I
I FARR RANCH CT
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
_I
I
I
I
I 31 4501 21.51 10751 1 1 I I I I I I I
I
I FARR RANCH TO
I I 1 1 4041
[END
1 BEAUCHAMPS LN
I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I
I
I
1 31 29401 301 98001 I 1 I I I I I I
I I
I
1 PROSPECT To
I I I I I I I I I I
I
I CRAYSIDE
I I
I
1 BOWHILL CT
I
I
I I I I I I I
I 31 2901 301 9671 I
I
1 BEAUCHAMPS TO
I I I I 4031 I 1 I I I I I I
I END
I CRAYSIDE LN
I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
1 1
I I
I
1 31 15801 301 52671 I I I
1
1 BEAUCHAMPS TO
I I I I I I
I I I I
I
1 END
I I I I I I I I 1 1
I I I I I I I I
I I
I
I
[TOTAL I
I I
I I I 440291 01 O I pl OI I 1 I I I
I O I 0 I o1 OI ol
1 --- -- - --
pl
I
1997/98 STREET MAINTENANCE & PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
I
J
TYPE:
LEGEND:
LIGHT OVERLAY
I
( 11/2' ACI: 1 HEAVY OVERLAY (2' ACI: 2 SLURRY SEAL: 3 D = DELETE, A = ADD, 3->l = UPGRADE SLURRY TO LIGHT OVERLAY, RFSS = REPAIR FAILED STREET SECTION
1
I
I STREET NAME
I TYPE] LENGTHI WIDTHI AREA 111/2' AC 2' AC I AC LEVELING I WEDGE I RFSS I ADJUSTI ADJUSTI ADJUST I ADJUSTI PAVE. I NOTES
I
I I I I I OVERLAY I OVERLAY I COURSE I CUT ( I VALVES I MON. I STORM MHI SAN MHI FABRIC I
I
FROM< - >TO
I 1 (FT) I IFTI I ISYI I (TON) I (TON) I (TON) I ILFI I (SFI I (EA) I (EA) I (EA) 1 (EA) 1 (SY) 1
I
APRICOT HILL
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
1 31 3701 241 9871 I I I I I I I I I I
CHESTER TO
I I I I 4041 1 I I I I I I I I I
I
I END
I
I DOUGLASS LN
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I_J�J I I I I I IJ� I_J I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1
I
1
1 31 12601 36.51 51101 1 I I I I I I I I I
I
1 FRUITVALE TO
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
1 TAOS
1 TAOS DR
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
1 31 7001 231 17891 1 I I I I I I I I I
I
IDOUGLASS
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I END
BONNET WAY
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
1 31 23041 271 69121 I I I I I I I I I I
I
1 DAGMAR TO
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
1 DAGMAR
I
i KoD1AK PL
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IJ_�� I I I I I IJJ IJ I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
1 31 1251 251 3471 I I I I I I I I I I
I
1BONNET TO
I I I 1 4041 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I
I
END
ALVARADO CT
I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
1 31 3501 251 9721 I I I I I I I I I I
I
I BONNET TO
I I I 1 4041 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I
[END
I DOUGLASS LN
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
1
1 31 14001 351 54441 I I I I I I I I I I
I
1 SHADOW OAKS
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I TO END
1 WORDEN WAY
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
1 31 2451 171 4631 1 1 I I I I I I I I
I
SARATOGA To
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
END
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I ROSE CT
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
•
1 31 I 1 16331 1 I I I I ( I 1 I I CITY OF MONTE SERENO
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I i I i I I
I
1 BLANCHARD DR
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
1 31 I 1 43111 1 1 1 I I I I I I I CITY OF MONTE SERENO
I I I I I I I
1
I
I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I
I
ITOTAL
I I I I I I I
I I I 1 291801 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0l
I
I
CITY OF SARATOGA
BID SUMMARY: 1997 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
BID OPENING DATE: AUGUST 28, 1997
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
VALLEY SLURRY SEAL CO.
AMERICAN ASPHALT CO., INC.
GRAHAM CONTRACTORS, INC.
ITEM #
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1.
TRAFFIC CONTROL
1
LS
N/A
$5,000.00
N/A
$5,200.00
N/A
$1,650.00
N/A
$6,400.00
2.
SLURRY SEAL
127,458
SY
$0.55
$ 70,101.90
$0.50
$63,729.00
$0.5573
$71,032.34
$0.55
$70,101.90
3.
PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE -S.D. #21
1,055
LF
$0.45
$474.75
$0.37
$390.35
$0.525
$553.88
$0.54
$569.70
4.
PAINT STOP BARS
30
EA
$25.00
$750.00
$16.00
$480.00
$78.75
$2,362.50
$30.00
$900.00
5.
PAINT CROSSWALKS
1
EA
$145.00
$145.00
$160.00
$160.00
$131.25
$131.25
$135.00
$135.00
6.
PAINT 'STOP'
29
EA
$35.00
$1,015.00
$63.60
$1,844.40
$47.25
$1,370.25
$48.60
$1,409.40
7.
PAINT'25'
3
EA
$20.00
$60.00
$31.80
$95.40
$36.75
$110.25
$37.80
$113.40
8.
PAINT'YIELD'
4
EA
$45.00
$180.00
$53.00
$212.00
$52.50
$210.00
$54.00
$216.00
9.
PAINT'AHEAD'
1
EA
$45.00
$45.00
$53.00
$53.00
$57.75
$57.75
$59.40
$59.40
TOTAL
$77,771.65
$72,164.15
$77,478.22
$79,904.80
CITY OF SARATOGA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
1997 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
THIS CONTRACT, made this 3rd day of September, 1997, by and between
the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa Clara
County, California, hereinafter called the City, and
Valley Slurry Seal Co.
hereinafter called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the City has caused to be prepared in the manner 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:
16
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.
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
6.
Performance Bond
2.
Bid Proposal
7.
Labor and Material Bond
3.
Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty
8.
Plans
4.
Contract for Public Works
9.
Specifications
Construction
10.
Insurance Certificates
S.
Hold Harmless Clause
11.
Prevailing Wage Rate
In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of
the contract, this Contract shall be binding.
17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be
hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed
by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized
and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year
hereinabove written.
AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL:
Date : September 3, 1997
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The foregoing Contract is
approved as to form this
day of ,
19
City Attorney
"Funds verified
Finance Office
CITY OF SARATOGA:
CONTRACTOR:
ME
Title
License No.
Tax ID or SSN
Date
IF Contract No.
SARATOGA CITE' COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 �% i% AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 3, .1997 CITY MGR. WAU00 ,
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Civic Theater and Community Center Painting Project - Award of Contract
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to declare Central Bay Painting Co. of Fremont, California to be the lowest responsible
bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a contract to Central Bay Painting Co. in the amount of $10,000.
3. Move to authorize staff to execute supplemental contracts relative to the. project up to $2,000.
Report Sumrnarv:
Background- The 1997/98 Approved Budget for Facilities Maintenance included a $12,000
appropriation for the routine painting of the exterior surfaces of the Civic Theater and Community
Center buildings. The buildings were last painted in the early 1980s.
Discussion - In early August, staff solicited proposals from reputable contractors to paint the buildings.
The work involves power washing and preparing the surfaces, resetting loose nails, caulking gaps and
joints, patching holes and cracks, priming exposed areas and applying two finish coats of paint to the
walls, trims, doors, overhang, gutters, down spouts, beams, railings and mobile trailer. Furthermore,
the work may also involve replacing some of the wood siding on the southern facing surfaces of the
Civic Theater that have received extensive damage from prolonged exposure to the sun. Together, this
work will extend the life of the buildings and improve the visual aesthetics of the Civic Center Campus.
A total of three contractors submitted proposals for the work. The results of the proposals are:
Company
Quote
Central Bay Painting Co.
$10,000.00
ADM Painting
$18,375.00
—Schaper Painting co., Inc.
$22,320.00
Central Bay Painting Co., which has previously' worked for the City, submitted the lowest bid of
$10,000. Staff has carefully checked the proposals and has determined that they are responsive to the
City's requirements (see Attachment 1 for proposals).
It is therefore recommended that Council declare Central Bay Painting Co. to be the lowest responsible
bidder on the project, and award a purchase order to this firm in the amount of their proposal.
1
Furthermore, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute additional purchase orders,
in amount not to exceed $2,000, to cover other work, such as siding replacement and paint
consultations, that may be necessary in completing the project.
As part of this project, staff plans on securing the services of Jan Stypula of Spencer Associates, the
architect assigned to the Library Expansion Project, for purposes of paint color selection. Staff wants
to ensure continuity and compatibility of the paint color used on these buildings with the rest of the
buildings located at the Civic Center Campus (site plan and color samples used on the new wings of
City Administration buildings are shown on Attachment 2).
Fiscal impacts:
As mentioned previously, funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in Facilities
Maintenance (Account No. 001 - 1060 - 513 -40 -10 General Contract Services). The adopted budget
contains sufficient funds to cover both the base contract and any supplemental contract amounts.
Advertising Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Central Bay Painting Co. will not be declared the lowest responsible bidder and a contract will not be
awarded to that firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare another bidder to be the
lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the bids and direct staff to re -bid the entire project. However,
staff does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re- bidding the project due to the competitive
nature of the current bids received.
Follow Up Actions:
The purchase orders will be executed and the contractor(s) will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Work
will begin in early September.
Attachments:
1. Proposals.
2. Site Plan and Color Scheme.
c:\execsumm \exsm0827.97
2
tri-
• G -05 -97 TUE 09:47 AM CENTRAL PAINTING CO.
P%
Attachment 1 P.e1
CENTRAL DAY h'Ali!111°4 hNQ Co.
45405 industrial PI., #12
Fremont, CA 94538
Tel: (510)657.3894 (408)727 -9764 (415)364 -3920
Part No. / ct / Pa
PROPOSAL SUBMIrrED TO PHONE DATE
_ CITY OF SARATOGA _ 4 - -3 i B-04 -97
STREET JOB NAf,wE "�-
EXT PAINTING.
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION
13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA
ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS I JOB PHONE
We heresy 9UOm1l sp4rJ(Ic450n6 and sstimate& far:
*APPLICABLE. AREAS: . ENTIRE... BUILDIN .G..EXTERIOR......SURFACE (SENIOR CENTER,
CIVIC THEATRE) walls,trims,doors,overhang,
. gutters, downspouts ,beams,railli'ngs',mobil office.
*COLOR: SAME AS NEW CITY HALL BUILDING (KELLY MOORE).
*JOB SPECIFICATION :...,
WATERBLAST CLEAN THE ENTIRE'BUILDINGS TO BE PAITNED.
COVER ALL WINDOWS ,FIXTURES,PLANTS,SIDEWALKrETC.
TRENCH ' ALONG THE WALLS.
REMOVE ALL FLAKING,. PEELING., PAINT.._ BY SANDING,. SCRAP ING,...
_ ...
RESET.ALL LOOSE NAILS.
PATCH ALL HOLES,CRACKS.
CAULK ALL GAPS,JOINTS.
PRIME.ALL EXPOSED,PATCHED AREAS....
APPLY .2 FINISH COATS.
TOUCH UP TO IMPROVE IMPERFECT-AREAS. " --
CLEAN UP THOROUGHLY.
LEAVE SOME TOUCH UP PAINT. $10.000.00
*THIS PRICE INCLUDE MATERIAL AND'LA130R.
* 2BATHROOMS PAINTING (include wallpaper removal
) $350.00
f Zdr0V081 hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
0 be made as f011ows: dollars ($
UPON COMPLETION.
All material Is guaranteed t0 be os Specified. All work to be cor.tpleted in a uorkmanuke
manner accordingto standard oract,cea. Any onet&Uonor devia Son from above epeciflca,
tions involving eUra costs will be executed only upon written ordora, and will become an
ax(ra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strts.ea, ac•
eidonts or delay& beyon0 our control. Owner t0 Corry fire. tornado 2110 other necessary
insurance Out worKera are fully covered by WorKmen's Compensation Insurance.
.lafptanre of Propoafll - The above prlces, Specifications and
conditions are satisfactory end are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the
work as Specified. PayrnerI wiil be made as outlined above.
Authorized -
Signature
Note:Thls proposal may be
withdrawn by us if not aCCepled within
-- dais
Signature
Date of Acceptance_
SlQnature
AUg -15 -97 01:16P THE RIGHT TRACK!
m1ro oral
�rw w*ra
P.O1
Page No. 1 of ?_ Pages
ADM PAINTING
656 Aulerais Avenue Suite A
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126
(408) 288 -7656
License No. 421042
PROPOSAL suBMITTEO TO PHONE - DATE
cin of Saratoga 406 -868 -1277 r,K Augl 1 S. 1997
STREET JOB NAME
19700 Allendale Conimui v Center and Civic Theatre
CITY, STATE and ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION
Saratoga, CA -95070 _- _ 19777 Fruitvalc Avc. Saratopl, CA 95070
_..._..
ARCHITECT PATE OF PLANS JOB PHCVJI_
Repaint Attu: Robert Kirk
We hereby submlt specificabone end estimates
labor and niaterials to paint the exterior surface of the above pmjec:t its follows:
EXTERIOR ONLY:
1. Walls, trims, and overhang; one coat primer and one coat exterior latex flat filuslt or two coats exterior latex flat finish
2. Doors: one coat pniner and one coat serifs- oss cttamcl,
3. Wood beants, trellis, utter. and downspout: two coats exterior latex flat finish.
a. Guardrails: two coasts exterior latex semi -gloss enamel.
NOTES:
l .This bid is based on not more than three (3) colors for the exterior including one for the body acid overhang/soffits. one for the trim and
ottc for the downspput.
2. Touch-up limited to scrapes and omissions but does not include danta e by others.
3. Included on this bid are the following:
a. Powerwash the entire surfaces to be painted. - d Caulking gaps and joints
b. Surface =ration e. Patchiiiig of holes and cracks
c. Resetting loose nails _ f Priming c.j%osed patch areas - -
We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
Payment to be mode as
dollars ($
All material I$ gUaranteed to be as weched. All work to be completed In a
vvorkmanfikenwnner n000rding to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from Authorized
above ePeot"Qnsimrotving extra costa %ill be execvtod only upon written orders, and $Ignature
will become an extrsaharge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent
upon cokes, aooidentsor delays beyond our centrot. Onner to carry fire, tornado and Nate; This proposal may bo
other necessary insurattce.0ur workers am fully covered by WbAman's Compensation VAhdrswn by Us It not accepted within
Acceptance of Proposal —Thu above prices, specifications
and carr bons are sobafactory and are horobv accepted. You are authorized 51pnaturc Signature
days.
Aug -15 -97 01:18P THE RIGHT TRACK?
r
-Proposal
ADM PAINTING
656 Auzerais Avenue Suite A
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126
(408) 288 -7656
License No. 421042
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO V
Citv of Saratoga
CITY` STATE and ZIP COOe -
ARCHITECT
We hereby submit specifications and eabmetsa
EXCLUSION5:
1. Bricks and stone works
P.02
Page No. 2 of '- Pages
— .._.......
, .......,. _
DATE
ugust I.S. 199n 7
tY (;enter and Civic T icatrc
VN
19777 Fruitvalc Avc. Saratoga. CA 95070
_. _..._..� —._.,..,......- -
DATE OF PLANS JOB PHONE
Atut: Robcrl Kirk
Altemale: To paint the mobile office and
2. Roof overflow pipes five (5) benches
3. Factory finish doors and windows Add: $ 650.00
d. wood slates
5. Building depanment wing
6, Mechanical and electrical equipment. ducts and light pole
7. Perimeter fences and walls
9. Parking stripes and signage
We Propose hereby to fumish material and laborer omplete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
Eighteen thousand three Immired seventy - f-ive exactly-------------------------------------------- - - - - -- douars($ 18,375.00 )
Payment to be made as
All material is guaranteed W be as specified. All -Av* to be completed in a
workmanlikemanner according to standard practices. Any alteradon or devlation from
strove apsdfkationinvolving extra 009% Vltl be executed only upon written orders, and
will bocome an extracharge over and above the eotimate. All agroements contingent
upon strikes, socidenteor delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire. tornado and
other necessary Insuranco.0ur workers are fully Covered by YYbrkman's Compensation
AuthorlSed —
SIgnaturo _. .,..,...
Noto: This proposal may be
wdhdrawn by Us if not accepted within
Acceptance of Proposal —The above prices, epecifleaWno
and conditions are satiedactory and are herebv accepted. You are authorized Slonaturo Signature
days.
.0�'/06/1997 09:13 4084370339 SCHAPER PAINTING PAGE 01
r Painting . , Inc. Sc�a�e Co
ESTIMATE
CONTRACTOR: City of Saratoga, Robert Kirk
DATE: VMltdn"day, August 06, 1997
Project Nam: Civic Theatre and Community Center
Estls%W:, 3671
FAX M: 406M$ -1273
SCHAPER PAINTING CO. WILL PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS AND LABOR REQUIRED AS PER THE SCOPEOF WORK
FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROJECT. THIS WORK WILL BE PERFORMED IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER
ACCORDING TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
Bidding on repainting both the Civic Theatre and Community Center.
Prices: Civic Theatre: $ 97030.00
Community Center: $ 13,290.00
Include the following:
1. Power washing the buildings.
2. Renall the loose wood back to the building. Some is broken and will need replacing.
The replacement of the wood will need to done by someone else.
3. 2 full coats of solid color wood stain will be applied to all the wood.
4. We will be painting walls, soffits, facia boards, columns, wood trellis, trim, man doors
and metal cap flashing.
5. We will use Kelly -Moore Paint but will match the Benjamin Moore colors.
Exclude the following:
1. Wood replacement.
Note: If we are required to pay prevailing wage to our workers, then we withdraw this proposal.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS PROPOSAL, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME
AT: 408437 -0337. THANK YOU.
%. i JL1 �.
1590 Herryesea Road • San Jose, CA 95133 Tel. (408) 437 -0337 • FAX (408) 437 -0339 • Lic. No. 618395
Attachment 2
CIVIC CENTER CAMPUS SITE PLAN AND EXISTING
COLOR SCHEME
WHH
Comm Env
Base
Accent
Trim
Admin
Theater
ILDINGS T
BE PAINTED
Corp Yard
Comm
Center
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITED
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 CITY MANAG
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Baylor Avenue Traffic Calming Study - Final Report
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to accept the Final Report and authorize staff to implement the recommended alternatives.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the final report on the Baylor Avenue Traffic Calming Study. The report is the
culmination of an almost yearlong process through which the residents of Baylor Avenue and the
larger Sunland Park Homeowners Association worked with the City's consultant, CCS Planning
& Engineering, to develop a consensus plan to slow traffic speeds on Baylor Avenue. The final
report recommends implementation of four measures summarized on page 11, and shown
schematically on page 12. The estimated cost to implement these measures is roughly $7,000,
although there is a good possibility that this figure could be reduced by as much as one -third if
construction of the mid -block speed hump is added to the recently awarded paving contract for
Saratoga Avenue. In addition, the collection of pre and post installation traffic data discussed on
page 13 is recommended to gauge the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures. The extra
cost for this data gathering and evaluation is $1,000.
Given the effort which went into this process, and staff s desire to field test this initial experiment
with traffic calming in Saratoga, it is strongly recommended that Council accept the final report
and authorize staff to implement the recommendations contained therein. Sufficient funds to
accomplish this are available in the adopted budget from savings which will occur in the funding
of the Pavement Management Program work. If approved by the Council, the entire traffic
calming plan can be implemented by the end of September. Ultimately, if the plan is deemed a
success, the lessons learned with this project should help to guide future traffic calming projects in
the City.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
As stated above, there will be sufficient savings in the funding for the Pavement Management
:Program work to cover the estimated costs of installing the traffic calming improvements and
performing the recommended data gathering and evaluation. The total cost for all of this work
should not exceed $7,500.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The Baylor Avenue and Sunland Park residents have been made aware of this meeting through
their representatives who have participated in this project.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The final report would not be accepted and /or authorization to implement the improvements
would not be granted. In either case, staff will follow whatever other direction is provided by the
Council.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
:Preparations will be made to install the traffic calming improvements and to perform the data
gathering and evaluation activities. A follow -up report documenting the effectiveness of the
traffic calming improvements will be prepared for Public Safety Commission and Council review
sometime next spring.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Baylor Avenue Traffic Calming Study - Final Report.
2. Letter from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated August 21.
Baylor Avenue Traffic Calming Study
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
the City of Saratoga
by
=AL. CCS
IF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
I N C 0 R P 0 R A T E 0
San Jose Office
Revised
August 21, 1997
August 21, 1997
Larry Perlin
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Baylor Avenue Traffic Calming Study
Dear Larry:
JJL ccs
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
IF I N o R P p R A t e n
Corporate Headquarters
-12080 O. ood Rorlrl, .Srlil(' (hle
hviltonl, Cr141inticr9- i5,39 -Q350
510/050- 7091 • h7t.e 5111/656 -_3825
Regional Office
809 Bi -onvns I'WleP Rrtod
111rlsonrille. l;,J 951176
r0H/1-86- 0,326h«x 81761- x3.3.3
email: CC` 011ice 101'aol cutr
Iloulerc'l, Pbon(,. - 1081026 -2655
am enclosing a revised final report for this project. It contains revisions and new material based on
our meetings with the Fire Department, the Public Safety committee and Baylor Ave. residents
during May and August, plus comments on the draft report received. We enjoyed working on the
Baylor Ave. project and would be glad to provide your City with similar assistance in the future.
Best regards,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Z104 - 4��2
David Fairchild
Senior Transporation Planner
attached: Revised final report
CCS 97009
Finalld oc
T R A N ti P O R T A T 1 0 N T R A F F I C. • P A R K I N G • I T S
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
'fable of Contents
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
August 21, 1997
1. Purpose and Need for the Study
3
Existing conditions
3
Speeding
4
Traffic Volumes
4
Potential Hazard
4
Traffic Generated Noise
5
2. Field Testl Demonstration
S
3. Alternatives Considered
S
4. Detailed Description of Alternatives
6
A. No Action
6
B. Actions Which Reduce Speed Without Circulation Impacts
6
B. 1. Increase Visibility of 25 MPH Speed Signs
6
B.2. Center Striping
6
B.3. Median Islands at Baylor Intersections
6
B.4. Bike Lane(s)
7
B.S. Sidewalk
7
B.6. Single Bulb Choker With Meandering Center Line
7
C. Actions which reduce speed but which may also impact circulation.
9
C. 1. Stop Signs on Villanova at Baylor
9
C.2. Single Mid -Block Baylor Speed Hump
9
C.3. Multiple Speed Humps
10
C.4. Multiple Chokers With Meandering Center Line
10
C.S. Turn prohibition into Baylor from Quito Southbound.
10
S. Cost of Recommended Alternatives
11
Table 1. Cost Estimates
Il
Figure I Sketch Plan of Recommended Improvements
12
6. Next Steps
13
Speed Survey of October 29, 1996
14
Figure 2 Design of Recommended Speed Hump
15
Recent Articles on Pavement Undulations
16
page 2
Baylor Avcnue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
1. Purpose and Need for the Study
This study was triggered by the concerns of residents of the Sunland Park Neighborhood Association
and the Traffic Safety Committee regarding traffic conditions on Baylor Avenue between Quito
Road and Villanova Street. Those specific concerns were excessive speeding and increased traffic
volumes on this block. This study report considers various traffic "calming" measures to address
these concerns on Baylor Avenue.
Existing conditions
Baylor Avenue between Villanova and Quito is approximately 1000' feet long, with one minor street
"T" intersection approximately 50 feet from the Quito end. In addition, stop signs control
movements out from Baylor at both the Quito Rd. and Villanova Street ends of the block — but not
into Baylor. Without stop signs for traffic entering Baylor from those streets, and with generally
higher speeds than on Baylor, this consultant observed that some drivers make turns into Baylor at
relatively high speeds.
Baylor Ave. residents attest that their residential neighborhood is being adversely impacted by
vehicles driven at excessive speed on Baylor, increasing the potential hazand. to pedestrians,
bicyclists, playing children and pets. The problem is particularly acute since Baylor does not have
sidewalks and Baylor Ave. residents frequently wish to use the street on foot. Baylor Ave. residents
also report that speeding cars or motorcycles are often loud enough to disturb their sleep.
According to Baylor Ave. residents, the increased speeding is by non -local drivers on through trips
possibly a result of the completion of Route 85, or because of diversion from stop signs installed on
nearby Bucknall Avenue, a parallel arterial street. General background growth in traffic may also
have caused the increase.
Speeding would also seem to result from the special features of the street itself. The width of this
block of Baylor is 40' curb -to -curb, with rolled curbs adding to the apparent width. The street is
straight and almost 1000' long without a stop sign. Although parking is allowed, most Baylor Ave.
residents do not park cars on the street. Without any center line, the 40' width of the street,
especially without parked cars, resembles a runway or drag strip. In fact, it is as wide as the Golden
Gate Bridge which has four travel lanes and a 50 MPH speed limit. The "runway" appearance of the
street, when viewed from behind the wheel of a non - resident car, probably encourages speeding.
Many other streets in the vicinity are 36' wide, have shorter blocks, or, if long -- meander between
stop signs instead of being runway straight. These design features discourage speeding, by creating a
small scale, local residential "look and feel" to a street. The traffic calming features in this report
seek to restore that residential look and feel to Baylor Avenue.
page 3
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
Speeding
The posted speed -- 25 MPH, plus the stop signs at each end, are appropriate for local residential
traffic and not the higher speeds typical of non -local or through trips. Without sidewalks, the street is
not meant for higher speed (usually on "through" trips), as pedestrians, children and pets use the
travel lanes every day. Although any local neighborhood street in a contiguous urbanized area must
carry some non - local traffic, it appears that Baylor gets somewhat more than its share. This may be
partly because street itself was originally designed for higher speeds.
In October 1996, an independent speed survey was conducted for the City on this segment of Baylor.
The survey confirmed that speeding was occurring. Beginning at just after 8 AM on a weekday,
seven out of eight vehicles were traveling over the posted speed limit, 45% were going over 30
MPH, and 15% of the sample of 105 clocked vehicles were traveling at or above 34 MPH. One
vehicle managed to reach 40 MPH on the block during the speed survey. A copy of the October 29,
1996 speed survey results is attached to this report.
Traffic Volumes
The most recent available traffic counts taken on Baylor were before Route 85 opened.
Approximately 2,000 vehicles used the street daily. City staff, using counts taken recently nearby,
estimate that the current average daily traffic (ADT) is about ten percent greater than it was during
the last count, or approximately 2, 200 daily vehicles. Traffic using this street includes not just
vehicle trips from residences on the block, but trips from as many as several hundred nearby
residences in the vicinity. 2,200 daily vehicles is not an unusual daily traffic volume for similar
streets in similar neighborhoods of Saratoga or San Josh. The volumes should not be allowed to
increase much further to protect residential values on this block. Nevertheless, measures which
reduce volumes from their present level by shifting traffic to other residential streets should be
avoided , as any benefits would be offset by those other impacts. City staff should count current
traffic volumes prior to implementing any traffic calming measures, using a week hose count to
measure both average weekday and weekend volumes.
Potential Hazard
The average speed observed on the block during the survey (approximately 30 MPH) is sufficient to
pose considerable risks to bicyclists and pedestrians using this street. This risk is substantial in view
of the lack of sidewalks on this block. Without sidewalks, all non - motorized travel must share the
traveled way with cars, even to get the mail, since this block's mail boxes are all on the south side of
the street. If roadway sharing is not seen as safe, Baylor Ave. residents will make greater use of their
cars even for short trips, thereby increasing traffic, congestion, noise, and emissions.
In addition, during the test/ demonstration described below, residents of Baylor Avenue reported
accidents at the intersection of Baylor and Villanova and suggested they might be related to
speeding.
page 4
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
Traffic Generated Noise
Two instances of loud vehicles traveling at excessive speeds were observed by this consultant over a
three hour period on Baylor. Vehicles under acceleration can cause particularly severe noise impacts
at night.
2. . Field Test/ Demonstration
To obtain detailed input from residents regarding traffic conditions on Baylor Avenue and to explore
alternative means of addressing those conditions, City of Saratoga staff held an advertised public
meeting, test and demonstration of traffic calming measures on Baylor Avenue on Saturday,
February 22, 1997. Attendees included: members of the public, neighborhood association, City staff,
this consultant, members of the Safety Committee, and some elected City officials including the City
Mayor. The consultant asked the Baylor Ave. residents for suggestions and information regarding
traffic conditions. Applicable traffic calming alternatives were demonstrated using traffic cones
placed temporarily in the street. The considerable feedback obtained during this field test/
demonstration was used in the preparation of this report.
3. Alternatives Considered
A number of alternatives were considered to address the conditions noted above. These alternatives
fall into three basic categories: A. No action, B. Actions which reduce speed without affecting traffic
circulation, and C. Actions which reduce speed but may also impact circulation.
The alternative to take no action is not recommended except for a baseline for comparison, since
excessive speeding on Baylor Ave. was observed and appears to warrant traffic calming measures.
Excessive speeding is defined as:
• Measured average speed substantially above the posted limit, and
Measured peak speeds which pose potential hazards to uses of the street by adjoining and
nearby residents.
Traffic calming actions to reduce speeding should therefore be taken. The following section
discusses possible actions, and recommends some actions for immediate consideration and others for
further study.
page 5
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
4. Detailed Description of Alternatives
A. No Action
As noted above, this alternative is not recommended
B. Actions Which Reduce Speed Without Circulation Impacts
B.1. INCREASE VISIBILITY OF 25 MPH SPEED SIGNS
25 MPH speed signs are already posted on Baylor. The sign on the eastbound direction near Quito .
Rd. is partially obscured by vegetation. To improve its visibility, this sign could be relocated
towand. the east or the obscuring vegetation should be trimmed. This action will of course not affect
circulation in any way.
Recommended: Increase Speed Sign Visibility
B.2. CENTER STRIPING
Center striping reduces speeding by reducing the perceived width of the roadway. Center lines do not
affect circulation. Double yellow center striping is not applicable to residential areas such as Baylor.
A single white center line would reduce the perceived width scale of Baylor, but was not desired by
residents, as it would imply a non - residential character for the street. However, a short white or
double yellow center line was deemed acceptable and is recommended to warn motorists of
proposed median islands (B. 3 below) at intersections.
Not Recommended
B.3. MEDIAN ISLANDS AT BAYLOR INTERSECTIONS
During the field test/ demonstration, Baylor Ave. residents noted that some motorists enter the
Baylor at excessive speeds, from both Villanova north and southbound and Quito Road northbound.
This pattern contributes to speeding in the block, and also is a potential cause of accidents at these
intersections. A curbed, white painted median island in these two intersection approaches will
prevent high speed turns by reducing the turn radius, and will also serve to notify motorists they are
entering a residential area. Two median islands, one each on the Baylor approach to Villanova and to
Quito are recommended. The islands could be asphalt or Portland cement concrete, with standard
curbs painted in high reflective white. The islands could be either dry landscaped or filled with wet
set river rock. The islands can be installed to match existing islands installed in Clemson at Quito
Road. A short white or double yellow center line should be painted just before each island, for
visibility and right of way control.
Recommended. Install median islands at Villanova and Baylor intersections
page 6
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
B.4. BIKE LANE(S)
Bike lanes have been used to reduce roadway width and hence speeding elsewhere in the Bay area.
However, the lanes must be part of bike routes. Currently, no designated bike route exists which
could be connected to lanes on Baylor. Furthermore, Baylor's 40' curb -to -curb width would only
allow a substandard 2' bike lane if striped on both sides of Baylor, assuming retention of T for
parking and two 1 I' vehicular travel lanes.
Instead of striping two direction bike lanes, a single sided bike lane could be striped on Baylor. Such
a lane would have an acceptable 4' width. The other direction of the bike route would have to be
elsewhere, preferably on a parallel street, one block away, such as Bucknall. This "one -way couplet"
lane configuration is not uncommon. However, to accomplish the route changes would take
considerable time, since both the Cities of San Jose and Saratoga would have to revise their adopted
bike plans. Due to the length of time this would require, the consultant does not recommend this
alternative for an action alternative. Furthermore, Baylor Ave. residents did not show interest in
having the block designated as a bike route. The one -way couplet bike lane is recommended for
further study, particularly if more direct methods of reducing roadway width are not available.
Recommended for further study
B.S. SIDEWALK
Constructing a standard 5' sidewalk along the south side of Baylor using the street right of way
would reduce the roadway width to 35' or, thereby changing the "look and feel" of the street to a
more residential character, discouraging speeding. The resulting lane width for vehicles would be a
narrow 10.5 feet, keeping 7' for curbside parking. The sidewalk would greatly enhance pedestrian
safety as well as providing more public play area for children on this block. The sidewalk might
therefore increase the residential value of property on this block. The south side is recommended
since that side currently contains resident mailboxes.
Despite many such benefits, this alternative would not by itself achieve as much speed reduction as
other considered below (See B.6). The reason is that the sidewalk would not by itself change the
straight alignment of this street. Though reducing width will reduce speeds, maximum effect on
speeds is best assured through meandering the roadway. Since the cost of a sidewalk would be high
compared to the other more effective alternatives considered, a sidewalk is not recommended for
traffic calming purposes.
Not recommended for traffic calming purposes
B.G. SINGLE BULB CHOKER WITH MEANDERING CENTER LINE
Baylor is a straight street for approximately 1000 feet in this block. Where streets wind or meander
speeding is reduced. This effect can be noted on Grimsby, just east of the study block, where the
roadway has a slight meander. Meandering a straight street requires physical changes to its edge or
edges. Simply meandering the center line while keeping both edges straight would confuse or annoy
most motorists and would probably have very little effect on speeding behavior. For a somewhat
wide residential street such as Baylor, installing chokers on one side at mid -block accomplishes both
a width reduction and provides a reason to meander the center line.
page 7
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
This alternative consists of placing a mid -block choker on one side, which allows the center line to
be off -set and meandered .A single 6" raised choker "bulb" about mid -block on one side of the street
would be sufficient, reaching 11 feet into the street for at least twelve feet, and tapered back to the
curb at both ends in a total length of about 35 feet. To minimize impact to property curb space, the
choker could be centered on a property line. Placement of the choker on the north side of the street
enables subsequent placement of additional chokers on the south side of the street, which is the
optimal side for such additional placement. Although parking on the other side could be permitted
opposite the choker, this curbside parking location would probably be avoided, since it is at the apex
of the curve created by the north side choker. If not required for parking, the curb space opposite the
choker could be given a small bulb, extending seven feet into the street from the curb, to further
restrict the effective width of the street at this point. However, this additional south side
supplementary bulb is not necessary and is not recommended for the initial installed.
The choker bulb would intrude into the present traveled width by about 4 feet, acting to reduce the
street's effective total width, lane width and psychological "look and feel ". In conjunction with the
meandering center line, the action would enhance the quiet residential neighborhood appearance of
this block. The final travel lanes would be 1 I feet through the "choke point ". The raised choker
could also be used for planting, although to sAve. installation and maintenance cost, it could also be
hardscaped with river rock or similar.
The existing curb and gutter could remain behind the bulb, which would have conventional curbs on
the street side, rolled curb on the gutter side. A short 5' sidewalk should be installed at the curb side
of the bulb, accessing a no parking curb segment, possibly protected by bollards, on both ends. The
single choker bulb would permit a gentle, tangentially curved center line with maximum shift of 4' at
mid - block.
This measure would cause the loss of at least one curbside parking space. At the test/ demonstration,
this impact was demonstrated and noted by Baylor Ave. residents as a drawback to this alternative. If
landscaped, another drawback of the bulb would be the cost of ongoing irrigation, drainage and
maintenance. The reaction by Baylor Ave. residents to this measure was mixed, since no one
volunteered to have a choker eliminate "their" curbside parking. Should additional chokers be
considered, they should be placed on the south side of the street (See Alternative CA. below for
details). This measure would not change traffic volumes significantly. Traffic counts should be done
before and after installation to document this fact.
Not recommended unless C.2 is not implemented.
page 8
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
C. Actions which reduce speed but which may also impact circulation.
C.1. STOP SIGNS ON VILLANOVA AT BAYLOR
Stop signs placed primarily to reduce speeds are not recommended. Stop signs should only be used
for traffic calming purposes if also warranted by accident history or volumes. The only location
where this appears to be the case is at the intersection of Villanueva and Baylor. Currently this
intersection is only controlled by stop signs on the Baylor approaches. Residents report a history of
accidents and speeding on Villanova, as well as a pattern of excessive speed for turns from Villanova
to Baylor from both north and south. Stop signs on Villanova may be warranted at this intersection.
If warranted, the Villanova approaches should also be controlled by stop signs, if necessary with an
advance warning sign placed north of the intersection on Villanova because of a curving approach to
this intersection. Stop signs on Villanova would further increase the effectiveness of the
recommended measure B.3 (median island on Baylor) at this intersection. Any shift in traffic from
Villanova to other parallel streets is outweighed by the safety benefits of a warranted stop sign.
Recommended. Install warranted stop signs with advance warning sign on Villanova at Baylor.
C.2. SINGLE MID -BLOCK BAYLOR SPEED HUMP
Speed "Tables" or "Humps" are a new type of pavement undulation, designed to limit speeds to the
posted speed limit, by introducing a slight vertical undulation in the roadway. These are pavement
devices which are specifically designed to strongly encourage speeds at or below the posted limit.
Speed "humps" are curved on the top, while and speed "tables" are flat- topped, and are often used as
crosswalks. Both of these devices cause speeds above their design limit to be very uncomfortable to
drivers, and to effectively prevent such speeds. The type of speed hump that would allow a posted
speed of 25 MPH on Baylor consists of a raised asphalt hump, constructed on the roadway, 2.75
inches at the maximum height, with specially designed transition curvature. The total width of the
speed hump would be 14 feet. This exact type of speed hump is presently being installed in the City
of Menlo Park and elsewhere to preventing excessive speeding on residential streets posted for 25
MPH. This type of speed hump allows sufficient speed for emergency response travel by Fire
Department and other emergency response vehicles.
Speed humps or tables are very different from devices known as "speed bumps" that are often
installed in parking lots or on private driveways. Speed "Bumps" are steep, abrupt designs which
prevent speeds over 4 -8 MPH. "Bumps" are uncomfortable to drive over and potentially damaging to
vehicles, plus they may contribute to loss of vehicle control when traversed at high speeds. The
speed humps proposed for Baylor are by contrast specifically designed to discourage - -but not prevent
-- travel at higher speeds. The recommended speed hump for Baylor will allow higher speeds
without damage or loss of control. See figure2 for a detailed design of this hump. Reference material
is also attached to this report regarding speed humps and emergency response time.
Speed humps also differ from "rumble strips ", which make use of Botts dots or other pavement
protrusions to generate an audible warning of hazardous conditions. Rumble strips, being loud, are
not applicable to residential areas such as Baylor Avenue.
The speed hump design shown in figure 2 should be placed across the entire traveled roadway,
except for a small drainage space at the curbs. The installation would cause a shift in some traffic to
other parallel streets in the vicinity. However, this shift is not expected to be significant, since the
page 9
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Traffic Calming Study August 21, 1997
amount of time saved by driving faster on other streets would be more than offset by the amount of
time needed to get to them. To avoid misunderstandings regarding the amount of a traffic shift, if
any, the daily volume of traffic on potentially affected streets should be counted before and after the
installation of this traffic calming measure on Baylor.
Although the speed hump is recommended, it should not be installed without evidence of no
objection to its installation, for at least a one year trial period, from the appropriate emergency
response officials. Attached to this report are recent articles which describe the recommended speed
hump design and its effect on emergency response times in more detail.
Recommended: Install one mid -block speed hump on Baylor
C.3. MULTIPLE SPEED HUMPS
Given the unusual length of the Baylor Avenue Block (1000 feet) two speed hump installations were
considered, placed approximately equidistant. The additional speed reduction, if any, that would
result was not deemed worth the additional cost and inconvenience to both local residents and other
motorists using the street. In addition, the additional speed hump would almost certainly induce
traffic diversion to other residential streets in the vicinity. Due to such circulation impacts, this
alternative is not recommended.
Not recommended.
CA. MULTIPLE CHOKERS WITH MEANDERING CENTER LINE
Additional curvilinearity could be achieved, resulting in additional speed reduction compared with a
single bulb choker (Alternative B.6.) Installing a choker bulb in Baylor between Quito Road and
Purdue is not recommended. A location east of Purdue would be more effective in reducing
speeding. Three bulbs could be installed on Baylor at the following locations:
a) Mid - block, on the north side of Baylor
b) Just west of Villanova, eastbound. (This also shortens pedestrian crossing of Baylor at
this intersection)
c) Just east of Purdue, eastbound. (Shortens pedestrian crossing of Baylor at this
intersection).
With three bulbs, proceeding from Quito, the center line could meander first four feet to the left, then
four to the right and then back four feet to the left again at Villanova. This combination of the twice
curved alignment and 4' width reduction would dramatically reduce speeding in this block.
This alternative would probably induce considerable diversion, causing increased traffic volumes on
other streets in the vicinity. Due to such circulation impacts, this alternative is not recommended.
Not recommended
C.S. TURN PROHIBITION INTO BAVLOR FROM QUITO SOUTHBOUND.
During the test/ demonstration, the possibility of prohibiting left turns into Baylor from Quito Rd.
southbound was discussed. Reportedly, existing peak traffic operations are affected by lack of
storage capacity in the left turn lane from Quito to Cox, just north of the intersection. By prohibiting
page 10
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
August 21, 1997
left turns into Baylor from Quito, additional storage length on Quito would be possible for left turns
into Cox.
This turn prohibition would affect Baylor Ave. residents by making their homes somewhat less
accessible. Furthermore, this action would only affect volumes, not speeds, and only for vehicles
entering Baylor from Quito Rd. north, so that more than half of all through traffic would continue as
before. For these reasons, this consultant does not recommend the measure, except as a necessary
safety measure for operations at the Quito Rd./ Cox intersection.
Not recommended as a traffic calming measure
5. Cost of Recommended Alternatives
The following are estimates of approximate construction cost for recommendations B.I through C
as provided by City staff. The cost estimate for measure C.2 was based on comparable experience
elsewhere.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
Measure Est. Cost
B.1. Increase Visibility of 25 MPH Speed Signs $ 200
B.3. Median Islands at Baylor Intersections $1,500
C.1. Stop Signs on Villanova at Baylor $ 200
C.2. Single Mid -Block Baylor Speed Hump $5,000
For a schematic sketch plan showing how these measures would be installed on Baylor Ave, see
Figure 1, below.
page 11
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
August 21, 1997
Figure 1 Sketch Plan of Recommended Improvements
page 12
KEY Figure 1.
Sketch Plan of Recommended
C.I Traffic Calming Measures
C dots S
0 = Existing stop sign
< B.3 — = New stop sign ,
a
CD
S sto
CD
p
C C.I a
CD
CD B.I
Baylor Avenue
s
B. I. Speed Sign Visibility Improvement
B.3 Median Islands
C.2 Mid -Block Speed Hump
C.I Four -Way Warranted Stop
with advance warning sign.
s
C.2
stop ahead 40 ft.
B 3
i14
City of Saratoga
Baylor Avenue Traffic Calming Study bayio�s.m�
Last Revised Mqv 12, 1997 Not to scale
FOW
N
O
D
CD
r~
CD
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
6. Next Steps
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
August 21, 1997
Before implementing measure C.2., Single Mid -Block Baylor Speed Hump, the City should obtain
evidence that appropriate emergency response agencies (Fire, police) do not object to the proposed
speed hump as recommended herein.
Due to the potential for diversion of traffic from Baylor to other residential streets in the vicinity,
before implementing any of the traffic calming measures recommended in this report, City staff
should obtain counts of traffic volumes on Baylor Avenue and also on nearby parallel streets to
enable quantification of any actual diversion that may occur as a result of the traffic calming
measures installed. 24- hour weekday traffic counts (hose counts) should be collected on the same
day for the "Before" count, and six months after installation of all traffic calming measures, these
same hose counts should be repeated, plus a speed survey should be performed on Baylor midway
between the speed hump and the nearest intersection. The "After" speed survey should be done using
the same method and during the same AM peak weekday period as the 10/29/96 survey reported
here.
To summarize, these are the counts and surveys recommended for adequate Before and After
measurement of both the speed reduction effects of the traffic calming implementation and of the
traffic diversion effects, if any:
Speed Survey, After. Six months after implementation. Replicate the 10/29/96 survey at:
1. Baylor Ave. between the speed hump and Villanova Rd.
Daily Traffic Counts, Before and After. Before implementation, and six months after
implementation. Use 15- minute interval 24 -hour weekday hose counts, taken on the same day at:
1. Baylor Ave. between Purdue Drive and Villanova Rd.
2. Purdue Drive west of Villanova
3. Vanderbilt Drive west of Villanova
4. Clemson Ave. west of Villanova
page 13
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
Speed Survey of October 29, 1996
page 14
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
August 21, 1997
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
May 27, 1997
.9
Bather Belrose Boje, InC. SPEEDPLOT Program
S'IRSET
.................
62 Blk.
BAYLOR
LIMITS
............ :....
QUITO
RD. to VILLANOVA RD.-
RECTION(S)
..........
BOTH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED...,,,•
29
uATE ..................10
/29/96
„ • „
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED. •'
TIME .............
POSTED
.....8
.SPEED LIMIT,...25
:03 AM
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 25�through
34
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 86.7
..............
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED 7.6
.............
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED,...,.... 5.7
SPEED
N0.
PCT.
CUM.
PCT.
.
RANGE OF SPEEDS.... _.,,,,,,,,,22.to
10
=
VEHICLES OBSERVE)7, 105
AVERAGE SPEED
1
1.0
1 0
......................29.5
23
24
3
2
2.9
1.9
3.8
5.7
+----+----+----+__--+----+----+----+----
100
25
7
6.7
12,4
-
26
7
6.7
19.0
90
**
27
10
9.5
28,6
C
-
90
28
16
15.2
43.8
U
80
*
-
29
12
11.4
55.2
M
-
80
30
9
8.6
63.8
70
*
-
31
7
6.7
70.5
P
-
70
32
9
8.6
79.0
E
60
33
0
5.7
84.8
R
-
60
34
8
7.6
92.4
C
50
-
35
3
2.9
95.2
E
-
50
36
1
1.0
96.2
N
40
37
3
2.9
99.0
T
--
40
38
0
0.0
99.0
S
30
*
_
'.9
0
0.0
99.0
_
30
J
1
1.0
100.0
20
*
-
20
10
-
_
**
10
+--__...+_--__+_---+-_--_+_--
15
__ +_--- +---- +----- +----- + - - - -+
0
25 35 45 55 65
20
_
20
P
15
*
-
E
15
R
C
-
E
-w
-
N
10
**
T
-
** *
10
$
5
_ -------------
15
.25 35 45 55 65
SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR
page 13
Baylor Avenue, Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
August 21, 1997
Figure 2 Design of Recommended Speed Hump
page 15
go
GRIND EX. PAVEMENT 2.75• Profile
0\ 0.75' 1.37' 1-83' 2-240' 227 2A5, 2.75" 2-86- 2-57- 220' 1.83' 1.37- 0.75' /0
2-
U 1• 2• 3' 4* 9* To*
SECTION A-A HUMP PROFILE DETAIL
EDGE 4(-;7-
OR 9-KU-DCR&6.1 T
w wo --tRes
-im— 12'TAPfR
011�
GRM EX PAVEMENT
12• 13' 14•
ABOUT UIX
SFLC S;EC'VCN A-A TACK COAT
EUVAUM EKTAV
SECTION B-E CURB I EDGE TAPER DETAIL
CAS
PLAMONG A040 4WF4(bW4Wj1pMa
• 9 9 4 0 0 4 A 1 t
STREET RW PROFm-ES
- A-(.
-Af IES TO
T(I 6A-ITIMN
:W71 R UPOIA)
CURB FACE
OR EDGE Of
PAWME14T
EDGE 4(-;7-
OR 9-KU-DCR&6.1 T
w wo --tRes
-im— 12'TAPfR
011�
GRM EX PAVEMENT
12• 13' 14•
ABOUT UIX
SFLC S;EC'VCN A-A TACK COAT
EUVAUM EKTAV
SECTION B-E CURB I EDGE TAPER DETAIL
CAS
PLAMONG A040 4WF4(bW4Wj1pMa
• 9 9 4 0 0 4 A 1 t
STREET RW PROFm-ES
SPEED HUMP (TYPICAL)
PLACE 121" WIDE WHITE STRIPES 5*-U" O.C.
TYPE D MARKER 3' O-C-
W37
ii
7'-W-
LOCATION VARiFS- 200' MIN.
(FROM FIRST N SERIES)
50, -or,
LOCATION VARIES. 200' MIN
(FROM FIRST IN SERIES)
50'- 0"
< > W37
PLACE BUMP LEGEND IN CENTER OF TRAVEL LANE
W37
lia ccos
PLANNING AND VWkNEREMN43
M C t
PAVEWNT DELINEATION AND SIGNING PLAN
Baylor Avenue. Saratoga
Traffic Calming Study
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
August 21, 1997
Recent Articles on Pavement Undulations
page 16
...fir e....... _,�•� •� �t �. {` r {�. •��.
Ilk
FF
Iv ins .^ '�► y`
/ ` I ` h`1 `/ •�'�e/ a �I�r 1 1 %Y Ir '�' .' y I.. r � '
�1 jN• (.
✓- ice/ A... :!•I�.'- Q�� ' .w �01 � „�. i'
- v __gyp_,. �.��• ��� _ d �T�'� ~.
:rL• .r to • - ±.t. }1 f�
49.• s� zr•�
i
LV
.� r, i, 1
4
o. .
.,"
Cities all over the United States are busy building
-� speed humps to cut down on the flow of traffic through
y ,✓w,,� -o°`�, residential neighborhoods. And they seem to work—
cars have to slow down to g et over them in one piece.
.r O
But so do fire trucks.
_ ll over the United States today, communities are
implementing neighborhood traffic management
programs to provide a safer, more - livable envi-
` ronment. Physical barriers, such as cul -de -sacs, and traffic
diverters, such as speed humps, have sprung up nationwide. Street
`L closures are being approved by many city councils, and many
hh newer subdivisions are ;rIsniling entrance gates and cutting down
on the number of streets into the developments --all to limit
�j access to neighborhoods.
Austin, Texas, like at least 47 other cities around the country,
has chosen to deal with its problem traffic by implenienting.a
speed hump program. And it's been happy with the results I
a the two years the programs been in existence, the Public: '
• Works and Transportation Department has been asked
build speed humps on more than 600 city streets.
Obviously, the city feels that speed humps work. They cu
�Mkatvawm An Mch am
1.. �L" h�Y-�+�iarur�3;4i.' ".._i:'�:. ^- - �-:� <_ _5 ».'�5'F:Jl4r_!*�.-•1;,;. gas..: tu' vY },'.�'.'._t,t�'�.s�'{.E�s!'�:,,
dawn on unwanted traffic in residential neighborhods. But they also
reduce the fire department's response times.
Neighborhood traffic management strategies
Traffic management programs often focus entirely on installing one or
two types of control devices, with little or no areawide planning. A
neighborhood group complains, and a speed hump, stop sign, or some
other device is installed --and that's the end of it Occasionally, this
strategy is successful. Residents on streets where the devices were
I nstalled are happy, • and any complaints other residents and drivers
might have soon die down.
However, the literature seems to suggest that the more successful
traffic calming initiatives are broader in scope, using more than one
strategy and a variety of control devices. These broader initiatives focus
on transportation improvements using passive strategies, active strate-
gies, or a combination of both. Passive strategies use subtle or
psychological means to influence drivers to behave in a desired fash-
ion, while active strategies prevent or reduce traffic movement by
changing street configurations or putting up physical barriers.
Passive traffic control devices include traffic signs and signals, brush
trims, textured pavements, markings at pedestrian crosswalks, educa-
tional programs, and traffic enforcement. These devices are meant to
improve safety and reduce accidents by making drivers more aware of
their actions. Educational programs and enforcement efforts are gen-
erally accepted as the more effective passive techniques for dealing
with issues related to speeding, and, to a lesser degree, traffic volume.
Active traffic control devices include speed humps, traffic circles,
nil -de -sacs, chokers or curb extensions, gates across roadways, medi-
ans, and street closures. These "hard" control devices are largely
self - enforcing and create a visual impression, real or imagined, that a
street isn't intended for through traffic.
The most common hard control device is the speed hump. The two
NFPAJonrnal January/February 1997
most common speed humps are the 12- foot -long circular hump 3 to 4
inches high and the 22- foot -long flat- topped hump with a pla+eau 10
feet long and 3 to 4 inches high and a circular art: approach 6 feet long.
The recommended spacing for speed humps is 200 to 250 feet apart
Speed humps are rclatwely inexpensive to instal]- usually between
$1,000 and $1,500 per hump —and they successfully slow traffic
However, they can also increase noise pollution and block the paths
and hinder the mobility of emergency apparatus. They can damage
vehicles and cause trauma to patients being transported to hospitals.
They may affect how fire departments respond to calls, and they may
interfere with firefighting operations. Traffic control devices may even
affect how the locations of new stations are determined. The' biggest
disadvantage? They reduce emergency response times.
The impact of traffic management on emergency response
Response time is a key emergency service performance indicator, and
traffic management plans, especially those that incorporate traffic barri-
ers, adversely affect it. According to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, such devices may force apparatus to use longer, less direct
routes and confine them to the busier streets, possibly exposing them to
significant delays and even collisions. Apparatus may also end up on the
wrong side of a barrier from a fin:, or they may have to slow down sig-
nificantly to maneuver through or around barriers. Traffic barriers may
also preclude the practice of routing apparatus from the same station
along parallel streets to prevent a single traffic accident from delaying
them all. Frilly, traffic barriers may make an entire area temporarily
inaccessible to fire apparatus. This occurs when the barriers close several
residential streets, and one or more unanticipated problems, such as street
repair, force traffic from the blocked streets to jam the remaining open
streets.
In addition to having an impact on response time and capability,
traffic management barriers may affect operations at a firs scene by
interfering with the apparrus' ability to maneuver, hampering the
effective deployment of apparatus and equipment, particularly tillered
aerial ladder apparatus; impeding access to the water supply; and mak-
ing it difficult to divert traffic from the fire scene.
Obviously, many emergency agencies in cities around the country
are alarmed by these developments. For ocarnple, the city of Berkeley,
California, recently put its speed hump program on hold because the
fire department was worried that most, if not all, of their primary
response routes would have traffic devices that would delay fire depart-
ment response.
"The Fre Bureau wanted to know where it would all end," said
Susan Sanderson, a transportation planner. "How long would it be
before there were speed humps on every street? I thought the question
was ridiculous at first, until, on closer inspection, I realized that speed-
ing was so ubiquitous that speed humps probably would be needed on
every street if that was our only solution to speeding."
Austin F`ire Chief Robin Paulsgmve and Austin's Director for the
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department voiced similar con-
cerns when they learned that the city's Public Works and
Transportation Department had received requests for speed humps on
more than 600 streets in the 18 months the speed hump program had
been in place. By comparison, Dallas had approved only about 210
.q
speed humps on a third as many streets. And Dallas, at approximately
400 square miles, is considerably larger than Austin, which covers about
220 square miles.
The speed humps -30 of them, both curved and flat - topped --overt
installed in March 1995 in six Austin neighborhoods to test their effec-
tiveness in reducing vehicle speed. They did the job. Data collected
before and after the speed humps were installed indicate that the curved
speed humps reduced vehicle speeds by 5 to 15 miles per hour, while
the flat- topped humps reduced speeds by 7 to 10 miles per hour.
According to surveys conducted in the first four pilot neighbor-
hoods, to which an average of 57 percent of the recipients responded,
87.5 percent of the residents felt that traffic speeds had slowed on their
streets. The majority -74 percent -of residents in two neighborhoods
also felt that traffic volume had decreased, while 59 percent of resi-
dents in the other two neighborhoods noticed a change in traffic
volume. Overall, 70 percent of the residents had a favorable opinion of
speed humps as a speed reduction measure, and 55.5 percent felt that
the speed humps had improved the quality of life in the neighborhood.
However, both the Austin Fire and EMS Departments worried that
multiple humps would decrease response and patient transport times
and that they'd subject paramedics in the back of EMS units to injury
if they lost their balance when crossing one.
In March 1996, the dry manager, Jesus Garza, asked the Fire and
EMS Departments to measure the delay in response times for emer-
gency vehicles responding over speed humps. A fire engine, a fire truck,
and an EMS ambulance were used to conduct the tuts on a residential
street with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. The street con-
tained five curved speed humps spaced between 358 and 433 feet apart
A similar street of about the same length containing no speed humps
was used for comparison. The roads were closed to traffic during the
tests.
Each vehicle made two runs on each of three tests, using a different
driver for each run. The vehicles crossed each hump at 15 miles per
hour, at 20 miles per hour, and at a speed chosen by the drivers. A
fourth test was conducted using an EMS unit that crossed the humps
Average emergency response ti
speed hump route
In seconds
A,Vi i_0311 a 61V-4f x_.07 13
Ambulance 3.22 1327 25.80
Engine 3.56 13.88 26.13
Truck 3.83 15.60 28.67
mes in Austin
N 05 Ayerall e
36.48 47.61 226
39.69 6022 2.83
40.77 51.14 2.99
#3 f4 /5 Average
Engine 3.18 15.84 28.69 41.14 5329 3.69
02 P3 ' N /5 Average
Ambulance 3.85 16.33 30.54 42.65 57.41 4.56
�j�TP�ffiml...1 : jimrp /i /! I3 N n Average
Ambulance 4.79 20.96 4127 59,60 76.80 9.67
at a speed decided by the driver, with EMS medics in the back simu-
lating rue to a critic patient. Stop watches were used to time each
run, and radar guns measured the vehicles' speeds. Videos wen: made
to show how crossing the humps affected the vehicles.
For the various combinations of tests, the time needed to travel a
length of strut that had no speed hump was compared to the time
needed to travel a length of street with the speed humps. The difference
between the two travel times equaled the total delay. The total delay time
divided by the number of humps equaled the delay per speed hum'
ump.
The tests revealed that 20 miles per hour was close to, or more than,
the reasonable safe speed to cross a speed hump. None of the drives
felt that they could maintain good control of their vehicles at 20 miles
per hour, and they feared that the jolts would damage the vehicles.
The drivers' individual performances didn't appear to influence the
outcome significantly. Their choices of speed in the nuns during which
they used their own discretion were relatively consistent.
The time delay for each speed hump was found to vary between 2.3
and 9.7 seconds. The shortest delay of 2.3 seconds occurred with an
empty ambulance traveling at an average discretionary speed of 16.8
miles per hour. The greatest delay also occurred with the ambulance.
When transporting a patient, the ambulance's average speed slowed to
6.6 miles per hour, and the average delay per hump rose to 9.7 seconds.
In the nuns with the fire engine and truck, the average delays per hump
were in the 3- to 5- second range.
The significance of the delay is apparent when you consider that most
sweets with speed humps have more than one. In the case of an ambu-
lance transporting a patient, this can mean a delay on the way to the
hospital of close to one minute for every street with multiple humps.
Resolving the conflicts
So how does a city solve its traffic problems without jeopardizing its
emergency services?
Solving neighborhood traffic problems is as much a political problem
as a technical one. Marry attempts to resolve traffic issues fail because
well- meaning elected officials, engineers, or planners listen to a small,
vocal group from the community and implement a traffic plan, only to
face resentment from affected parties who werent involved in the
process. To avoid this problem, communities must include all affected
parties, including emergency service providers, in the planning process.
Because traffic management programs appear to increase neighbor-
hood livability, there will be a great deal of pressure on elected officials
to approve such programs in their communities. It's critical that they
not react hastily and pressure dry officials to come up with a quick fix
When asked to make decisions about traffic management programs,
elected officials must clearly understand the tradeoffs that will occur in
emergency response times and capabilities. Citizens will inevitably
complain when response times are slowed, and elected officials will have
to support their dry's emergency agencies against these complaints.
Emergency response providers will never come to consensus on traffic
management projects if they fear that the resulting reductions in
response times will be blamed on their incompetence or lack of opera-
tional efficiency.
Planning professionals should also take into account the negative
effects such a plan wiP have on emergency agencies. They mustn't leap
R1' -
)?_nu ry /February 1997 NFIPAJournal
to obvious solutions. Soiuciow dhal, .,:may ,;, obvious often have hid-
den problems that aren't discovefc-d uftiai di, prugfaams have been
implemented
It's essential that planning professionals include the city's emergency
service agencies in the planning process: Traffic management plans
should minimize any adverse effects traffic- calming devices might have
on response time and firefighting operations by making barrier; tra-
versable, designing barriers so that they don't block primary access
routes in the vicinity of potential multiple -alarm fire sites, and provid-
ing additional fire hydrants where barriers block existing hydrants.
Each plan should be designed so that no portion of a neighborhood
becomes isolated from emergency service.
Planning professionals should incorporate a variety of mitigation
tools and strategies in their plans, and tailor control devices to the
specific situation. No active control devices of any kind should be
considered on primary emergency response routes, and horizontal
devices, such as one -way streets, rather than vertical devices, such as
speed humps, should be considered on secondary emergency response
routes. Emergency vehicles have more difficulty with vertical mitiga-
tion devices than they do with horizontal mitigation devices.
Planners should try, passive strategies first and phase in more active
strategies only if necessary. One example is the three -phase Neighbor-
hood Traffic Safety Program in King County, Washington. In Phase I,
passive, less restrictive measures are used to educate the residents on
traffic safety issues. Phase II focuses on physical traffic control devices,
such as speed humps and traffic circles, which may be considered only
after Phase I measures prove ineffective. Phase III includes the devel-
opment of major projects that require special funding, such as a capital
improvement program.
Planners may also want to develop a new street classification for pri-
mary emergency response routes, as the dry of Portland, Oregon, is in
the process of doing. The new classification will restrict the types of
traffic - calming devices that can be placed on streets that have been
identified as emergence response routes.
Finally, planners must develop reliable methods to assess accurately
the costs and benefits to the different interest groups that will result
from the traffic changes.
What planners don't want to do is give individual neighborhoods
carte blanche to pay for any type of traffic control device they want
themselves. just because a neighborhood is willing to fund a project
shouldn't mean that it can install a device that fails to meet the com-
munity's criteria for traffic mitigation.
What emergency response agencies can do
It's understandably difficult for emergency service providers to accept
that many people value livability more than rapid emergency response
or the efficient movement of traffic. When given the choice between a
quick response time by emergency service providers or a reduction in
the speed and volume of cars on their neighborhood stints, residents
will invariably place a greater value on the latter. Regardless of whether
the danger to children from speeding automobiles is really a greater
risk than a slow emergency response time, residents' fears for their chil-
dren's safety is greater than their fear of firs and medical emergendes,
and that must be respected.
NFPA)ournal January/February 1997
If firefighters understand that the community is willing to accept a
slower emergency response time and that dry officials won't blame
them when traffic control devices cause their response times to drop,
they'll more easily accept the operational changes that must be imple-
mented to give the customers what they want
To help citizens mate the kind of communities they want to live
in, emergency service providers may have to work with their public
works departments to help design traffic management programs. To
do this, fire and EMS departments can set up a committee that meets
regularly with the planning or public works department to review and
approve such projects. Committee members can be the first point of
contact for the departments on transportation issues and can provide
the public safety departments with a consistent review and approval
process when implementing traffic management projects.
In areas where traffic management initiatives reduce response
time, emergency service providers can implement mitigation strate-
gies. They can create maps that clearly indicate the most efficient
routes into and through neighborhoods, as well as the location of
traffic management devices. They can practice getting through 911
gates quickly and plan routes that bypass gates. And they can buy
hardware that permits emergency vehicles to pre-empt traffic signals
so that they can clear intersections and stop cross- traffic.
Taking this advice to heart, the Austin Fut, EMS, and Public
Works and Transportation Departments recently met to discuss how
to move forward together with the city's speed hump program. As a
result, speed humps won't be approved for all the Austin streets on
which they're being requested. Current funding levels will limit the
number of humps that can be installed to approximately 65 to 100
annually, depending on which design is used. And Austiris Public
Works and Transportation Department recently revised the approval
criteria to include only those streets where average vehicle speeds
exceed the speed limit by five miles per hour.
In addition, the Austin Fut and EMS. Departments will more clearly
define what they consider to be emergency response routes and will
approve speed humps requested on streets that don't fall into this cate-
gory. The Public Works Department will seek additional funding for
traffic management and explore the use of other devices. Most impor-
tant, the departments have agreed to work together to find a balance
between the neighborhoods' need for increased livability and the fire and
EMS departments' need to provide effective and efficient response.
To implement a traffic management program that benefits both the
community and those who provide emergency services successfully,
cities must evaluate the different strategies and devices available and
incorporate them into a comprehensive plan to deal with traffic prob-
lems. All affected parties, including the emergency service agencies,
must participate in the planning process from the very beginning, and
they must all make a commitment to work together, serving the inter-
ests of their community. •
... ... . ..... .. ....... I .... I ............ ... .............................................
Anyont interested in receiving a copy of 'The Impact of Traffic Management Pro-
grams on the Delivery of Fire Supprruion and Eme7ncy Medical Services, - the
complete report from which this article is taken, may write to McGinnis at the
Austin Fire Department, 1621 Festival Beach Road Austin, TX 78702. Please
enclose a check or money order for 15 to moue copying and postage costs.
Portland Bureau of Fire, Rescue
and Emergency Service
55 SW Ash Street
Portland, OR 97204
Bureau of Traffic Management
Portland Department of Transportation
Room 730
1120 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
January 1996
The Influence of
Traffic Calming Devices
on Fire Vehicle Travel Times
Traffic Calming Section
Bureau of Traffic Management
Portland Department of Transportation
City of Portland, Oregon
The Influence of Traffic Calming Devices upon Fire Vehicle Travel Times
January 1996
INTRODUCTION
Traffic calming devices are used on Portland's neighborhood streets when traffic conditions are out of
character with their adjacent residential, institutional, and recreational land uses. Calming devices are
used to slow vehicle speeds; to encourage the use of more appropriate streets for through trips; and to
enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit safety. The devices have proven to be effective without
significantly impacting convenience, mobility, and travel time for drivers. At the same time certain
devices affect the speed of various fire vehicles and may increase overall response times.
During the Fall of 1995 the City's Fire Bureau and Bureau of Traffic Management conducted a
thorough data collection effort to help quantify the relationship between three types of traffic calming
devices and fire vehicle travel times. Different types of fire vehicles were driven on streets calmed
with traffic circles, 22 -foot speed bumps, and 14 -foot speed bumps. Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the
three devices. Table 1 lists basic information .about the types of fire vehicles used in this study.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this paper is to present how speed bumps and traffic circles affect fire vehicle travel
times. This paper describes how the data was collected and analyzed, presents the findings, and goes
on to recommend additional areas in need of research.
RESEARCH METHOD
The testing considered four variables that influence the speed at which a fire vehicle can be negotiated
around traffic circles or across speed bumps. The variables tested are: the driver, the type of fire
vehicle, the desirable vehicle speed, and the types of calming devices.
The data collection effort involved six fire vehicles of varying characteristics. Test runs were
conducted on a total of six streets. Two streets had 22 -foot speed bumps. Two streets had 14 -foot
speed bumps, and two had traffic circles. A total of 36 different drivers participated in the testing.
The total number of test runs on each street was four per vehicle, or 24 runs per street.
Each test run was video taped. The camera recorded the vehicle speeds that were detected and
displayed by a radar gun. The time of day, to the nearest second, was superimposed on the recording.
The speed and time information for each test run was transcribed from the video tapes to a
spreadsheet. The information for each run was used to calculate the distance traveled after each
second as well as the vehicle's distance from the starting line after each second of the run.
For various combinations of the four variables, the time needed to travel a length of street that had no
calming device was compared to the time needed to travel the same length with a calming device.
The time and impact distance required to decelerate from a desirable response speed, negotiate the
calming device, and accelerate back to the original speed was determined from the data. The time
required to travel the same impact distance without a calming device to influence the desirable
response speed was calculated. The difference between the two travel times equals the delay
associated with the calming device. This delay -per- device was calculated for all six vehicles as they
negotiated every calming device on the six test streets. Delays -per- device were calculated for
desirable response speeds of 25, 30, 35, and 40 mph.
FINDINGS
The results of the City's research are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Depending on the type of fire
vehicle and the desirable response speed, the three devices were found to create a range of delays for each
device as follows:
22 -foot bumps: 0.0 to 9.2 seconds of delay per bump
14 -foot bumps: 1.0 to 9.4 seconds of delay per bump
Traffic circles: 1.3 to 10.7 seconds of delay per circle
The drivers' performances did not appear -to significantly influence the results. Their choices of
deceleration and acceleration rates as well as their choices of minimum speeds near the devices were very
consistent.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper was to show how speed bumps and traffic circles used in Portland affect fire
vehicle travel times. The results provide quantitative data that can be used in the determination of the
impacts of one or more traffic calming devices on fire response times along a given emergency response
route. Additional information is necessary in order to make a complete assessment of these impacts. This
includes: 1) the types of fire vehicles responding to emergencies; 2) the desirable and appropriate speed
of fire vehicles at each of the calming devices located along the response route; 3) the geographical area
that will be affected by any increase in delay to response times; and 4) the use of this route by fire vehicles
given the likely demand for emergency services and the availability of good alternative routes.
A full assessment of the impacts on response times for a given set of traffic calming devices needs to be
balanced with the benefits of traffic calming on reducing speeding problems and enhancing public safety
and livability along neighborhood streets. This paper provides the initial quantitative data that is
necessary to begin to weigh the pros and cons of traffic calming.
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
The City needs to pursue full assessments of the impacts of specific traffic calming projects, either
planned or existing projects, on emergency vehicle responses. This assessment needs to consider all the
necessary information as summarized above. The results of this assessment then needs to be compared
to the benefits of the traffic calming project, especially the benefits to public safety.
Due to the City's desire to provide both fast response for emergency services and slower overall traffic
speeds on neighborhood streets, a public process should be undertaken to address the trade -offs between
these two community values and to provide policy direction for implementing traffic calming on a city-
wide basis. This should be done by revising the Transportation Element to include a classification for
emergency response routes.
Factors that may need to be considered in addressing any trade -offs are options to mitigate impacts on
fire vehicle response times. These options include the use of traffic signal preemption devices, the
locating of new fire stations, fire vehicle modifications to minimize weight -to- horsepower ratios, securing
and cushioning certain pieces of equipment, and improving vehicle suspensions.
5
Table 1.
Fire Vehicle Sped cati M
Vehicle
Overall
Wheelbase
Weight
(lbs/HP)
Length
188
(lbs)
Engine 18
29' 10"
15' 5
34,860
Rescue 41
21'
11'6"
na
Squad 1
27'
14-6"
23,170
Truck 1
48'
21'0"
53,000
Truck 4
57'
13'0"
53,960
Truck 41
37' 6"
16'9"
'42,100
3
Horse-
power
(HP)
185
185
275
450
450
350
WtJHP
0 -40 mph
Ratio
Accel. Time
(lbs/HP)
(sec)
188
19
na
12
84
17
118
20
120
22
120
27
21 August 1997
Paula Reeve
i-:1RE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos, CA 95030 -1818
(408) 378 -4010 (phone) - (408) 378 -9342 (fax)
Analyst, Community Environment
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Speed Table for Baylor Avenue
Dear Paula,
The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the City of Saratoga's
proposal for the installation of a speed table on Baylor Avenue. The current plan
for a table as proposed includes a "Hump" designed with a 14' by 2.75" profile, and
does not present a significant problem for Fire Department response. County Fire's
approval of the installation is restricted to the Baylor Avenue location. Future
installations of speed tables, bumps, or other such devices at other locations within
the city will need to be reviewed by the Fire Department on a case by case basis.
If I can be of further assistance regarding this or an other matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Waldvogel
Deputy Chief - Operations
KLW:bst
Dirk Mattern, Deputy Chief - Fire Prevention
SSBUMPSBAYLOR /KLW / BSI'/970821
.-A Ccii(ornia Fire Protection D.stric: serr:nu Santa Clara County and the communities of
n
Ccnnbeii. Cupertino. Los Altos. Los .20tos r'i::S. Los Gatos. %Jonre Serena ikforcan Hill. anc Sarctogc
Saratoga City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: - 1712, AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPARTN�TT: ommunity Environment
CITY MANAGER: DEPARTMENT HEAD:
SUBJECT: DR 97 -014, Pinn Brothers Construction - 14200 Taos Ct.
Appeal of a Planning Commission Design Review approval to construct a
new single story home on a vacant 1.17 acre parcel. The subject parcel
is Lot 7 of the Sisters of Mercy Subdivision, approved in April 1993,
and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Recommended Motion
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Report
Background:
At the July 23, 1997 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission
considered a proposal from Pinn Brothers Construction to build a new
5,860 sq. ft. one -story home at 22 feet in height. The project met all
Zoning Ordinance building height, setback, floor area and lot coverage
requirements and staff found that all of the necessary Design Review
findings could be made to recommend approval of the request. No
Variances or exceptions were necessary or requested.
The Planning Commission visited the property, reviewed staff's analysis
and recommendation and took testimony from neighbors present at the
public hearing. The Commission then voted 5 -1 (Murakami opposed) to
approve the Design Review request by adopting the prepared Resolution.
Planning Commission action minutes are attached for reference.
Issues:
At the public hearing, neighbors expressed concern regarding the size
and height of the proposed home, citing Condition #24 of the original
Tentative Map Resolution for this Subdivision, which stated:
Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon finding that the
proposed structure is compatible in terms of scale and design with
Pinn Brothers Construction Appeal
Page Two
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. Future development
of Lots 6 and 7 in particular, shall be compatible in terms of size
and height with the existing adjacent structures to the north and
west.
(The first half of this condition is standard language that is
included in all Tentative Map Resolutions - the boldened language
was added by the Planning Commission at the April 1993 public
hearing.)
Two adjacent neighbors are now jointly appealing the Commission's
decision. The appellants feel that the home is too big for the
neighborhood, and that the Planning Commission has failed to enforce the
building restrictions outlined above.
As discussed in the attached Planning Commission report, staff finds
that the 22 ft. tall single story home is compatible with the
surrounding one and two -story structures - not only within the newer
Douglass Ln. neighborhood, but also the older neighborhoods of Durham
Ct. and Quail Acres Ct. When the applicants first met with staff and
presented their desires to design two -story homes for Lots 6 and 1 and
to request floor area exceptions as they had for the other lots in this
subdivision, staff let them know that we would not be able to recommend
approval given the intent of Condition ##24. These discussions lied to
the applicants designing single story structures for these lots which
did not require any Variance or exception requests.
Public Notice
A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500
ft. of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Follow -up Actions
A Resolution will be prepared and scheduled for adoption at the next
regular City Council meeting reflecting the Council's action.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion
If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and
Pinn Brothers Construction Appeal
Page Three
approves the appeal, the Council will need to direct the applicant to
reduce the size and /or height of the home by a specified amount.
Attachments:
1. Resolution DR 97 -014
2. Planning Commission action minutes dated July 23, 1997
3. Staff Report dated July 23, 1997
4. Exhibit "A ", plans
fames \memo.cc \pinnbros
Date Received: 2L27
Hearing Date:
F e: $675 ,/
Receip No.: `7 l o- 3
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: k 617,?;a
Address: /9�? d 141 � 1J 4
Telephone: /`XQ0 74// —d�697 /yD�J cF67-
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant:
Project File Number and Address:
Decision Being Appealed: �" h El ( ' r f7eW CO � 200 oS wf ko� 17 %, K7o1j1p7- fl
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
9- `/ 6& -1eX tea" - _ / 99 3
*Appellant's S14'hatuikt
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
RESOLUTION NO. DR -97 -014
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Pinn Brothers Construction; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application for Design Review approval to construct a
5,860 square foot one -story residence at a height of 22 feet; and
WHEREAS, 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 require
to support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevations and placement on the site of the prcpcse^
residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and
location of residential structures on adjacent lots and with_-
the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid
unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the
location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum
setback requirements and will be screened by existing and
proposed trees on the lot.
-The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable
by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the
site and minimizing soil removal; grade changes will be mini -ize4-
and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighbc=_ --
developed and undeveloped areas, in that the residence is lccazed
to minimize removal of ordinance protected trees, and the amo-_=Z
of grading is limited to the amount necessary to accommodate
structure's foundation and driveway.
-The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacer_-
lots, and to the surrounding area, will minimize the perception
of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural
environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elemenzs
which minimize the perception of bulk and is similar in scale,
style and height to other homes in the neighborhood.
-The proposed residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and
height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lez_=
and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same
zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall n t
(i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent proper-:.-es
nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properzies
to utilize solar energy, in that the height and design of the
residence is compatible with surrounding residences in the
neighborhood and the residence meets or exceeds the minimum
required setbacks.
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
-The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates
current grading and erosion control standards used by the CJz -y.
-The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable
design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential
Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
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, DR -97 -014, the application of PJnn
Brothers for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown cn
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permits, the
following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff is
order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
3
4
5
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans
incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Renc ---
dated February 20 1997 and addendum as a separate
plan page, with the plans revised to indicate that
there are no more than two wood burning fireplaces f
the entire residence.
b. Four (4) sets of engineered grading and drainage plans,
also incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist
Report dated February 20 1997 and addendum as a
separate page.
C. All applicable requirements /conditions of the
Resolution and requirements /conditions of the City
Arborist (e.g. tree protective fencing,) shall be nc-:=d
on the plans.
No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no
fence or wall located within any required front yard shall
exceed three feet in height.
No structure shall be permitted in any easement; no
structure or hardscape shall be permitted in the open
space /riparian easement adjacent to Wildcat Creek.
All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated
February 20, 1997 and addendum shall be met. This includes,
but is not limited to:
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and
grading plans shall be revised to indicate the
following:
• Five (5) foot high chain link tree protective
fencing shown as recommended by the Arborist wi-h
a note "To remain in place throughout
construction."
• A note shall be included on the site plan stating,
"No construction equipment or private vehicles
shall park or be stored within the dripline of any
ordinance protected trees on the site."
• A note shall be included on the site plan stating,
"The original grade beneath the canopy of each
retained tree shall be left undisturbed and shall
not be rototilled, disced, graded, excavated, or
trenched."
• Trenching for utilities, roof drains or landscape
irrigation shall be shown on the site plan and
located outside of the driplines of all trees
which will be preserved during construction.
• During construction, branches up to 3 inches in
diameter may be cut by construction workers so as
to leave a stub of at least one foot in length
from the branch's point of attachment to the
larger branch. Branches larger than 3 inches in
diameter shall be removed by an ISA- certified
arborist. Any "stubs" from branches 3 inches in
diameter or smaller shall also be removed by an
ISA - certified arborist prior to project
completion.
• The applicant shall submit to the City, in a for-
acceptable to the Community Development Manager,
security in an amount of $2,912 pursuant to the
report and recommendation by the City Arborist to
guarantee the maintenance and preservation of
trees on the subject site. This does not include
the value of Tree #3, which is proposed to be
removed. Shculd the applicant choose to
transplant it on -site, the security shall be
$3,630.
• The applicant shall provide a landscape plan
indicating the replacement trees per Condition 5c.
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits all
the protection measures shall be completed, which
includes but is ncz limited to the following:
• Tree protective fencing shall be installed around
all applicable trees as shown on the Arborist's
report and shall be inspected by staff. Fencing
shall consist of chain link material with a
minimum height of 5 feet mounted on 2 inch
galvanized pipe driven 2 feet into the ground. Nc
grading shall be permitted within the fenced
areas.
• Any trenching for utilities, roof drains or
landscape irrigation shall be located outside t ==
dripline of trees.
C. Prior to Final Inspection:
• Native replacement trees valued at $8,224 shall
installed and inspected by staff. This is
equivalent to one 48 -inch box, two 36 -inch box,
one 24 -inch box, one 15- gallon, and one 5- gallon
native trees. This amount may be reduced if the
applicant chooses to transplant trees on the si:e.
A proposed landscaping plan identifying the
location of trees to be transplanted, including
their size, species, and value, shall be submit- =d
to the Planning Division for review and approval
prior to pursuit of this option.
• The City Arborist shall inspect the site to ver_
compliance with tree maintenance and protection
measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by to
City Arborist and approval by the Community
Development Manager, the tree protection securi-•_.-
shall be released.
• All outstanding City Arborist fees shall be paid.
6. No ordinance protected trees are permitted to be removed
without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the
with the exception of Trees #3, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14,
#15, and #16.
7. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the
canopy of an ordinance _protected oak tree shall comply with
the "Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the
City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall
encroach into the dripline of any existing oak trees unless
approved by the City Arborist.
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
8. Any future pool or tennis court plans which encroach into
the dripline of any ordinance protected tree shall require
City Arborist review and approval prior to issuance of
permits.
9. All requirements of the Saratoga Fire District shall be
adhered to:
a. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed an
maintained in accordance with Article 16 -60 of the Cizy
Code.
b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documenta-
tion relative to the proposed installation and shall be
submitted to the Fire District for approval.
C. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage.
d. The driveway shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus
one -foot wide shoulders, with driveway curve radius and
a turnaround designed to be in accordance with District
requirements.
10. All building and construction related activities shall
adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of
preventing storm water pollution.
11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any
State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with
respect to the applicant's project.
12. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit
shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible 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 2. A Building Permit shall be applied for within 2
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.
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 23rd day of July, 1997 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chair, Planning Com issio
ATTEST:
ec etary, lanning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
August 13, 1997
Chairwoman Patrick referred to possible trash - related problems with
carryout, questioned the start of renovation and a conditional use
permit to monitor unclean conditions.
COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP -97-
004 WITH TEMPORARY SIGNAGE AND SUBJECT TO THE SUBMITTAL OF A
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TO STAFF. MOTION CARRIED 6/0. ABSHIRE ABSENT.
2. DR -97 -029 (APN 397 -16 -147) - PINN BROTHERS, 14135 TAOS COURT
(LOT 5); Request for Design Review approval to construct a
new 5,785 sq. ft. two -story home at 26 ft. in height. The
property is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting an
exception to the height reduction for floor area. The site is
40,424 sq. ft. in size, and is in an R -1- 40,000 zoning
district.
-------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Walgren presented a staff report recommending approval of the
project, commenting that if approved, 2 of the 3 lots in the
development would then be developed.
Chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
Applicant, Chuck Bommarito, representing Pinn Brothers, summarized
that he agreed with the staff report.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned the driveway width and asked that
Pinn Brothers commit to two gas fireplaces and two woodburning with
gas starters.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN / BERNALD MOVED-TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:40 P.M.
Chair Patrick also expressed her concern for the fireplace issue.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -97 -029
WITH THE CONDITION THAT TWO FIREPLACES BE GAS BURNING ONLY AND TWO
BE W6A WITH GAS STARTERS. CARRIED 6/0. ABSHIRE ABSENT.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
3. DR -97 -014 (APN 397 -16 -145) - PINN BROTHERS, 14200 TAOS COURT
(LOT 7) ; Request for Design Review approval to construct a
new 5,860 sq. ft. one -story home at 22 ft. in height. The
property is currently vacant. The site is 51,236 sq. ft. in
size, and is in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district....
----------------------------------------------- --------------
Walgren presented a staff report recommending approval of the
project as design review findings could be made for support. He
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
August 13, 1997
pointed out that a letter from resident Applegate was distributed
this evening.
Chair Patrick opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Applicant, Chuck Bommarito, for Pinn Brothers, requested approval
for his project.
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the 22' height.
Commissioner Bernald expressed concern about the guestroom bath
door configuration.
Summary of neighbor comments:
Neighbor Rich Walker was concerned that the proposed house was not
compatible with the other area houses, that he would have no
privacy, and that the City was not upholding a 1993 Resolution
concerning compatibility.
Neighbor Jeff Applegate's issues were height and size, devaluation
of his house and that the Resolution be enforced.
Neighbor John Teter stated that the project was not compatible with
the rest of the neighborhood and that the Resolution be enforced.
Neighbor Bob Hortin was also concerned with devaluation of his
property and enforcement of the 1993 Resolution. Asked to deny the
request.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
Walgren stated that he was involved with the Commission's decision
to approve the conditions of the Resolution discussed by the
neighbors' and that it was intended to be broad. At the City's
request, Pinn Brothers has redesigned to meet minimum standards and
has not extended to the maximum, which they could.
Summary of the Commissioners' comments /concerns:
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the lot elevation.
Commissioner Kaplan thought the house to be well - designed and
questioned the interpretation of "compatibility."
All Commissioners discussed the issue of "compatibility ".
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PIERCE MOTIONED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -97-
014. THE MOTION CARRIED 5/1. MURAKAMI OPPOSED. ABSHIRE ABSENT.
------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
14200 TAOS COURT `�,�
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
02/07/97
Application complete:
06/20/97
Notice published:
07/09/97
Mailing completed:
07/10/97
Posting completed:
07/03/97
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,860 square
foot one -story residence on a vacant 51,236 square foot parcel
pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposed home is 22
feet high. The parcel is Lot 7 of the eight -lot Sisters of Mercy
Subdivision which the City Council approved in April 1993. It is
located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
The project meets all height, setback, and floor area
requirements; no request for floor area exception is proposed.
An Arborist Report was prepared and is attached. All
recommendations of that report have been incorporated into the
project's conditions of approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR-
97 -014.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
4. Correspondence
5. Plans (Exhibit "A")
,. i; 902
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Very Low Density (RVLD).
MEASURE G: Not applicable.
PARCEL SIZE: 51,236 square feet.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.80
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 100 cu. yds. Max Depth: 2 ft.
Fill: 220 cu. yds. Max Depth: 2 ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Light beige exterior stucco walls
with brown trim on windows and doors, and a Terra cotta "S" tile
roof, per the submitted material board.
HEIGHT /COVERAGE /SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
This figure is the maximum allowable floor area. With a
reduction for heights above 18 feet, the allowable floor
area for the proposed 22 -foot high residence is 5,866
square feet. The proposed 5,860 square foot residence is
within this reduced floor area amount.
7`900
PROPOSAL
CODE REQUIREMENT /
ALLOWANCE
LOT COVERAGE:
210 (10,796 sq.ft.)
30% (15,370 sq.ft.)
HEIGHT:
22 ft.
26 ft.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
Living Area:
5,165 sq.ft.
6,240 sq.ft.
Garage:
695 sq.ft.
TOTAL:
5,860 sq.ft.
SETBACKS:
Front:
52 ft.
52 ft.
Rear:
65 ft.
65 ft.
Right Side:
42 ft.
23 ft.
Left Side:
23 ft.
23 ft.
This figure is the maximum allowable floor area. With a
reduction for heights above 18 feet, the allowable floor
area for the proposed 22 -foot high residence is 5,866
square feet. The proposed 5,860 square foot residence is
within this reduced floor area amount.
7`900
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Site:
In April 1993 the City Council approved the eight -lot Sisters of
Mercy Subdivision at the end of Douglas Lane /Taos Drive, off of
Fruitvale Avenue. The project site is Lot 7 in this subdivision.
Applications for Lots 1 through 4 have been approved by the
Planning Commission within the past two years and are in various
stages of construction. Applications for the remaining three
lots are in various stages of Design Review.
The project site gently slopes downhill from Taos Court toward
Wildcat Creek, and has numerous trees on it. A 60 -foot wide open
space /riparian easement from the centerline of Wildcat Creek
includes the back 14 feet of the property's rear yard. No
development is proposed within this easement.
Design Review:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,860 square foot one -
story residence at a height of 22 feet from natural grade. This
includes an attached three -car garage. No accessory structures
or uses are proposed.
The design of the proposed residence is a contemporary
mediterranean style, with stucco exterior walls and arched
windows on the front elevation, and a terra cotta "S" tile roof
proposed at a 4/12 pitch. The rear floor plan is a stair -step
layout, stepping away from the neighboring properties to the
north such that no windows face them. The design makes good use
of windows and varied rooflines to minimize height and bulk, as
called for in the City's Design Guidelines.
Staff has determined that the design is consistent with
Requirement #24 of the Tentative Map resolution for this
Subdivision, which states,
1124. Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon
finding that the proposed structure is compatible in
terms of 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. Future
development of lots 6 & 7 in particular, shall be
compatible in terms of size and height with the
existing adjacent structures to the north and west."
This particular requirement has been the subject of several
inquiries made to staff by neighboring property owners (see
attached letters.) Their concerns focus on the need to keep the
size of this home in keeping with the size of their surrounding
File No. DR -97 -014; 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7)
homes, as they feel this was the intent of the requirement.
Given this, the proposed 5,860 square foot one -story residence is
actually larger than the surrounding 2,000 to 3,400 square foot
one -story homes in the area. However, the home requires no
variances or floor area exceptions, and is a one -story home at 22
feet in height as opposed to a two -story home at 26 -foot maximum
height possible per the City Code. Further, the City Code allows
the neighboring homes to ultimately expand to meet or exceed the
size of the proposed home.
Given these factors, it is difficult to deny the project as
proposed based on the merits of the City Code and the general
intent of Requirement #24, and staff is recommending approval as
proposed.
An alternative that could be considered is to limit the home to
18 feet in height (general height for a one -story home,) but that
would only result in a lower roof pitch rather than a smaller
home. A second alternative is to both lower the height to 18
feet and reduce the size of the home to be within the 2,000 to
3,400 square foot range. Staff does not support this alternative
for the reasons stated above.
Grading
Grading is necessary to construct the structure's foundation and
driveway. The applicant is also proposing to fill onto the
gentle downhill slope, and is proposing to route drainage around
the residence.
Trees:
The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and determined that
of the 75 total trees on the site, 36 are ordinance protected
trees. These are a mix of Coast Live Oaks, Coast Redwoods, and
Douglas firs. Of these, 16 are potentially in conflict with
construction (7 oaks, 6 redwoods, and 3 fir trees,) and 8 are
proposed to be removed (1 oak, 5 redwoods, and 2 fir trees.)
The Arborist further identified numerous smaller trees that are
in conflict with construction and which do not fall within the
ordinance size criteria, but which could be successfully
transplanted to another location on the site. Further, the
Arborist concludes that Tree #3, which is the one oak to be
removed, could be transplanted.
Replacement trees will be required for those trees to be removed,
and recommended protection measures for all remaining trees have
been included as conditions of approval in the attached
resolution. Provisions for transplanting as many trees as
possible has also been incorporated in those conditions.
File No. DR -97 -014: 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7
Landscaping shown along the north property line on the site plans
is for privacy screening and includes several replacement trees.
CONCLUSION:
Staff finds that the project is consistent with the City Code
requirements and the City's Residential Design Guidelines, and
that the Design Review findings can be made to support the
proposed home pursuant to Section 15 -45 of the City Code.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request.
RECOMMENDATION•
Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution No.
DR -97 -014.
Richard and Connie Walker
14188 Quail Acres
Saratoga, CA 95070
408/741 -0697
May 4, 1997
Carol Deming, Assistant Planner
Planning Department
City of Saratoga
Subject: Objection to Plans for
14200 Taos Court,
Tract # 8600, Lot 7
Pinn Bros. Development
Dear Ms. Deming,
AfAY 71997
PLANNING pEP7;
We are opposed to the current plans for this property. The proposed
house size is in violation of Resolution No. SD -92 -008, Resolution
Approving Tentative Map of Sisters of Mercy: 19855 Douglass Lane,
dated 5/3/93. Paragraph 24 in brief states "... Future
development of lots 6 &. 7 in particular, shall be
compatible in terms of size and height with the existing
adjacent .structures to the north and west."
Our house is directly North of Lot 7, as shown in the attached
Tentative Map for the Sisters of Mercy, J.M.H. #3234, dated 3/2/93,
under the name of Strasburger, PCL I. The proposed house is 5480
sq. ft. and is 18 ft. high. Our house is 2,324 sq. ft. and approximately
18 ft. high. As you can see the proposed size is in no way
"compatible in terms of size ". Both our properties are similar acre
plus lots.
We purchased our house in 1994, based on this contract with the
City of Saratoga, that the house built behind us would be compatible.
The city would be in breach of contract if they allowed the proposed
house of this size to be built. It would reduce our privacy, the
aesthetics of our backyard and the overall quality of life. Due to the
rectangular shape of their lot, it would be very close to the back
part of our property. Our house is set back in our property due to the
creek cutting across our front yard. Thus, our pool and outside living
area, where we spend most of our time, would be right next to this
very large house. A house of this size would create a very large bulk
like appearance and would not be in keeping with the neighborhood.
In addition, with the size of this house, their entertainment area
would be pushed down right next to our fence line further impacting
our quality of life.
Their property is already 10 ft. higher than ours. Thus, an 18 ft. high
house would be 28 feet, almost 3 stories high behind us and close to
our fence line. No type of natural screening could be placed that
would mitigate this impact. The filtered light through the trees
would be eliminated. Plus, natural screening is not permanent and
can be lost due to natural causes or the owner cutting them down
whether they are allowed to or not.
This loss of privacy, sun light and overall quality of life, which we
paid for, would reduce our property value significantly and the
utility of our property. It would not increase it as some people
would suggest even though that house would sell for much more. We
will not accept the reduction in our property value and quality of
life so that Pinn Brothers Construction can make more money on
their investment.
They knew that this restriction was in place when they bought the
property and thus, I am sure their purchase price reflected this
reduction in value. If they did not take it into account, we should
not have to make up for their mistake by allowing them to build a
larger house. When we met with them November 8th, 1995, they
told us they were planning to sell all the houses for around $1.4 to
$1.6 million each. Since then, the market has improved dramatically
and they are now selling them for $2.5 million plus. With this
potential windfall, they have ignored the restriction on lot 7 and
have proposed the maximum possible house size. If they are allowed
to build this size, it would be equivalent to stealing, i.e. taking part
of our property value to increase their profits.
Our neighbor's house, which is also affected by lot 7 and is listed as
Peyster, PCL 2 on the attached map, is approximately 3400 sq. ft.
and is lower in height than our house. We propose that a compatible
house would be a size similar to our neighbor's house. This would
enable them to get the price they had originally targeted for these
properties and also comply with the resolution.
Please help us. We depend on you to protect us and enforce the
contract we have with the city on this issue. We trust this can be
settled within normal channels. We prefer not having to pursue
other means of protecting our property value that was guaranteed to
us in that resolution.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard and Connie Walker
RESOLUTION NO. SD -92 -008
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
SISTERS OF MERCY; 19855 Douglass Lane
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 eight (8) lots, all as more particularly set forth
in File No. SD -92 -008 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 are compatible with the objectives, policies and
general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,
reference to the staff report dated March 24, 1993 being hereby
made for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the
environmental Negative Declaration prepared for this project in
accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to
said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in
accord 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, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated November 1992
and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and
the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
1. Prior to submittal of a 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.
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 in Section
14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for
examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the informa-
File No. SD -92 -008; 19855 Douglass Lane
18. Abandon and seal all existing wells to Santa Clara valley
Water District standards prior to Final Map Approval.
19. The'owner (applicant) shall install two (2) fire hydrants that
meet the Saratoga Fire District's specifications, pursuant to
the 1991 Uniform Fire. Code. Water flow shall be .based on
maximum 6,400 sq. ft. potential future residences and shall
provide a minimum of 1,750 GPM.
20. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code
Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing.
21. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and main-
tained in future homes, in accordance with City of Saratoga
Code Article 16 -60.
22. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed
attached /detached garages.
23. Future development of Lots 1 through 8 shall require Design
Review approval. Building sites shall be consistent with the
approved building envelopes and based on current Zoning
ordinance regulations and City policy. The location of any
structures on lots 1 -8 shall maximize tree preservation in
situ (trees within approved envelopes should be preserved in
place rather than transplanted as called out on the Tentative
Map) .
24. Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon finding
that the proposed structure is compatible in terms of 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. Future development of lots 6 & 7 in particular, shall
be compatible in terms of size and height with the existing
adjacent structures to the north and west.
25. Prior to Final Map approval, the existing "Crowell" house on
Lot 2 shall be photographically documented. This information
shall then be incorporated into the Heritage Resource Invento-
ry file #23 for this structure.
26. Any future significant modifications to, or demolition of, the
existing residence on Lot 2 shall require review by the
Heritage Preservation Commission.
27. A riparian habitat preservation /open space easement shall be
recorded along the west property line of Lots,l, 6 and 7, 60
ft. from the centerline of Wildcat Creek. No built improve-
ments, with the exception of open wire fencing with spacing
File No. SD-92 -008; 19855 Douglass bane
NOES: none
ABSENT: BOGOSIAN
Chair, Planning Commis ion
ATTEST: n_,e
Secretary, Planzjing commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted:
.-UAd 5/3143
Signature of pplican Date
Vir -
11 jl ✓ ll STRASBURG
;3-4'7
CYST
°ee' -
i
a ,
at girmarm:
■.T[a .T anuaa�t� om
{� O. ■aa/ vT1sa. CDW$T. sac
fly awTT • `•
([y 3T[a
50,000
80113.10.9 P-9
T41911 AN
411:11 \Nccgssaov
6.0% caufft
APPOMCMX I A" 40 4 11.11 ' ...[awa
ART 'I
a..s . 1'.
�� 'g0:000 :t• / -
Igo
tI d/ 3 0 Lf 48,000 s
'-
A
sr
� �
r `S -BALK: 'CTOrrp�`�✓
�R /
:..r I FOh ' did'' o~/ / 004 ftwowa
rus S. J r •'�' /, / — \ .,\ 200• \ \ !"� !00 s-•b
i ,o �i. rot' c lea � : t f
�s r _
CIAL
Csa
�A,,,, � •.\
tffI
OAL- «
Line
4.
cral
AT c-TuAlam.
t � c ios.a •i9 ., w�a
YA.'l �w• �/�� T/ //•1/ w�a Yl.aO' .1
!7' N ■ a lVn[a � . -42 0 S.f. • - --- va•''}�.i d, •w �«••..w• i.:`.n
51,00
'iao"t ' �1f' aaDA c .Rice Or- s • s.',
IaT • .IOM T
soon S-11.0%
2 i — •10^ _
.110 Ti ` D i\ \ \ o,
•11�.�� [uR �aMc. coo
aT cues•
wroww wl aw TT[a AND
Cn c 1 \; �'•,..'A �a 4 p Tw11a- •le[■ naceT
��• . / enc IBS �. — _ - jl � T■.w.,T.e■
DA.". � .a afOb. DT all
IaT
JOHN D. TETER
— LAW OFFICES —
1550 The Alameda, Suite 301
San Jose, California 95126
TEL. (408) 289 -8044
FAX (408) 289 -8046
May 15, 1997
Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
ATTN: Carol Deming, Asst. Planner
Re: Tract No. 8600, Lots 6 and 7
Dear Planning Commission Members:
r.I VeD
MAY 19 7997
LcPr
I have inspected the blueprints and walked the construction sites for Lots 6 and 7 of the
above tract, and I must voice my objection to the proposed site development plan for Lots 6 and
7. The basis for my objection is the non - conformity of the site development plans with the
agreement reached between the City of Saratoga and the owners of the Sisters of Mercy property
as contained in Resolution #SD -92 -008 approving the tentative map for the tract. That
agreement specifically states at paragraph 24 that the homes built on Lots 6 and 7 will be
compatible in terms of size and height with adjacent structures to the north and west.
My house is located at 19931 Durham Court and is a 80 -100 year old 2,300 square foot
structure (including partial basement). I write this letter also in my capacity as counsel for the
Chiens who live at 19930 Durham Court and whose house is approximately 3,100 square feet
(including a two car garage). The Chien's lot is immediately West of Lot 6 and my lot is
immediately West of Lot 7, and as such, these are two of the lots with which any homes
constructed on Lots 6 and 7 must be compatible. On behalf of myself and my wife as well as
the Chins who have specifically retained me is protect their interest in this situation, we
demand that the City give full faith and credit
constructed on Lots 6 and 7 will be compatible
west.
to its prior commitment that the homes to be
with the adjacent structures to the north and
While it may appear to the Planning Commission that they are currently presented with
the difficulty of transitioning the Taos Court - Douglas Lane (east) - Donna Lane large home
neighborhood with the older, smaller homes of the Quail Acres - Durham Court - Douglas Lane
(west) neighborhood, I would like to point out to the Planning Commission that the decision as
to the point of transition has already been made. The determination made on May 3, 1993
contained in paragraph 24 of Resolution #SD -92 -008 has already resolved this issue by declaring
that the transition shall occur within the Douglas Estates development.
Very truly yours,
Teter
JDT: cd
"a4)0. GI
JOHN D. TETER
— LAW OFFICES —
1550 The Alameda, Suite 301
San Jose, California 95126
JUL 17 1997 TEL (408) 289.8044
FAX (408) 289 -8046
PLAwiv(wu ULPT.
July 16, 1997
sent via facsimile
(408) 868 -1281
Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
ATTN: Carol Deming, Asst. Planner
Re: Tract No. 8600, Lot No. 6 & 7, APN 397 -16 -136;
Objection to Design Review Approval
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I live at 19931 Durham Court which property is the immediate western neighbor of
14200 Taos Court (Lot 7).
As previously clarified in my letter to you of May 15, 1997, I object to the proposed
structures on the basis of the non - conformity of the proposed development with the limitations
contained in Resolution No. SD -92 -008 approving the tentative map for the tract. In specific,
the home to be built on Lot 7 was required by paragraph 24 of that resolution to be compatible
in terms of size and height with adjacent structures to the north and west.
The applicant proposes a 5,860 square foot home. The proposed structure is more than
two times the square footage of either my 2,300 square foot home (the adjacent structure to the
west) or the 2,400 square foot home of Rich and Connie Walker (the adjacent structure to the
north).
Applicant is attempting to disregard the limitations contained in the prior Resolution and
submits its plans for design review approval on the basis of zoning and lot size as if no other
limitations were applicable to this lot.
This land was acquired by Applicant subject to the restriction contained in paragraph 24
of Resolution No. SD -92 -008 and Applicant paid the seller a purchase price based on the value
of the property subject to that limitation. Applicant now attempts to unjustly enrich itself by
developing the property with a significantly larger structure at the expense and over the objection
of the adjoining neighbors to the north and west.
�` �0 0 a
The Planning Commission has already examined the issue of the appropriate size and
height of the structure to be built on this lot and determined that the transition between the
smaller home neighborhoods to the north/west and larger home neighborhoods to the south/east
would occur within the tract itself. This determination is clearly evidenced by the unique
limitations on the size and height of structures which could be built on some but not all lots
within the tract.
It is ingenuine at best for applicant to now expect the Planning Commission to grant
design review approval for construction so clearly prohibited by the Resolution approving the
tentative map.
I strongly urge you to preserve the integrity of the Planning Commission's prior
determination and require that applicant pay respect to both the purpose and intent of the prior
restriction on this property.
Very truly yours,
John D. Teter
JDT: cd
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ?' + I
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM `�^' C7)
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement with Geoffrey L. Rothman & Associates for
Reorganization Consulting Services
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to approve the agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a proposed agreement with Geoffrey L. Rothman & Associates for consulting services
in connection with the City's Reorganization. Heretofore, Mr. Rothman was to have provided
these services as a sub - consultant through Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, the firm assisting the City
with labor negotiations and other human resources activities. However, since most of the work in
connection with the reorganization is being provided directly by Mr. Rothman, LC &F has
suggested that the City contract directly with him in order to reduce the City's costs and their
administrative efforts. By doing this, the City will save $15 per hour for Mr. Rothman's time
consulting for the City. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement, and is satisfied with its
contents.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The total fees estimated to be paid to Mr. Rothman is between $7,500 and $10,000. Sufficient
funds for these services have been programmed in the adopted budget in Activity 77 (Human
Resources), Account 4510 (Contract Services).
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The agreement would not be approved and Mr. Rothman's fees would be billed through and paid
by LC &F at a higher cost to the City.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The agreement will be signed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agreement.
2. Letter from LC &F dated August 13.
CONTRACT FOR INDEPENDENT CONSULTING SERVICES
This contract is made by and between the City of Saratoga
(hereinafter City) and Geoffrey L Rothman and Associates (hereinafter
Consultant), for independent contractor services as described -herein.
1. Scope of Work: Consultant will provide .services to the City
of Saratoga as follows
- Analyze the duties performed, through job analysis
questionnaires, interviews or other means of positions as
determined by the City.
- Consult. and meet with staff from the City in connection with
strategizing and developing plans to carryout any
classification actions.
Develop new job classifications as needed.
Prepare examination announcements.
Recommend salary ranges for new classifications.
Advise and assist. regarding procedures for appointing current
employees into new classifications.
Provide related professional classification and compensation
services.
2. Consultants Expertise: Consultant represents the he possesses
:unique experience and professional training which qualifies Consultant to
provide consulting services as an independent contractor for the services
described above.
3. Term of Contract: Unless terminated in conformance with Section 8
herein, this Contract will terminate on December 31, 1997. The term of
1
contract may be modified by written agreement of the parties.
4. Performance of Duties: Consultant agrees to provide the service
described above, and to devote Consultant's best and diligent efforts and
render professionals services for the benefit of the City as agreed
between the parties.
This contract is not an exclusive consulting contract, and the
parties understand that Consultant may provide services for others during
the term of the contract. However, Consultant agrees that during the term
of this contract, Consultant will not perform services on behalf of any
other person, firm or public entity which would conflict with or impede
the performance of Consultant's independent duties performed for the
City.
Consultant agrees that Consultant will not at any time serve as an
expert witness on any matter involving personal services herein for any
party in litigation or administrative proceedings adverse to the City.
5. Use of Personal Equipment: Consultant represents that while
Consultant carries out obligations under this Contract, Consultant will
independently provide Consultant's own office space, equipment, permits
and licenses and anything else necessary to perform Consultant's
independent professional duties in accord with Consultant's own
professional standards.
6. Compensation: During the term of this Contract the City shall pay
Consultant for services rendered as described in Section 1, based on the
rate of $85 per hour, including travel to and from Consultant's place of.
business. Consultant will provide periodic bills for his services, and the _
bills shall provide a detail of services actually performed. Consultant
agrees that in no event shall the cost of services under this agreement
exceed $8,500.
7. Ownership of Work Product: All writings and work products
generated by Consultant under this Contract are the sole and exclusive
property of the City.
o
it
8.. Termination of Contract: Either party may terminate this Contract .
in the event that the., other- violates any of the terms of this Contract or
fails to, or becomes unable 'to, perform obligation. in. accordance with this
contract and fails to cure such violation or nonperformance after 25 days
written notice thereof.
In the event of termination ,Consultant shall be entitled to compensation
for those service actually rendered on the basis specified herein through
the date of termination; and thereafter the City shall have no further
obligation to the Consultant for further compensation.
9. Notice: Any notice required under this Contract shall be deemed to
have been given on the date of the postmark of the notice deposited as
first class mail to the following addresses:
Office of the City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Geoffrey L Rothman & Associates
12 El Quanito Way
Burlingame, CA 94010
10. Modifications and Integration: This Contract may be modified only
by mutual consent, expressed in writing, by the City and the Consultant.
This writing constitutes the full and final expression of the Contract
between the parties, and supersedes any and all prior written or verbal
agreements, representations and discussions between the parties.
City of Saratoga Geoffrey LrRot�man &
Associates M
Dated: Dated :\" v 1 I� d 11
3
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON
49 Stevenson Street, Suite 1050
San Francisco, Uifon is 94105 -2909
tel 415 - 546 -6100 fax 415 -546 -6831
email Icfsf ®aol.com
6033 West Century Boulevard, Suite 601
Los Angeles, Uifomia 90045.6410
tel 310 - 645.6492 fax 310337 -0837
email Icfla ®aol.com
August 13, 1997
Michael S. Riback
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson
777 Davis Street, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
RE: City of Saratoga
Contract for Geoffrey L. Rothman & Associates
Dear Mike:
P"� WV
.� .ado
Enclosed is a contract prepared by Geoffrey Rothman. As we discussed, we think it is
appropriate if the City contracts directly with Mr. Rothman. Could you please take steps to
obtain the necessary approval for this contract?
Thanks and please contact me if I can assist in any way. Please note that a direct contract
with Mr. Rothman represents a cost savings of $15 per hour.
Very truly yours,
L IEBERT, CASSIDY & FFJE,RSON
L
Arthur A. Hartinger
AAH:kt `
cc: Geoffrey L. Rothman
No. 752
A Professional Law Corporation
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 1 /V AGENDA ITEM -7C10'
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1997 CITY MGR. % . •
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: CIVIC CENTER CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION DEFEASANCE
(RETIREMENT) - ABAG :VM, SERIES A
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga relating to the prepayments
of principal component of the lease payments due under a lease agreement with ABAG Finance
Corporation and approving related documents and actions;
2. Authorize City Manger to issue purchase orders for the following professional services:
a) Jones, Hall, Hill & White, in the amount of $5,000, to serve as bond counsel,
b) Kelling, Northcross, & Nobriga, for gratis, to serve as financial advisor,
c) First Trust, in the amount of $1,800, to serve as escrow agent and
d) Ernest & Young, in the amount of $1,200, to serve as verification agent and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement with First
Trust National Association.
Report Summary: The 1997/98 Approved Budget included funding for the retirement of the Civic
Center debt in the amount of $1,971,977. Approval of the above motions sets forth the necessary
actions to proceed with the retirement.
Discussion: In order to retire the Civic Center debt, the City must perform a number of steps. Those
steps include: 1) approving a resolution which authorizes the legal defeasance of the debt, 2)
establishing a bond retirement team, which includes bond counsel, financial advisor, escrow agent and
verification agent, 3) creating a trust for the purposes of paying off the debt at the redemption date, 4)
funding the trust by bank wire from the City's invested portfolio, 5) purchasing authorized securities
matched to mature on or before redemption date and 6) calling all outstanding certificates on
redemption date (June 1, 2000).
The prepayment resolution has been prepared by bond counsel and reviewed by staff. The resolution
provides the legal authority to retire the debt and must be approved by Council in order to proceed
with the retirement.
The bond retirement team consists of seasoned professionals knowledgeable in the field of debt
issuance and retirement. Both the bond counsel and financial advisor served on the original issuance.
The escrow agent is the current trustee for the debt. The verification agent is a Big 6 accounting firm
with expertise in performing retirement/refunding calculations. The combined fees for the team is
estimated at $13,000, which is well under the original $25,000 estimated by staff. For Council's
information, proposals are attached to this report.
During the interim period, between the time the City has funded the retirement (September 15, 1997
est.) and prior to the redemption date (June 1, 2000), a non - revocable trust must be established for
the sole purpose of retiring the debt. The trust must be fully funded by the City to ensure adequate
funds exist on or before the redemption date to cover the call. By federal law, the trust can only invest
in securities of the highest quality and grade, usually obligations of the federal or other credit worthy
governments.
The financial advisor has prepared a preliminary payoff calculation for purposes of this report. Their
estimate, which is attached to this report, is $1,988,967.19 to retire the debt. Staff budgeted
$1,971,977 for the payoff. The difference is primarily attributable to different interest rate assumptions.
The actual cost will not be known until the investments are acquired by the trust on September 15`'
and all the invoices for services are paid. Staff will come back to Council with a clean up budget
resolution if one is required.
If the retirement proceeds as scheduled, on September 150i, the debt will officially be retired and will no
longer be on the City's books.
The last step to be taken is to call the certificates on June 1, 2000. The escrow agent notifies all the
debt holders and pays them off The City has no involvement in this activity.
Concluding Remarks: Staff recommends authorization of the above motions. Funds have been set
aside for this purpose in the 1997/98 Approved Budget. Furthermore, this action is consistent with
Council's policy of using one time funds for purposes of paying one time expenses.
Fiscal Impacts: Of the $1,988,967.19 estimated to retire the debt, $1,971,977 is approved for
expenditure in the Budget. The difference, roughly $17,000 as presently estimated, will come from the
unappropriated General Fund balance. The unappropriated General Fund balance as of June 30, 1997
was $4,440,593 (unaudited) and adequate resources exist to proceed with this action.
Follow Up Actions: Complete agreements, issue purchase orders, fund escrow, pay invoices and
prepare budget amendment, if necessary.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Do not retire debt. Continue to pay
annual debt service in excess of $200,000 until May, 2011.
2
Attachments
1. Implementing Resolution
2. Bond Counsel Proposal
3. Financial Advisor Proposal
4. Escrow Agent Proposal
5. Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement
6. Preliminary Payoff Calculation
c:\execsumm\ex%mO826.97
3
1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
RELATING TO THE PREPAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL
COMPONENT OF LEASE PAYMENTS DUE UNDER A LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH ABAG FINANCE CORPORATION AND
APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga (the "City") has previously entered into a Lease
Agreement dated as of October 1, 1992 (the "Lease Agreement ") with the ABAG Finance
Corporation (the "Corporation "), under which the City has leased certain real property and
improvements from the Corporation and as consideration therefore has agreed to pay
semiannual lease payments (the "Lease Payments ") to the Corporation, which Lease Payments
are payable from any source of available funds of the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Assignment Agreement dated as of October 1, 1992, the
Corporation assigned and transferred certain of its rights under the Lease Agreement, including
its right to receive Lease Payments, to First Trust National Association, successor to Seattle -First
National Bank (the "Trustee "); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of a Trust Agreement dated as of October 1, 1992 (the
'"Trust Agreement "), by and among the Trustee, the Corporation, the City and the City of South
Gate, the Trustee executed and delivered certificates of participation (the "Certificates ") in the
aggregate principal amount of $6,860,000, the payments of principal and interest of which are
derived in part by the Lease Payments to be made by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement, the City may provide for the
payment and prepayment of Lease Payments, and therefore provide for the corresponding
payment and prepayment of outstanding Certificates which represent interests in the City's
Lease Payments pursuant to the Trust Agreement, by depositing cash or certain securities with
the Trustee or an escrow holder under an escrow deposit and trust agreement in an amount
sufficient to pay principal, interest and premium (if any) on the Lease Payments; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes at this time to provide for the payment and prepayment of
the unpaid principal component of the Lease Payments due under the Lease Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes at this time to authorize and approve all
proceedings for the payment and prepayment of the unpaid principal component of the Lease
Payments due under the Lease Agreement, and all related documents and actions, in
furtherance of such purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga as follows:
Section 1. Approval of Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The City Council
hereby approves an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement by and between the City and an
escrow bank to be determined by the Finance Director, in substantially the form on file with the
City Clerk, together with any changes therein or additions thereto a proved by the Mayor, the
City Manager or the Finance Director (each, an "Authorized Officer and the execution thereof
by an Authorized Officer shall be conclusive evidence of such approval. An Authorized Officer
is hereby authorized and directed for and in the name and on behalf of the City to execute, and
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest and affix the seal of the City to, the
final form of the Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement.
Section 2. Official Actions. Each Authorized Officer, and all other officers of the City,
are authorized and directed in the name and on behalf of the City to make any and all
assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, instruments of conveyance,
warrants and other documents, including a termination agreement and appointment of an
escrow verification agent and escrow bank, which they or any of them might deem necessary or
appropriate in order to consummate any of the transactions contemplated herein and approved
pursuant to this Resolution. Whenever in this resolution any officer of the City is directed to
execute or countersign any document or take any action, such execution, countersigning or
action may be taken on behalf of such officer by any person designated by such officer to act on
his or her behalf in the case such officer shall be absent or unavailable.
Section 3. Appointment of Financial Advisor and Special Counsel. The firm of
Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, is hereby engaged as special counsel to the City
pursuant to the terms of a letter dated May 9, 1997 and addressed to the Administrative Services
Director for the purpose of accomplishing the prepayment of the Lease Payments and the
Certificates, and the firm of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. is hereby engaged as financial
advisor.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of September, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor of the
[Seal] City of Saratoga
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the
City of Saratoga
-2-
MAY 09 '97 15:52 AT &T FAX 9035FX P.1i1
joigEs HALL HILL & WHITIE,
A PR08ESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
cHARLES F. ADAMS FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER
STEPHLN R. CASALEC:G'O NINETEENTH FLOOR
THOMAS A DOWNEY SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111
ANDREW G HALL. JR. (415) 391 -8780
COURTNEY L. JONES FA SIXII.E
cuimsTOPHER X. LYNCH (618) 091.5784
WILLIAM H. MA MON
D^V= J.OSTEM KENNETH I. JONES
DAVID A. WALTON OF COVNSUL
SHARON STANTON wMTH May 9, 1997
ROBERT J. HILL. (uoCSt -1CHB)
VIA FACSIMILE, H014EPnGRhup: / /www.lhhw.com
(408) 741 -1132
Mr. Thomas Fil
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Defeasance of City of Saratoga Lease Agreement (ABAG XXVI, Series A)
Dear Thomas:
This will confirm our recent conversation, in which I indicated that we can assist the
City in its efforts to defease the captioned issue.
The defeasance will be accomplished pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Lease Agreement
and Section 14.01 of the Trust Agreement. The defeasance will require the deposit of Federal
Securities into an escrow which will be sufficient, in the opinion of an independent certified
public accountant, to pay all Lease Payments to the first call date (June 1, 2000) and redeem
the remaining principal of the Lease Payments (and corresponding amount of Certificates), plus
a premium of 2 %, plus accrued interest to the call date.
Our responsibilities will include the necessary tax analysis to assure compliance with the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, drafting of Approving Resolution of the City Council, drafting
the Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, delivery of an opinion that defeasance has occurred,
and coordination of the closing with the Trustee, the financial advisor (who will run the
numbers) and the escrow verification agent. I will be the attorney primarily responsible for the
legal documents, but I will also receive assistance from Dave Walton, our tax attorney, and our
Closing Department.
I propose that our fee for the above will be a flat $5,000, inclusive of costs, payable at
funding of escrow.
If this proposal is acceptable to you, please let me know, and we will proceed with
drafting of documents.
Very truly yours,
�tJWilliam H. Madison, Esq.
08 -11 -97 10:21AM FROM KNN
TO 14088681280 P002/002
August 8, 1997
Mr. Thomas Fil
Finance Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
KELLING, NORTHCROSS & NORRIGA, INC.
Serving as Financial Advisor u) Public /VTencies
Re: Cash Defeasance of ABAG 26
Dear Mr. Fil:
Per our conversation, Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga would provide the following services with respect to the
cash defeasance of your ABAG 26 issue:
1. Prepare and monitor transaction schedule and coordinate the activities of Bond/Tax Counsel, Escrow
Agent/Trustee and Verification Agent.
2. Review all legal documents, i.e. resolutions and Escrow Agreement.
3_ Identify escrow requirements.
4. If open market securities are required for defeasance, obtain bids from securities providers and confirm best
bid/escrow sufficiency.
5. If SLGs can be used for defeasance, identify required SLGs and work with Escrow Agent on submission
of SLG order to Bureau of Public Debt.
6. Coordinate verification report with Verification Agent and Bond/Tax Counsel.
I have a call in to Jones Hall's tax counsel as to whether we will be able to order SLGs or will need to purchase
open market securities for the escrow. As a cash defeasance should be fairly straightforward, from our
perspective, we do not contemplate charging you for our role in this transactions.
Please call me at 510- 208 -8209 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
P -PP--
ir'S
Marian Breitbart
Assistant Vice President
1333 13roodwap, Suire 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510.839.8200 Pox 510.208-4287 i,Nxci i10 -70S .'50.
08-18 -97 08:27AM FROM KNN TO 14088681280 P001 /003
.4
KELLING, NORTHCRO S S & NOBRIGA, INC.
Serving as Financial Advisor to Public Agencies
1333 Broadway
Date:
August 18, 1997
Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
To:
Thomas Fil
Voice:
City of Saratoga
510- 839 -8200
Re:
Trustee
Fax:
1- 408 - 868 -1280
Fax:
Pages:
2, including this cover sheet.
5JO- 208 -8282
510- 208 -8250
From:
Marian Breitbart
E -mail.
510- 208 -8209
info@knninc.com
Project #
Web Site:
www.knninc.com
Comments:
This is a one time charge. No charge for ordering securities. The last
time I went out for bids for an escrow agent -fees varied from $1,050 to
$2,700 with only one bid below $1,800. Normally, we like to keep
escrow with trustee of refunded bonds -so I would suggest we accept
First Trust's bid.
FAX
TRANSMISSION
08 -18 -97 08:27AM FROM KNN TO 14088681280
AUG -15 -1997 19:11 FIRST TRUST NATL. ASMC.
First Trust
National Association
,Wurim
W urkm S~
W* 2120
Seeflle, WA W01
Nancy D. Stahl. CC I
Vice President 6 Team Manager
(206) 461.1113
(206) 461 -4176 (FAX)
August 15, 1997
Marion Breltbart
Kelling, NoRhcross & Nobriga
1333 Broadway Suite 1000
Oakland CA 94612
RE: ABAG FINANCE CORPORATION
Refunding -ABAG 26A
City of Saratoga
Dear Marion:
P002/003
206 461 4178 P.02/03
*'WA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION"
On behalf of First Trust National Association, I am pleased to submit the following information and
pricing for services as Escrow Agent for the above referenced financing. Our fee, based upon our
understanding of the transaction, is set forth on the attached schedule.
Frrst Trust is committed to providing you, the City and ABAG with professional, responsive and
personal delivery of Corporate Trust services_ I look forward to the opportunity of continuing as
Relationship Manager for ABAG. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the fee quoted
on this schedule, please call me.
Yours truly.
Member First Book System
08 -18 -97 08:27AM FROM KNN
RUG -15 -1997 19 =12
t
ACCEPTANCE FEE
FEE
TO 14088681280 P003/003
FIRST TRUST NATL. ASSOC. 206 461 4178 P.03103
No CwutGF
$1,800.00
This fee hovers the holding of funds, Securities, or other property for safekeeping or delivery upon
the fulfillment of the escrow agreement. Thts fee does not cover legal review of the documents- It
is anticipated, at this time, that such legal review will not be required. However, First Tout
National Association reserves the right to refer any or all escrow documents for legal review prior
to execution. Legal fees and expenses for this service would be billed to the cusomter. This fee
is based upon our understanding of the transaction and is subject to revision if the structure is
changed. The escow fee is an upfront fee payable upon the execution of the documents.
EXTRAORDINARY SERVICES AT CosT
If the Agent is reQuked to assume duties or responsibilities of an unusual nature not provided W
in the Escrow Agreement or oftrmse set forth In this schedule, to amend existing documents or
restructure the financing, to Incur legal fees and expenses or to perform• Services during a default,
e reasonable charge Will be made based upon the nature of the service and responsibility
involved. Such charges, (other then attomeys fees and expenses which will be blued at cost), will
be flied at the Agent's hourty rate then in effect or assessed at a flat fee, at the Agents option.
k"Ust 15.1907
TOTAL P.e3
1�1
29262 -01 JHHW: WHM:CLJ 08/25/97
ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT
by and between the
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
and
FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Escrow Bank
Dated September 11, 1997
Relating to the Defeasance of a portion of:
$6,860,000
Certificates of Participation
Series A
Evidencing Direct, Undivided Fractional Interests
of the Owners Thereof in Lease Payments
to be made by One or Both of the
Cities of Saratoga and South Gate
to the ABAG Finance Corporation
ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT
This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this
11th day of September, 1997, by and between CITY OF SARATOGA, a general law city and
municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the
"City"), and FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association duly
organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as escrow bank and as
Trustee, as hereinafter defined (the "Escrow Bank ");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has heretofore entered into a Lease Agreement, dated as of
October 1, 1992, by and between the ABAG Finance Corporation (the "Corporation ") and the
City (the "Lease Agreement "), pursuant to which the Corporation agreed to lease certain real
property and improvements (the "Project') to the City, and the City agreed to make certain
lease payments (the "Lease Payments ") to the Corporation;
WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement provides that in the event that the City deposits, or
causes the deposit on its behalf of, cash or certain non - callable Federal Securities (as defined in
the Lease Agreement), in an amount, together with investment earnings, sufficient to make the
Lease Payments when and as due with prepayment thereof, then all of the obligations of the
City under the Lease Agreement and all of the security provided by the City for such
obligations, excepting only the obligation of the City to make the Lease Payments from said
deposit, shall cease and terminate, and all right, title and interest to the Project shall be vested
in the City without further action by the City or the Corporation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Assignment Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1992 (the
"Assignment Agreement'), by and between the Corporation and the Escrow Bank, as trustee
(the "Trustee "), -the Corporation assigned to the Trustee its rights to receive Lease Payments
from the City and the right to exercise such rights and remedies conferred on the Corporation
under the Lease Agreement to enforce payment of the Lease Payments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Trust Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1992, by and among
the Trustee, the Corporation, the City and the City of South Gate (the "Trust Agreement'), the
Trustee agreed, among other matters, to execute and deliver certificates of participation (the
"Certificates ") representing undivided fractional interests of the owners thereof to receive lease
payments and to apply such lease payments to the payment of principal and interest with
respect to the Certificates, and to administer certain funds and accounts, created pursuant to
the Trust Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City at this
time to prepay the Lease Payments under the Lease Agreement and, as a result thereof, to
provide for the payment of the portion of the Certificates representing interests in the City's
Lease Payments through June 1, 2000, and to redeem such outstanding Certificates maturing on
and after June 1, 2001, in full on June 1, 2000, at the redemption price of 102% of the principal
amount thereof, plus accrued interest; and
WHEREAS, to that end, the City proposes to make the deposit of moneys and Federal
Securities referenced in Section 10.1 of the Lease Agreement and to appoint the Escrow Bank as
its agent for the purpose of applying said deposit to provide for the payment of the Lease
Payments in accordance with the instructions provided by this Escrow Deposit and Trust
Agreement and of applying said Lease Payments to the payment and redemption of the
Certificates representing interests in the City's Lease Payments in accordance with the Trust
Agreement, and the Escrow Bank desires to accept said appointment; and
WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable
escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken
pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises
and covenants herein contained and for other valuable consideration, the parties hereto do
hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Definition of Federal Securities. As used herein, the term "Federal Securities"
shall mean solely non - callable, direct general obligations of the United States of America
(including obligations issued or held in book entry form on the books of the Department of the
Treasury of the United States of America), or obligations the timely payment of principal of
and interest on which are guaranteed by the United States of America.
Section 2. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The City hereby appoints the Escrow Bank as
escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement and in accordance
with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow
Bank hereby accepts such appointment.
Section 3. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the City with, and
to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the Lease Payments as
hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on
behalf of the City and for the benefit of the owners of the Certificates, said escrow to be
designated the "Escrow Fund." All moneys and Federal Securities deposited in the Escrow
Fund shall be held as a special fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect
to the Certificates in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement. If at any time the
Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys and Federal Securities in the
Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 5 hereof, the
Escrow Bank shall notify the City of such fact and the City shall immediately cure such
deficiency.
The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of , independent certified
public accountants, that the Federal Securities listed on Exhibit A mature and bear interest
payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow
Fund, will be sufficient to pay when due the principal and interest with respect to the
Certificates through June 1, 2000, to redeem the outstanding Certificates maturing on and after
June 1, 2001, in full on June 1, 2000, at the redemption price of 102% of the principal amount
thereof, plus accrued interest.
Section 4. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. The City shall cause to be
transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $ in
immediately available funds, (i) $ of which shall be derived from the general fund
of the City, (ii) $ of which shall be derived from the lease payment account of the
lease payment fund established under the Trust Agreement for the Certificates attributable to
the City (the "Lease Payment Fund "), and (iii) $ of which shall be derived from the
reserve account of the reserve fund established under the Trust Agreement for the Certificates
attributable to the City (the "Reserve Fund ").
The Escrow Bank shall invest $ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow
Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Federal Securities set forth in Exhibit A
-2-
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Escrowed Federal Securities ")
and shall hold the remaining $ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities
shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses
and purposes set forth herein.
The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full
compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement.
Section 5. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. The total amount of Escrowed
Federal Securities and uninvested moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 4
shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of paying the principal, redemption
premium and interest with respect to the Certificates representing interests in the City's Lease
payments as the same shall become due and payable, all at the times and in the amounts set
forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. The City hereby
instructs the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as Trustee and the Escrow Bank, as Trustee, hereby
agrees to give notice of redemption of such Certificates, such notice of redemption to be given
timely for redemption of the Certificates on June 1, 2000, in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Trust Agreement.
Section 6. Investment of Any Remaining Moneys. The Escrow Bank shall invest and
reinvest the proceeds received from any of the Escrowed Federal Securities, and the cash
originally deposited into the Escrow Fund, for a period ending not later than the next
succeeding interest payment date relating to the Certificates, in Federal Securities; provided,
however, that (i) such written directions of the City shall be accompanied by (A) a certification
of an independent certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants of
favorable national reputation experienced in the refunding of obligations of political
subdivisions that the Federal Securities then to be so deposited in the Escrow Fund, together
with the Federal Securities then on deposit in the Escrow Fund, together with the interest to be
derived therefrom, shall be in an amount at all times at least sufficient to make the payments
specified in Section 5 hereof, and (B) an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel ( "Bond
Counsel") that investment in accordance with such directions will not affect, for Federal income
tax purposes, the exclusion from gross income of interest due with respect to the Certificates,
and (ii) if the City directs such investment or reinvestment to be made in United States Treasury
Securities - State and Local Government Series, the City shall, at its cost, cause to be prepared
all necessary subscription forms therefor in sufficient time to enable the Escrow Bank to acquire
such securities. In the event that the City shall fail to file any such written directions with the
Escrow Bank concerning the reinvestment of any such proceeds, such proceeds shall be held
uninvested by the Escrow Bank. Any interest income resulting from investment or reinvestment
of moneys pursuant to this Section 6 and not required for the purposes set forth in Section 5, as
indicated by such verification, shall be paid to the City promptly upon the receipt of such
interest income by the Escrow Bank
-3-
Section 7. Substitution or Withdrawal of Federal Securities. The City may, at any time,
direct the Escrow Bank in writing to substitute Federal Securities for any or all of the Escrowed
Federal Securities then deposited in the Escrow Fund, or to withdraw and transfer to the City
any portion of the Federal Securities then deposited in the Escrow Fund, provided that any
such direction and substitution or withdrawal shall be simultaneous and shall be accompanied
by: (a) a certification of an independent certified public accountant or firm of certified public
accountants of favorable national reputation experienced in the refunding of obligations of
political subdivisions that the Federal Securities then to be so deposited in the Escrow Fund
together with interest to be derived therefrom, or in the case of withdrawal, the Federal
Securities to be remaining in the Escrow Fund following such withdrawal together with the
interest to be derived therefrom, shall be in an amount at all times at least sufficient to make the
payments specified in Section 5 hereof; and (b) an opinion of Bond Counsel that the
substitution or withdrawal will not affect, for Federal income tax purposes, the exclusion from
gross income of interest due with respect to the Certificates. In the event that, following any
such substitution of Federal Securities pursuant to this Section 7, there is an amount of moneys
or Federal Securities in excess of an amount sufficient to make the payments required by Section
5 hereof, as indicated by such verification, such excess shall be paid to the City.
Section 8. Application of Surplus Funds. On the date of the deposit by the City of funds
into the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 4, the Trustee shall (a) withdraw amounts on deposit
in the Reserve Fund ($ ) and transfer such amounts to the Escrow Bank for deposit in
the Escrow Fund, and (b) withdraw amounts on deposit in the Lease Payment Fund
($ ) and transfer such amount to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund.
Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the Trust
Agreement for the Certificates representing interests in the City's Lease Payments, including any
investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the Certificates, shall be
transferred by the Escrow Bank to the City.
Section 9. Application of Certain Terms of Trust Agreement. All of the terms of the
Trust Agreement relating to the making of payments of principal and interest with respect to the
Certificates are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full
herein. The provisions of the Trust Agreement relating to the limitations from liability and
protections afforded the Trustee and the resignation and removal of the Trustee are also
incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall
apply to the Escrow Bank and the Trustee and shall be the procedure to be followed with
respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder.
Section 10. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The City shall pay the Escrow Bank full
compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out -of-
pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and
other costs and expenses relating hereto and, in addition, fees, costs and expenses relating to
the purchase of any Federal Securities after the date hereof. Under no circumstances shall
amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes.
Section 11. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no
obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in
the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the City
shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and
shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the City or its agents relating to any
matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement.
The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be
held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the
execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the
0
Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys or any securities deposited therein, the purchase of
the securities to be purchased pursuant hereto, the retention of such securities or the proceeds
thereof, the sufficiency of the securities or any uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish
the defeasance of the Certificates, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys or
securities by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and
Trust Agreement or by reason of any non - negligent act, non - negligent omission or non - negligent
error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact
contained in the "whereas" clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the City, and the
Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank make no
representations as to the sufficiency of the securities to be purchased pursuant hereto and any
uninvested moneys to accomplish the redemption of the Certificates pursuant to the Trust
Agreement or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the City and,
except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof.
The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this
Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or
default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express
provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with
counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the City, and in reliance upon the written opinion of
such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action
taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow
Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking,
suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter
(except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally
recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be
deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the City.
The City hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the
transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to
indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors,
assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses,
damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal
fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by,
or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by
any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising
out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the
establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment,
transfer or other application of moneys or securities by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the
provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act,
omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided,
however, that the City shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own
negligence or willful misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 11 shall survive the
termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the
Trustee.
Section 12. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or
amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the
written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100 %) in aggregate principal amount of
the City's portion of the Certificates then outstanding shall have been filed with the Escrow
Bank This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a
supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (1) to add to the
covenants and agreements of any party, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any
right or power herein or therein reserved to the City, (2) to cure, correct or supplement any
ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (3) in regard to questions arising hereunder
or thereunder, as the parties hereto or thereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in
-5-
the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the
City's portion of the Certificates, and that such amendment will not cause interest on such
Certificates or represented by the Certificates to become subject to federal income taxation.
Section 13. Severabilit. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this
Escrow Deposit and Trust-Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or
unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or
provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust
Agreement.
Section 14. Notice of Escrow Bank, City and Corporation. Any notice to or demand
upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the
Principal Corporate Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as trustee
in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement. Any notice to or demand upon the
City and the Corporation, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or
served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a
post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the Lease Agreement (or such
other address as may have been filed in writing by the City or the Corporation with the Escrow
Bank).
Section 15. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the
Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any
company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or
any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its
corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as Trustee under the
Trust Agreement, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or
filing of any paper or any further act.
-Er
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Escrow Bank have each caused this Escrow
Deposit and Trust Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers all as of the date
first above written.
Attest:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
By
City Manager
FIRST TRUST NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank
and Trustee
By
-7-
Authorized Officer
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES
,Type Principal Coupon Maturity Date
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT AND REDEMPTION SCHEDULE
OF CERTIFICATES
Interest
Payment
Maturing
D=
Principal
Interest
12/01/97
-
$57,795.63
6/01/98
$ 95,000.00
57,795.63
12/01/98
-
55,361.25
6/01/99
100,000.00
55,361.25
12/01/99
-
52,736.25
6/01/00
105,000.00
52,736.25
Called Redemption Total
Principal Premium P3=eut
$ 57,795.63
- 152,795.63
- 55,361.25
- 155,361.25
- 52,736.25
$1,610,000.00 $32,200.00 1,799,936.25
Exhibit B
08 -26 -97 05:09PM FROM KNN
TO 14088681280 P002/011
s
21- Aug -97 11:43 am Prepared by Kelling, Norlhcross & Nobriga, hic. ( 4.008 samtoga:CASBDEFE ABAG26- REFLSSUE)
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS �� W
ABAG 26
Refunding Issue
Dated Date 9/08/1997
Delivery Date 9/15/1997
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount
Other Sources of Funds:
Lease Pmt
DSRF
1,765,325.90
0.22
223,641.07
223,641.29
1,988,967.19
Uses:
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit 0.19
SLG Purchases 1,975,967.00
1,975,967.19
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance
13,000.00
1,988,967.19
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ! AGENDA ITEP
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 CITY MANAG
ORIGINATING DEPT.: COMMUNITY DEPT. HEAD:
ENVIRONMENT
SUBJECT: Acquisition of replacement vehicles
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
1. Move to declare vehicles 66 and 71 in the City's fleet as surplus property and authorize their
sale through the City's auction service, First Capitol Auction Co.
2. Move to authorize the purchase of two Ford F -450 cab and chassis units (Stock No. 2320-
000- 0027 -0) through the State vehicle procurement program.
Move to authorize a sole source purchase of two Stellar Shuttle Model 60- 10 -4.5 Hydraulic
Hook Lifts with Two Yard Dump Bodies from 3T Equipment Sales Company, Inc. of
Petaluma, CA in the amount of $32,011.70.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The adopted budget contains $110,000 in Activity 82 (Equipment Operations), Account 6795
(Rolling Stock Replacement), to replace three vehicles in the City's fleet, units 58, 66, and 71,
each of which is assigned to the Public Works Services Division. The Public Works Services
Manager in his attached memo is recommending the replacement of only two of the vehicles since
the third vehicle, the 8 yard dump truck, is seldom utilized. By increasing the payload of the two
replacement vehicles and equipping them with an interchangeable body system, replacement of the
third vehicle will no longer be necessary.
The two replacement vehicles would be purchased through the State vehicle procurement
program at a cost of $22,233.47 each. They are Ford F -450 cab and chassis units identified on
the State bid list as Stock No's. 2320 - 000 - 0027 -0, Item 45.
The interchangeable body units are manufactured by Stellar Industries, Inc. of Garner IA, and
distributed locally through 3T Equipment Co., Inc. of Petaluma, CA. The particular body systems
recommended for the City's use, a Model 60- 10 -4.5 Hydraulic Hook Lift with Two Yard Body,
can be acquired for $16,005.85 each. A demonstration of this interchangeable body system was
performed in the Corp. Yard several weeks ago and the versatility and ease of use was very
impressive. Product literature and specifications are attached to this report.
To conclude the recommended vehicle replacements, the Council should first declare the two
existing Ford F -350 units ( #66 and #71) as surplus so they can be disposed of through the City's
auction service. The Council previously declared vehicle #58 surplus. Sale of the three vehicles
at auction should result in between $10,000 and $15,000 in revenues to the City. Second, the
Council should authorize the purchase of the two Ford F -450 cab and chassis units through the
State bid. Third, the Council should authorize the procurement of the recommended body
systems through a sole source purchase from 3.T Equipment Co., Inc. by making the finding set
forth in Section 2- 45.120(b)(2) of the Municipal Code, see attached.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
As noted, the adopted budget contains $110,000 for three vehicle replacements. The two
recommended replacement purchases total $76,478.64. By acquiring the interchangeable body
systems and not replacing the third vehicle, there will be a budget savings of roughly $33,500.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Depends on Council's actions. Either the existing vehicles will not be declared surplus and
authorized to be sold at auction, or the purchase of the replacement vehicles and /or body systems
will not be approved. In either instance, staff will follow whatever other direction the Council
provides.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
1. Vehicles 58, 66, and 71 will be prepared for disposition at auction.
2. Purchase orders for the two Ford F -450 units will be delivered to the State procurement
office.
3. Purchase orders for the two body systems will be delivered to 3T Equipment Co., Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo from Public Works Services manager dated August 19.
2. State bid summary.
3. Quote from 3T Equipment Co. for Stellar Body System with product specs.
4. Municipal Code Section 2- 45.120(b)(2).
DATE: AUGUST 19, 1997
TO: LARRY PERLIN
FROM: GARY ENRIQUEZ
SUBJECT: SUGGESTED VEHICLE UPGRADES FOR FY 97/98
The FY 97/98 Equipment Operations Budget (8082 -6795) includes
$110,000.00 for the purchase of three replacement vehicles. They
are as follows:
1. Vehicle #66 - A 1988 Ford F -350 1 Ton Dump Truck assigned to
Public Works Service's.
2. Vehicle #71 - A 1990 Ford F -350 1 Ton Leaf Body Dump Truck
assigned to Public Works Service's.
3. Vehicle #58 - A 1986 Ford F -700 8 yard Dump Truck retired by
Council October 6,1996.
The suggested replacements are as follows:
1. Vehicle #66 suggested replacement - A 1997 Ford F -450 cab &
chassis with Steller Shuttle removable Dump Body.
2. Vehicle #71 suggested replacement - A 1997 Ford F -450 cab &
Chassis with Steller Shuttle removable Leaf Body Dump.
3. Vehicle #58 no suggested replacement
I am suggesting the replacement vehicles for #66 and #71 be up-
graded to Ford F -450 Super Duty trucks. The up -grade will increase
the payload (GRVW) of each vehicle by 4,500 lbs over that of the
Ford F -350. The trucks will be the same size in appearance and
will maintain a 161 inch wheel base for better maneuvering in the
hilly areas. I am also suggesting vehicle #58 not be replaced and
the budgeted monies be utilized to upgrade the body components of
the replacement vehicles to the Stellar Shuttle Body Interchange
System.
By up- grading the body components to the Steller Shuttle System,
one truck operator can, without leaving the cab of the truck, load
and unload or change truck beds in less than a one minute cycle.
The truck body can be loaded with the material and /or equipment to
be transported while on the ground. The truck backs up to the body
and loads the loaded body onto the truck chassis and drives away.
One truck can support numerous bodies, which cuts cost and
maintenance, and the Stellar Shuttle operating mechanism and body
can be removed and re- installed
again cutting costs. Following,
F -350 and a F -450 that includes z
Ford F -350
Cab & Chassis
$18,299.00
tax $1,509.67
$19,808.00
Stellar Shuttle
Body
$14,786.00
tax $1,219.85
$16,005.85
to future replacement vehicle,
is a cost comparison of a Ford
Stellar Shuttle Dump Body.
Ford F -450
Cab & Chassis
$20,539.00
$1,694.47
$22,233.47
Stellar Shuttle
Body
$14,786.00
$1,219.00
$16,005.85
$35,814.52 $38,239.32
Contract 1- 97 -23 -20
Page 6 FOB Point: San Francisco
State Stock No.
Item
Group
Description
Brand
Model
Unit Price
Payment Terms
Vendor
2320 - 009 - 0400 -6
1
1
Mini Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 4- Cylinder, 3700 GVW, 6' Bed
Ford
Ranger
$11,197.00
$500 -20 Days
Folsom lake Fond
2320 - 009 - 0414 -6
2
11
Mini Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 6- Cylinder, 4000 GVW, 6 -1 /2' Bed
GMC
Sonoma
$12,739.00
$500 -20 Days
lasher Auto Center
2320 - 009 - 0405 -5
3
It
Mini Pickup, Regular Cab, 4WD, 6- Cylinder, 4000 GVW, 6 -1/2' Bed
GMC
Sonoma
516,414.00
$500 -20 Days
Lasher Auto Center
2320 - 000 - 0037 -3
4
II
Mini Pickup, Extended Cab, 2WD, 6- Cylinder, 4000 GVW, 6 -1/2' Bed _
Ford
Ranger
$14,609.00
5500 -20 Days
Capitol Ford
2320 - 009 - 0402 -0
5
111
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 6000 GVW, 6 -1 /2' Bed
Ford
Ford
17150
$14,638.00
$17,545.00
$500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0038 -5
6
111
Pickup, Extended Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 6000 GVW, 6 -1/2' Bed
F150
$500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0028 -2
7
8
Ill
IV
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 6- Cylinder CNG Engine, 6000 GVW, 8' Bed
Ford
Ford
17250
517,936.00
$16,129.00
5500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 009 - 0415 -8
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 6600 GVW, 8' Bed
f250
$500 -20 Days
Folsom lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0029 -4
9
IV
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 6- Cylinder CNG Engine, 6400 GVW, 8' Bed
Ford
F250
$17,936.00
$500 -20 Days
Folsom lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0001 -4
10
1V
kup, Extended Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 6600 GVW, 8' Bed
GMC
C2500
518,798.00
5500 -20 Days
Oakland Truck Center
2320 - 009 - 0403 -1
11
V
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW, 8' Bed
Ford
F250 HD
517,389.00
3500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0039 -7
12
V
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW, 8' Bed, 4000 # F Axle
Ford
F250 HD
$17,599.00
$500 -20 Days
Folsom lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0043 -9
13
V
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 6- Cylinder CNG Engine, 7500 GVW, 8' Bed
Pickup, Extended Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW, 8' Bed
Pickup, Crew Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW, 8' Bed
Ford
F250
518,176.00
5500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0030 -0
14
V
GMC
C2500
_
5500 -20 Days
Oakland Truck Center
2320 - 000 - 0002 -6
15
V
Ford
IF350
_518,999.00
$21,259.00
$500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0003 -8
16
V
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, Turbo Diesel, 8600 GVW, 8' Bed
NO AWARD THIS AREA
_
2320 - 000 - 0006 -3
17
V
Cab & Chassis, Regular Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW
Ford
17250 HD
$16,989.00
$500 -20 Days
Folsom lake Ford
2320 - 000 - 0040 -3
18
V
Cab & Chassis, Regular Cab, 2WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW, 4000# F Axle
Pickup, Regular Cab, 4WD, 8- Cylinder, 6000 GVW, 6- I /2' Bed
Prc up, Regular Cab, 4WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW, 8' Bed
Cab & Chassis, Regular Cab, 4WD, 8- Cylinder, 8600 GVW
Ford
F250 HD
$16,989.00
5500 -20 Days
Folsom lake Food
2320- 009 - 0404 -3
2320 - 009 - 0417 -1
19
20
VI
Ford
Ford
F150
$18,559.00
$500 -20 Days
$500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
Capitol Ford
Folsom Lake Ford
VII
VII
F250 !ID
$19,828.00
2320 - 009 - 0406 4
21
Ford
F250 HD
519,839.00
5500 -20 Days
2320 - 009 - 0471 -7
22
24
1
1
Mini Van, 7- Pa3senger, 4500 GVW _ _ `-
Mini Van, 7- Passenger, AWD, 4500 GVW
Ford
Aerostat
$15,899.00
5500 -20 Days
Capitol ford
Oakland Truck Center
Swift Auto World
2320 - 000 -0031 -2
GMC
Dodge
Safari
$20,738.00
$500 -20 Days
2320 - 009 - 0419 -5
25
11
Van, 8- Passenger, 6000 GVW _
B2500
$18,852.00
$500 -20 Days
2320 - 000 - 0018 -0
26
II
Van, 8- Passenger, CNG Engine, 6000 GVW
NO AWARD THIS AREA
2320 - 009 - 0420 -1
27
28
111
11l
Van, 12- 1assenger, 7400 GVW -
12- Passenger, CNG Engine, 7400 GVW
Dodge
83500
$19,860.00
$500 -20 Days
lasher Dodge
2320- 000 - 0019 -1
Ford
Dodge _
Dodge
NO AWARD
E350----.
83500
B3500
THIS AREA
Aerostar
$24,759.00
$21,454.00
$21,236.00
$500 -20 Days
$500 -20 Days
Folsom lake Ford
Lasher Dodge
lasher Dodge
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 009 - 0470 -5
29
-Van,
IV
_ _ _ _ —
Van, 15- Passenger, 9000 GVW __
Van, 15- Passenger, 8510 GVW _
2320- 009 - 0020 -7
30
IV
$500 -20 Days
$500 -20 Days
2320- 000 - 0021 -0
3I
32
iV
Van, 15- Passenger, CNG Engine, 8500 GVW
515,909.00
2320 - 000 - 0004 -0
V
Mini Van, Cargo, 4720 GVW
Ford
2320 - 000 - 0042 -7
34
V
Mini Van, Cargo, AWD, 4720 GVW —_ -_
GMC
_
Safari
$19,217.00
$500 -20 Days
Oakland Truck Center
2320 - 009 - 0421 -3
35
VI
—VI
Van, Cargo, 6350 GVW _
Dodge
NO AWARD
82500
T111S ARFA
$15,962.00
5500 -20 Days
$500 -20 Days
Lasher Dodge
- -- - .. -
Lasher Dodge
2320- 000 - 0023 -3
36
Van, Cargo, CNG Engine, 6010 GVW
2320 - 000 - 0005 -1
37
VII
Van, Cargo, 9000 GVW _
Dodge
83500
$17,940.00
2320 -000- 0024 -5
38
VII
Van, Cargo, CNG Engine, 8500 GVW
Ford
'350
519,089.00
5500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford
2320 - 233 - 0107 -8
39
1
Utility Vehicle, 4 -Door, 4WD, 4125 GVW _
eep
Cherokee
$20,730.00
$500 -20 Days
Lasher Auto Center
2320 - 233 - 0108 -0
40
11
Utility Vehicle, 2 -Door or 4 -Door, 4WD, 5850 GVW
Ford
Expedition
$26,642.00
$500 -20 Days
Folsom Lake Ford-
2320-000-0026-9
41
I
Pickup, Regular Cab, 2WD, 10000 GVW, 131" WB (DRW)
NO AWARD THIS AREA
2320 - 009 - 0460 -2
42
1
Cab & Chassis, Regular Cab, 2WD, 10000 GVW, 135" WB (DRW)
Ford
F350
518,299.00
5500 -20 Days
Senator Ford
2320 - 009 - 0412 -2
43
1
Cab & Chassis, Regular Cab, 4WD, 10000 GVW, 135" WB (DRW)
Ford
17350
$21,523.00
$500 -20 Days
Capitol Ford
2320 - 000 - 0009 4
44
I
Cab & Chassis, Crew Cab, 2 WD, 10000 GVW, 135" WB (DRW)
NO AWARD THIS AREA
$500 -20 Days
2320 - 000 - 0027 -0
45
II
Cab & Chassis, Regular Cab, 2WD, 14500 GVW, 135" WB (DRW)
Ford
GMC
GMC IMI-042
17450
C611_ 042
1
$20,539.00
525,100.00
$25,300.00
Folsom lake Ford
2320- 000 - 0015 -4
46
I
Cab & Chassis, Low Profile, Turbo Diesel, 14750 GVW, 124" WB (DRW)
Cab & Chassis, Low Profile, Turbo Diesel, 14750 GVW, 148" WB (DRW)
5500 -20 Days
$500 -20 Days 10akland
Oakland Truck Center
Truck Center
2320- 000 - 0011 -7 1
47 1
11
APR -08 -97 TUE 13:24 84653MD9 4086887866 P.01
3T EQUIPMENT COMPANY9 INC.
SAFETY, PIPE INSPECTION AND SEWER MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
SARATOGA, CAL. 95070
ATTN: MR. GARY A. ENRIQUEZ, SR.j
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT
SUBJECT: STELLAR HOOK LEFTS WITH BODIES
MR. ENRIQUEZ,
ENCLOSED ARE THE THREE QUOTATIONS YOU HAVE REQUESTED. THEY
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
QUOTE # 1 - STELLAR HOOK LIFT, MODEL 60- 10 -4.5, WITH LEAF BODY FOR
MOUNTING ON F -350 WITH 60" C.A.
QUOTE #2 - STELLAR HOOK LIFT, MODEL 60- 104.5, WITH TWO YARD DUMP BODY
FOR MOUNTING ON F -350 WITH 60" C.A.
QUOTE 93 - STELLAR HOOK LIFT, MODEI, 120- 15 -12, WITH 14' FLAT BED FOR
MOUNTING ON GMC MODEL C611042 WITH 102" C.A
ALL PRICES INCLUDE MOUNTING OF ALL COMPONENTS AND DELIVERY TO CITY
YARD.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE IN CONTACTING ME AT
1- 800 - 969 -3001,
SINCERELY,
Y�rr�
TIM KENNEDY
SALES MANAGER.
P.O. BOX 750068, PETALUMA, CA. 94975 -0068 (707) 543 -8555 FAX (707) 543 -8558
APR -08 -97 TUE 13:26 84653MD9 4086887866 P.04
QUOTE 42 STELLAR MODEL 60.10 -4.5 PER ENCLOSED SPECIFICATIONS
WITH CRYSTEEL TWO YARD DUMP BODY TO INC LURE THE
FOLLOWING:
6' LONG, 78" I.D. WIDE, 87" O.D. WIDE, 14" SIDES
114 CAB SHIELD, TAPERED FRONT BULKB EAD
ONE FRAME MOUNTED TOOL BOX 18 "D X 36" L X 18" D
ONE TOOL BOX BEHIND CAB - 24" X 36" X 87"
CLEARANCE LIGHTS ON BODY
UNDERSEAL
PAINT - WHITE TO MATCH CAB
TWO FRONT BUMPER MOUNTED CONE HOLDERS
REAR BUMPER WITH TRAILER HITCH RECEIVER
BACKUP ALARM
PRICE F.O.B. SARATOGA, CAL ..............$14,786.00
(ADD CAL SALES TAX)
APR -08 -97 TUE 13:26 84653MD9 4086887866 P.05
Steller Shuttle Model 60- 10 -4.5
Hydraulic Hook Lift Specifications
Lifting Capacity: 4,500 pounds gross weight evenly distributed in, or on, body
Container Length: 8 -foot through 10 -foot from front A -frame to rear of skid rails. Longer bodies may be
accommodated If full dump angle is not required (may require special body- mounted or
extendable truck - mounted bumper to meet the Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS) Rear end
Protection regulation 393.86).
Maximum Dump Angle: 560
Operating Pressure: 2500 PSI maximum
Weight of Loader. Loader weight not to exceed 1,000 pounds
Height of Loader: Loader height not to exceed 3.5" as measured from top of truck frame to top of loader rollers.
Hook Height: 31.81- inche8 from bottom of skid rails to centerline of hook bar. Loader must be able to pickup
body 10- inches below grade when mounted on a truck with a 26" frame height.
Hydraulic Pump: Electric clutch pump, includes pump, in cab controller and mounting kit
Hydraulic Control Valve: Stack -type valve mounted directed onto the oil reservoir.
Controls: Solenoid remote control with 20' pendent, on /off power key operated
Tilting Hook Assembly: Loader must have pivoting type front tilt section (jib) to provide a low degree
loading /unloading angle. Hook to include automatic mechanical safety latch which
disengages only when the containeribody Is in proper position to be picked up or•
dropped off.
Tilt Cylinder: Single 2 -inch bore with 1.125 -Inch diameter rod cylinder. Cylinder must be double acting and
Include dual integral velocity fuses to prevent cylinder collapse in case of hose failure.
Tilt Section Operation: Loader must include a hydraulic lock -out device to prevent operation of the tilt section
while loader Is in the dumping mode.
Lift/Dump Cylinder: Single 3.5 -inch bore with 1.75 -inch diameter rod cylinder. Cylinder must be double
acting and Include dual Integral velocity fuses to prevent cylinder collapse In case of
hose failure.
Dump/Tilt Interlock: Dumping must be accomplished through a rear pivot. Tilt and lift sections must lock
into a rigid full length 25" -wide frame to provide support for the container while In the
dump mode. These sections form this frame without the use of mechanical latches
which rely on gravity, springs, or containerlbody mounted latches:
Rear Body Hold- downs: Dual fixed - position hold down devices mounted to the dump frame to secure the body
to the loader through all ranges of the dump mode. This must be accomplished without
the use of steel springs and/or hydraulic /air cylinders.
Rear Dump Hinge Pin: 1 -i /4 -Inch diameter hardened, chrome - plated steel minimum
Pins & Bushings: All pins to be hardened, chrome - plated steel. All bushings to be of the permanently lubricated
variety. No grease zerks allowed.
Hoses do Hydraulic Fittings: All hoses and fittings are to be SAE; metrics are not to be allowed. O-ring face
seal fittings to be utilized wherever possible.
Origin of Manufacture: Loader to be designed and manufactured in the United States of America.
23
jo
A
O
O
-1: W-
O
O
O EH
�— G
�- c
D
The tilt and lifting
section, shown to
the right, locks into a
common rigid full
length four -beam
frame to support the
container while
dumping. A rear -
mounted hydraulic
rotary valve locks
out the tilt section
while in the dump
mode for added
safety.
STELLAR_
I N D U S T R I E S I N C
280 West Third Street
P.O. Box 169
Garner, Iowa 50438
Phone: 515 - 923 -3741
Toll Free: 800-3214741
Fax: 515-923-2812
SMU TLE..
8,800 -pound Hook Lift Loader
Specifications:
Installed Weight (in pounds):
Lift/Dump Capacity (in pounds):
With optimum body length
Body Requirements:
Length (in feet):
Max. Width (in inches):
Optimum Body Length
Chassis Specifications:
Recommended CA
Recommended Min. GVW
Maximum Dump Angle:
84 -12 -8
Item Description
84 -12 -8
108 -16 -8
A
Dump Angle
540
510
B
Lowest Hook Height
26"
26"
C
Effective Length
116"
151"
D
Truck Frame Height
36"
36"
E
Loader Height
40"
41"
F
I Cab To Axle 1
84 " -96"
108" -130"
The tilt and lifting
section, shown to
the right, locks into a
common rigid full
length four -beam
frame to support the
container while
dumping. A rear -
mounted hydraulic
rotary valve locks
out the tilt section
while in the dump
mode for added
safety.
STELLAR_
I N D U S T R I E S I N C
280 West Third Street
P.O. Box 169
Garner, Iowa 50438
Phone: 515 - 923 -3741
Toll Free: 800-3214741
Fax: 515-923-2812
SMU TLE..
8,800 -pound Hook Lift Loader
Specifications:
Installed Weight (in pounds):
Lift/Dump Capacity (in pounds):
With optimum body length
Body Requirements:
Length (in feet):
Max. Width (in inches):
Optimum Body Length
Chassis Specifications:
Recommended CA
Recommended Min. GVW
Maximum Dump Angle:
84 -12 -8
108 -16 -8
1500
1800
8800
8800
10' to 13'
13' to 18'
96"
96"
12'
16'
84" to 96"
108" to 130"
10,500 to
10,500 to
16,000
16,000
54°
51°
Hydraulic Specifications:
• High pressure gear or piston pump rated at 4500 psi with 8
gpm flow
• 5- gallon oil reservoir with integral valve bank, return filter, and
suction strainer
• Main inlet relief pressure set at 4200 psi
Safety Features:
• Pilot- operated hydraulic lock valves to prevent cylinder
collapse in case of hose failure
• Patented dump /load interlock exceeds competition with full
body support when dumping
• Automatic hook latch to prevent body from inadvertent
detachment when off - loading
• Rugged rear body tie -downs to insure body stability when in
transit
• Unique hydraulic valve prevents operation of the tilt when in
the dump mode
Mechanical Features:
• Permanently lubricated bushings and bearings used through
out
• Replaceable 10 micron return oil filter and 100 mesh suction
strainer
• Steel braided hydraulic hoses with o -ring face seal hydraulic
fittings
• Stack -type hydraulic valve bank
• Double- acting hydraulic cylinders with chrome - plated rods
• Cab - mounted lever controls with sealed stainless steel control
cables
Specifications subject to change.
Body Interchange Systems
One truck operator can, without leaving the cab of a
truck, load and unload or change truck beds in less
than a one minute cycle.
The truck body can be loaded with the material to be
transported while on the ground. The truck backs up
to the body and in less than one minute loads the
loaded body onto the truck chassis and drives away.
One truck can support numerous bodies, which cuts
costs and maintenance. All controls are mounted in
the truck cab for operator safety and ease of opera-
tion. Shuttle Trailers are also available.
a) 0 0 �
CL - v
CU
E to
'=oo -o
� c i Co o
_0 O a) c0 75 W a) t0 U O
U U Q.
N to
c O M
.LM (n c no
�"co -r,
�cuEEa�
Erno °E
Co IZ
0 M O O
-0 3 E 3 a)
Q O a) rn
o �CUa)
a C cn o C
in " CU
In :3 0 :3 -r-
in Cr
EU) U 3
- ZQ-0 (D
` O -C "
cow cZ
- � o
` to a) to
(n Q - L >'
O C `. 00
Q co C .0 a)
Maximum Minimum
Dumping Optimum Gross Vehicle Recommended
Stellar Shuttle Maximum Lift Recommended Angle Cab -to Axle Weight Rating Truck Frame Total Loader
Model Capacity Bed Length (ft) (degrees) (inches) (Ibs) R.B.M. (inAbs) Weight (Ibs)
56 -9 -3
3,000
8 to 10 ft
560
56
6,000
172,000
750
60- 10 -4.5
4,500
8 to 10 ft
560
60
8,800
177,800
800
84 -12 -8
8,800
10 to 12.5 ft
540
84
10,500
316,000
1,440
108 -16 -8
8,800
13 to 18 ft
10 500
316,000
1,650
84 -12 -12
12,000
10 to 13 ft
540
84
20,000
510,000
1,560
120 -15 -12
12,000
12 to 16 ft
540
102 to 120
20,000
510,000
1,750
120 -16 -12
12,000
14 to 18 ft
500
1108 to 120
20,000
510,000
1,750
108 -11 -20
20,000
11 to 15 ft
460
96 to 108
25,000
900,000
2,200
120 -16 -20
20,000
13 to 18 ft
480
120
25,000
900,000
2,250
138 -18 -20
20,000
14.5 to 20 ft
510
130 to 150
25,000
900,000
2,800
168 -20 -20
20,000
18 to 24 ft
500
168
25,000
900,000
3,200
138 -18 -40
40.000
16 to 20 ft
450
54,000
3,000,000
5,000
168 -22 -40
40,000
20 to 24 ft
450 118
.138
0
54 000
3,000,000
5,400
190 -24 -52
52,000
20 to 24 ft
450 1190
54,000
3,000,000
5,800
Stellar Industries Inc. reserves the right to change specifications as needed.
I N D U S ,,S-TELLAR
T R I E S
20K- December 1992- Printed in U.S.A.
Made Irk The U. S. A.
280 West Third Street • Post Office Box 169
Garner, Iowa 50438
Telephone 5151923 -3741 FAX 5151923 -2812
2- 45.100 Purchases under $100.
The purchase of supplies or services having a cost of
less than One Hundred Dollars can be made without a
purchase order by the Purchasing Officer or other employ-
ee of the City having authorization from the Purchasing
Officer to do so. A petty cash fund can be used for such
purchases.
245.110 Open market purchases.
(a) Purchases of supplies or services having a cost
of One Hundred Dollars or more but less than Fifteen
Thousand Dollars may be made in the open market without
formal competitive bidding procedures, if authorized by
either the Purchasing Officer or the City Council as
provided in Section 245.070 of this Article.
(b) Open market purchases involving a cost of Five
Hundred Dollars or more shall, whenever possible, be
based upon at least three informal price quotations and
shall be awarded on the basis of the price quotation most
advantageous to the City. The Purchasing Officer may
solicit price quotations either orally or in writing, or may
utilize price information on file with the City or available
elsewhere.
2- 45.120 Competitive bidding; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (b)
of this Section, all purchases of supplies or services
involving a cost of Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more
shall be made by contract awarded pursuant to the formal
competitive bidding procedure set forth in Section 2-
45.130.
(b) A contract for the purchase of supplies or services
involving a cost of Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more
may be awarded by the City Council without competitive
bidding in each of the following cases:
(1) Where the City Council determines that the immedi-
ate preservation of the public peace, health or safety
requires the purchase to be made without competitive
bids;
(2) Where the supply or service required by the City
can only be obtained from a single source;
(3) Where the contract is for specialized or professional
services such as, but not limited to, services rendered
by architects, engineers, attorneys, appraisers, geologists,
and other specialized consultants;
(4) Where the City Council determines that use of
the competitive bidding process is impracticable or impos-
sible, or would not be likely to result in a lower price
to the City from a responsible bidder, or would cause
unnecessary expense or delay under the circumstances;
2 -45.130
(5) Where the City Council utilizes the request for
proposal method of purchase, as set forth in Section 2-
45.140 of this Article.
2- 45.130 Formal bidding procedure.
Where formal competitive bidding is required, the
following procedure shall be followed:
(a) Notice inviting bids. Notices inviting bids shall
include a general description of the supplies or services
to be purchased, the place where bid forms and specifica-
tions can be obtained, the time and place for opening bids,
whether a bid deposit or bond will be required, and
whether a performance bond will be required. The notice
shall be published at least once, not less than ten days
prior to the date set for final receipt of bids, in a newspa-
per having general circulation in the City, and shall be
posted at the City Hall location used for the posting of
legal notices. Notices shall also be sent to persons who
have submitted a written request to the City to be notified
of such bidding opportunities, and notices may be sent
at the discretion of the Purchasing Officer to any additional
persons.
(b) Bidder's security. When deemed necessary by the
Purchasing Officer, bids shall be accompanied by a
bidder's security in the form of a cashiers check, cer-
tificate of deposit, money order, or unconditional and
irrevocable letter of credit, payable at sight to the City,
or a surety bond in favor of the City, in such amount as
determined by the Purchasing Officer to be adequate for
protection of the City's interests. Bidders shall be entitled
to return of their bid security; provided, however, a
successful bidder shall forfeit his bid security upon failure
or refusal to execute a contract within ten days after
mailing the notice of award, unless the City is responsible
for the delay. The City Council may, on failure or refusal
of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award
it to the next lowest responsible bidder, in which event,
the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City
first to the difference between the low bid and the second
lowest bid, then toward payment of any other costs,
expenses or damages incurred by the City as a result such
failure or refusal, and the balance of the security, if any,
shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
(c) Bid opening procedure. Sealed bids shall be sub-
mitted to the Purchasing Officer and shall be identified
as bids on the envelope. Bids received after the deadline
for submitting the same shall not be accepted and shall
be returned to the bidder unopened. The bids shall be
opened in public at the time and place stated in the public
notice. All opened bids shall be available for public
inspection during regular business hours from the time
25 _ _