Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDArwa -.... ... -,. r.... -c.-. r.. ..ray ,r -'.. . .. ...r'a. -... -e. . .:.. ... r.. .. �. � i - .. • � lY .. r.. • �r�•Y�r CITY OF SAIUdOGA Initial: AGF.TIDA BITS, NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: June 17, 1981 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT:. Public Works C. Mgr. SUBJECT: QUITO ROAD /ALLENDALE AVE. BICYCLE FACILITY Issue S Saratoga has advertised for bids and bids were opened on Tuesday, June 2, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. There were four (4) bidders. The low bid for Phase I was by Calhoun Bros. for an amount of $11,450.00. TDA has allocated $10,300 and HCD has allocated $4,000 for the handicap ramps, which are .included in this project. (The ramps were bid at $2,000). The Engineer's Estimate for Phase I of the project is $11,571.00. Recommendation Public Works recommends Council award the 5ontract to Calhoun Bros.for $11,450.00 to construct Phase I of the bicycle facility on Quito Road and Allendale Ave., and propose to include Phase II and Phase III in the upcoming fiscal year. See attached map-and Bid Summary for description of Phases. Fiscal Impacts There will be no cost to the City for this project (other than in -house staff time and construction engineering during construction). Exhibits /Attachments 1. Summary report of bid opening. 2. Bid Summary 3. Map showing Phases Council Action Jensen /Clevenger moved award of contract to Calhoun Brothers in the amount of $11,450. to construct Phase I and inclusion of Phases II and III in the upcoming fiscal year. Passed 5 -0. UT E :ail OO R .AH'iD TO: FROM SUBJECT 09UT O:T O&M&OD)O& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Director of Public Works Erman Dorsey DATE.- 6/3/81 Construction of a Bicycle Facility on Quito Road and Allendale Ave.. On June 2, 1981, four (4) bids were recieved and opened for the above project. This project was broken down into three (3) phases, with the proposal indicating that the City could award either Phase I, II or III, or any combination thereof or reject all bids. The recap of the bids received is as follows: CON T R A C T O R 1 %14 SE Z 1--H4 SE IZ PHOSG IZZ pygSE I IZ nH4SE� I IIZ QH4JE IT }-M PHASE I II +ZZ7 - CAL NOUN EROS. ,450.00 5,875,0 5,350.00 17,325.0 16,800.0 11,225. i 2Z67-f.00 SA�o1vgQ C01VS7-, 13,598.70 3,481_50 6,294.72 17,080. 19,893.4 9776.22 23,374.92 14C CAQ7"HY t'SO 1ESM4N 15, 719.80 7,767.Z5 4,657.40 23,48ZOS 20,37.20 12,4Z4.6-6- 28,144.451 WA T771S CO.vs T. 17, 998.80 10, 039. 0 � 4,3B,5.45 Z.6,037.00 22, 384.25 14,4Z4.45- I 32, 422.45 i SEE .47-TACHE0 SHEE T FOR �K .4PP.4RE1V7- L oh/ BID OCATI ONS TDA has allocated $10,300 for the project and HCD has allocated up to $4,000 for the construction of four (4) handicap ramps. (The low bidder for Phase I bid - $500 each for a total of $2,000). We, therefore, have a total allocated amount of $12,300.00. The major phase of this project is Phase I (Quito Rd. and a portion of the southerly side of Allendale Ave.), and with Calhoun Bros. low bid of $11,450.00 for this phase, it could be constructed within the allocated amount. There is the option available to go with any combination of phases with the difference in cost being funded other City funds. Erman Dorsey ED /dsc Q vi ho 9,C/ -4 / /mcIa /e A v z5lcvc /e Foci /i PHASE Ti; RE E ^ ,bike lr:�,e (�.5o tj �AHAs�Twp t� l o I � �3ike f�:�h c { Bike 81,111 ► i i ?RASE ONE t Aovel� woos/ U,- DATA o June 2 3 e 00 p M C/TY OF SARA 7"0 GA B®® SZlA4 'AR;),O" pr40l/ccra C'o vsr,�zucTioti OF A B /CYCZIE FACIG /Ty cN QuIro RD. ,,1.IL1_Ev4o4LE,4 ✓. Calhoun ,Bros Saldl'vor e!045 live ar /� 1S ,es nay, �.j/pf�I' �o>7s �. rEM DESCRIP T /oN QUANT /Ty UNIT UNI T PRICE TOT,4G PQ��F TOT�I, PRICE TOTAL /' TOTAL ���� TOTAL Ag,4s6 Z . 1 C /evrir� e6rahhinq Lum stow L. S. - 2,614.040 - 3 254, 81 400. od - 774 00 Z 4 La. SMod z oa0. 0 55z 2 2a8. 0 49s. 1,980. 7so 30�. 3 e,9175A ,A e. Bike Pak 3Z6O S. F I /.60 . 5 2/6. 2 Z¢ 7,3 02. A 33 4, 335.8 4-.oS /3 203. _ ¢ RelnawlReo /ace roc. C.M. 5¢ L.F. 3D.00 1,620.,06 1554 834• 3C 215.oc 1,404.00 25.00 435-0-00 _ TO 774 L ; // 450,0 13599. /S 798 /7, 998.00 / C /e�rrli� l�ru�in [tin Sur� L.S. - 2, ZGb 664,40 - 6; /38.00 - 729.00 2 �or� �I. C. $�:Fe PQk 12Z6 S. F_ j',,00 3,6 7:5.CCI 2.30 Z8l 7.6-0 1.33 / Z9. Z 7.60 9, 3!0.00 rO T-4 F, 5875. Oq 18G50 776ZZ 10039.00 / A'7enovegeplace D.Y. 1196' L.f. 1. 60 1,196•00 155 /852.2 1.40 2 em ve /ace T e .0 90 EQ. 6,06 546,00, z zol 648,00 7 7O 693.00 4zs 38Z. Sc 3 So %ol IDas17ea!,k1n1i1 1765 L. f. 0.4 706.DO 0.621 4094.30 0.66 U" 90 0.18 3/7. 70 ¢ emote roe &ce 8"k/h., !40 L. F, Z. p 280.0 1.03 /44, Z 1.10 154.0 1.15 161.00 oin1ed#es_s zT 4rr4w ZZ/," S/A L.S.. 529001 2 7Z. 95 _ 290.00 -- 50,00 6 . C. Con -orws 10.5 Tory 2do.a 2100. 217. 2,Z83.OZ 46SX e8z.50 Z60A 2100,40 5 3520. a 94.72 4 657, 4 385,4 R.4AIV T©T.1 L o 2-7675,00 Z3 374 9Z Z8/�4. 4 .32 4ZZ.4 CITY OF SARAIXOGA> AGENDA BILL NO. 5� DATE: June 17, 1981 DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT : FRUITVALE AVE. NORTH OF ALONDRA - PETITION Initial Dept. i C. Attu C. Mgr. Issue SunT ary Residents on Fruitvale Ave. and Alondra Ln. have petitioned the City to study and revise the vertical alignment of Fruitvale Ave. north of Alondra. Staff has begun work on the work plan described in the attached memorandum. Recommendation Include this proposal, along with all proposed capital projects, during budget review process. l Fiscal Impacts Construction costs unknown at this time due to the lack of definition of project. Exhibits /Attachments Petition Memo from Director of Public (Work Plan) Council Action Consensus to include proposed for vertical alignment of Fruitvale Avenue north of Alondra with other proposed capital projects in budget review process and to investigate a temporary solution such as a mirror. TO: CITY OF SARATOGA FROM: RESIDENTS OF FRUITVALE AVENUE AND ALONDRA LAME .UBL1C M;RKS DEPT . We would like to bring to the attention of the city di Saratoga our concern because of the vertical alignment of the road of Fruitvale Avenue causing a sight distance problem at the location of Fruitvale Avenue and Alondra Lane. It is very difficult to see any cars coming up Fruitvale Avenue toward Los Gatos - Saratoga Rd. at this location causing property owners leaving their driveways on Fruitvale Avenue as well as all cars entering Fruitvale Avenue from Alondra Lane a sight distance problem. We have many children living in these locations crossing the street and this we feel is of great concern unless extreme caution is taken. We would like for city officials to count the traffic from West Valley College day and night which uses Fruitvale Avenue and also to consider the additional traffic the post office when completed will impose upon Fruitvale. Fruitvale Ave. has become a very, very busy street! Valley Vista Dr. is also affected by a sight problem. We feel the vertical grade of Fruitvale Avenue at this location should be corrected so the slope of the grade will allow those people leaving their driveways from Fruitvale Avenue as well as those people entering Fruitvale Avenue from Alondra Lane to be able to see cars coming up the grade towards Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The city of Saratoga's prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated! r LID REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6/10/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 6/17/81 SUBJECT Fruitvale Avenue North of Alondra Lane - Petition Staff has reviewed the petition from the residents of Fruitvale Ave. and Alondra Ln. relative to the vertical alignment of Fruitvale Ave. north-of Alondra. The staff has determined a work plan and has started to imple- ment that plan in some areas.. The work plan is as follows: 1. Take current traffic counts and incorporate projected counts for the Post Office. 2. Update speed studies in the area. 3. Take field measurements to define the vertical and horizontal alignment of the road and associated intersections. 4. Determine project problem areas from the preliminary design, i.e., affect on driveways, affect on trees, need for retaining walls, walkway location, etc. 5. Prepare cost estimate. 6. Review the above with the City Council and the area residents. It is estimated that this work could be accomplished by mid July. R ert S. Shook RSS /dsc { r _�AGEti'DA BILL N0. DATE: iune.17, 1981 DEPARTMENT: Public Works --------------------------- - - - - -- CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 5995, WAYNE LEPOSAVIC, SPERRY LANE Issue Summary The one year maintenance period for the subject tract has expired and all deficiencies have been corrected d. At this time, the City must take action to, accept the streets and easements offered on the Tract Map and release the Improvement Bond. Recommendation 1. Adopt Resolution 36 -B- 196 2. Authorize release of the attached described Improvement Bond. Fiscal Impacts The City assumes future maintenance responsibility of the street and storm drains. E-hibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing tract and bond 2. Res. 36 -B -196 Council Action Approved. Iti1 E I�1 O R A N D t 1;V UMET o: O&MR&OZ& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager DATE: 6/4/81 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Tr. 5995 Location: Sperry Lane, Wayne Leposavic The one (1) year maintenance period for Tract 5995 has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion 36 -B -196 which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: Wayne Leposavic Address: 12675 Verde Vista Ln., Saratoga, Ca. 95070 2. Date of Construction Acceptance:- July 19, 1978 3. Improvement Security: Type: Surety Bond Amount: $48,900.00 Issuing Co: Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. Address: 80 E. Rosemary San Jose, Ca. Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: SCR 299107 4. Miles of Public Street: 0.13 5. Special Remarks: jbe r S. :-hook RSS /dsm • • RESOLUTION NO. 36 -B- 196 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS TRACT NO. 5995 It appearing that on or about 7/19/78 , the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivision map and on approved improvement plans therefor were completed and thereafter were maintained by the subdivider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Tract No. 5995 recorded in Book 400 of Maps, at Pages 10 & in the office of the County.Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, Sta.te of California on July 12 , 19 81 . and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby re- scinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: NONE. and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby order- ed released: That certain Improvement Bond No. SCR 299107 dated 6/30/77 and issued by Firemans Fund Ins. Co., 80 E. Rosemary, San Jose, Ca The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of , 19 , at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR r,• CIT`Y OF SARATOGA "ACMgDA BILL NO. DATE: June 17, 1981, DEPARTMENT: Public Works ------------------- - - - - -- Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR 1276, DON MC KENZIE, VESSING ROAD Issue Stmynary The one year maintenance period for the subject ,SDR' has expired and all deficiencies have been corrected. At this time, the City must take action to accept the streets and easements offered on the Tract Map and release the Improvement Bond. Recommendation 1. Adopt Resolution 36 -B- 197 2. Authorize release of the attached described Improvement Bond. Fiscal Impacts The City assumes future maintenance responsibility of the street and storm drains. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing SDR and bond 2. Res. 36 -B- 197 Council Action Approved. I. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 - TO: City Manager DATE: June 4, 1981 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1276 (Final Acceptance) Location: Vessing Road - Don McKenzie All improvements required of SDR 1276 and agreed to in the Building Site Approval' Agreement dated May 23, 1979 have been satisfactorily completed. — Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Donald McKenzie Address: 18680 Vessing Rd., Saratoga, Ca. 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type:_Assignment & Receipt of Investment Certif. Amount: $25,000.00 Issuing Co.: Bank of America iggo�. Address: Saratoga, Ca. 95070 w Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 452287 � 3. Special Remarks: , Robert S. Shook RSS /dsm • s RESOLUTION NO. 36 -B- 197 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS SDR NO. 1276 It appearing that on or about May 23, 1980 , the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivision map and on approved improvement plans therefor were completed and thereafter were maintained by the subdivider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Parcel Map of lands of Mr. & Mrs. Donald E. McKenzie recorded in Book 442 of Maps, at Page 41, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on June 1, 1979. and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby re- scinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: NONE and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga,, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby order- ed released: That certain Investment Certificate No.452287 dated May 14, 1979 and issued by Bank of America The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of 19 , at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR Tk r .a •fir . r, a Vd' C o2 §&m&19Q)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 June 18, 1981 Mr. Donald McKenzie 18680 Vessing Broad Saraboga, California 95070 Dear Mr. McKenzie: Y67- The Director of Public Works reported to the City Co=il at its June 17, 1981, meeting that all improvements required for SDR 1276, have been satisfacorily oompleted. The City Council, therefore, approved the release of your bond. /da Very truly yours. Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk 8 CITY OF SARATOGA LLI Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: June 17, 1981 C. Atty. DEPAR IVIENT : _ city Clerk C. Mgr. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION COMN MING BETTY PECK AS ENVIRONVENTALIST OF THE YEAR Issue Summary At the Council work session on 6/9 Council requested subject resolution be prepared. Recommendation Adopt resolution. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attacrnrnnts Resolution. Council Action Clevenger /Mallory moved to adopt. Passed 5 -0. (jitp of g A >I 2 _�..� 3�I ��� �� f f�I 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA COMMENDING BETTY PECK AS ENVIRONMENTALIST OF THE YEAR WHEREAS, Betty Peck has been named as 1981 Environmentalist of the Year by the United New Conservationists; and, WHEREAS, she has contributed to the cause of conservation in countless ways, both in her contacts with individual people and her efforts to support state and national environmental campaigns for the past decade; and, WHEREAS, Betty, as a kindergarten teacher in the Saratoga School, has instilled in her students an appreciation for their environment, both in the world of the school and homes, and in the larger world as their minds expand; and, WHEREAS, Betty acted as the moving spirit behind the establishment of the Saratoga Ccmmunity Gardens in the hills behind the Odd Fellows Home on Fruitvale Avenue, which has garnered national acclaim, for its beauty, productive use of land, and inestimable value as a teaching resource for young students of gardening; and, WHEREAS, Betty and her husband, Willys, have.contributed to the beauty of our City by creating a breathtakingly lovely setting for their home on Saratoga Avenue, which is a bird sanctuary, thanks to Betty's efforts to develop a natural environ- ment attractive to bird life; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga wishes to recognize her ccmdtment and efforts toward wise stewardship of resources and the replenishment of those gifts of the earth which are often taken for granted. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, that Betty Peck is commended as a unique and valuable citizen of Saratoga, and we wish her well as she continues to make her much - appreciated contributions to the welfare of all Saratogans. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR, City of Saratoga, California CITY OF SARATOGA,�`"`� c r Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: June 17, 1981 C. Atty, DEPARTMENT: City Clerk C. Mgr. Q:�W SUBJECT: Denial of Claim for Damages: Dan , Diana and David Forster Issue Summary Subject claim has been submitted by Stephen J. Walwyn on behalf of.claimants. Case involves traffic accident at corner of Prospect and English which resulted in the death of Lisa Forster on March 25, 1981. Claim alleges negligence on part of City of Saratoga, City of San Jose, and Campbell Union High School District in the design, construction and maintenance of.the intersection of Prospect Avenue and English Drive. Recommendation Deny claim. Fiscal Impacts No financial impacts, at this time, for denial of claim. Exhibits /Attachments Claim for damages. Council Action Claim denied. DAN FORSTER; DIANA FORSTER; DAVID FORSTER, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, DAN FORSTER, Claimants, A&M CITY OF SAN JOSE; CITY OF SARATOGA; CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF SAN JOSE 801 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 CITY CLERK CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 3235 Union Avenue San Jose, CA YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that DAN FORSTER, DIANA FORSTER and DAVID FORSTER, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Dan Forster, of 1647 English Drive, San Jose, California, do hereby file their Claim for Damages in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) against the City of San Jose, City of Saratoga and Campbell Union High School District, and in support of said Claim declare as follows: On ro about March 25, 1981, respondents, and each of them, negligently and carelessly owned, designed, surveyed, constructed, operated, signposted, maintained, inspected and supervised that certain intersection at Prospect Avenue and English Drive, in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State -of California, so that Claimants' decedent, Lisa Forster, while a pedestrian lawfully within a designated crosswalk at said intersection on March 25, 1981, was caused to be struck . by a motor vehicle operated by.Kent Richard Allen, thereby causing decedent to suffer fatal injuries. At the time and place aforesaid, respondents, and each of them, created and allowed to exist a dangerous, defective, hazardous and unsafe condition, in that said respondents failed to erect traffic signals and failed.to properly supervise traffic at said'intersection, failed to provide adequate and sufficient warning signs, flashers, lights, barriers, dividers, reflectors or other warning devices to warn motorists and pedestrians o:f hazardous conditions of the roadway, and as a result of the dangerous and defective condition of the aforesaid intersection and the negligence and carelessness of respondents, and each of them, as aforesaid, a substantial risk of injury to persons using said public roadway existed, as the direct.and proximate result of which the accident of March 25, 1981 occurred, thereby resulting in the death of decedent, Lisa Forster. On or before'March 25, 1981, respondents, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, of the aforesaid dangerous condition and that the said condition was dangerous when the said crosswalk and intersection were used in the way they were reasonably intended to be used. Immediately prior to death, decedent was a person in good physical and mental condition, and was a faithful and -2- devoted daughter /sister to Claimants herein. The sole surviving heirs at law of decedent are Claimants DAN FORSTER, father, DIANA FORSTER,.mother, and DAVID FORSTER, brother. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence and carelessness of respondents, and each of.them, and the aforesaid dangerous conditions, Claimants have been deprived of the society, comfort, companionship and services of decedent, all to their general damage in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00). As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence and.carelessness of respondents, and each of them, and the aforesaid dangerous conditions, Claimants have necessarily incurred costs in the care and burial of the remains of said decedent in amounts presently unascertained, and Claimants pray for leave that when said amounts have been ascertained, they may be permitted to insert the amounts. Prior to her death, as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence and carelessness of respondents, and each of them, and the aforesaid dangerous conditions, Claimants' decedent was caused to, and did, employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and care for her, and did incur medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount of said expenses is presently unknon, the Claimants pray leave that when said amount is ascertained, they may be permitted to, insert the same herein with appropriate allegations. -3- ALL FURTHER NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS with regard to this Claim for Damages should be forwarded to Claimants' attorney, STEPHEN J. WALWYN, ESQ., of THE BOCCARDO LAW FIRM, 111 West St. John Street, San Jose, California 95113. DATED: May 19, 1981 THE BOCCARDO LAW FIRM By Stegh6n J. Walwyn At orneys for Claima is -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I, the undersigned, declare as follows: I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years, a. resident of Santa Clara County, California, and not a party to the within action or cause; that my business address is 1.11 West St. John Street, San Jose, California; that I served a copy of the attached Claim for Damages by placing said copy in an envelope addressed to: City Clerk City of San Jose 801 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 City Clerk City of Saratoga 13.777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA Campbell Union High School District 3235 Union Avenue San Jose, CA which envelope was then sealed and, with postage fully prepaid thereon, was on May 20, 1981 deposited in the United States mail at San Jose, California; that there is delivery service by.United States mail at the place so addressed, or that there is regular communication by mail between the place of mail- ing and the place so addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 2.0, 1981 at San Jose, California. Janet Grif i CITY OF SARAT CA AGENDA BILL NO. 53 DA'L'E: June 12, 1981 Initial`s Dept. Hd C. A DE?ARPMENT: City Manager C. Mgr. SUB ECr: Use of Consultant; for Preparation of Ordinances Implementing the Northwest Hillside Area Specific Plan Issue Sumnary The adoption of the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan now requires the City to review existing ordinances for conformance with the Plan and to adopt additional ordinances that may be required to implement the policies and programs specified in the Plan. The City Council has adopted an interim ordinance which places a four -month moratorium on further subdivision activity within the Specific Plan area, pending completion of the ordinance review. When the interim ordinance was adopted, we discussed the cost - effectiveness of using a consultant to assist with the ordinance review. The City Council directed the City Manager to obtain a specific proposal from Fred Caploe for these services. Recommendation Authorize the City Manager to Retain Fred Caploe, Esq., to provide professional services in reviewing existing ordinances and preparing new ordinances as required to implement the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan. Fiscal Impacts The estimated cost for the above described services is $10,800. There is sufficient appropriation in the current budget for Measure A related activities to meet these costs. These expenses will be recovered through additional fees for development permits• in the Measure A area. Exhibits /Attachments June 10, 1981, proposal from Fred Caploe Council Action Watson /Clevenger moved to authorize the City Manager to retain Fred Caploe, Esq. to provide professional services in reviewing.existing ordinances and preparing new ordinances as required to implement the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan with a ..- limit of $8,500. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). CHARLES J. WILLIAMS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FRED CAPLOE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAMS & CAPLOE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 017 LAS JUNTAS STREET P. O. BOX 70 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 June 10, 1981 Mayor Linda Callon and Council Members City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 16D TELEPHONE (41 S) 228 -3840 Re: Proposal for Legal Services to Assist in Drafting Ordinances to Implement Northwest Hillside Specific Plan Dear Mayor Callon and Council Members: In response to your request, I submit herewith my proposal to provide legal services which are necessary and reasonable to assist in drafting ordinances related to implementation of the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan adopted by the City on June 2, 1981. I have met with the City staff to discuss the scope of the work and my involvement in it. Based on Staff's review of the Specific Plan, and my discussion of that review with them, it presently appears that there are approximately twenty different ordinances and related matters that need review and probable revision. Principal among these are: zoning ordinance, grading ordinance, design review ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and noise ordinance. As to the zoning ordinance, new regulations will have to be drafted for the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan area. Other zoning ordinance provisions will be reviewed to determine need for revision, such as those relating to definitions, use permits, variances, rezoning and perhaps others. In addition, other regulations needing review and possible revision relate to: legal formats for open space easements and private maintenance districts, prezoning county lands, hillside trails, energy ordinance, cultural resource ordinance, etc., to name some, but not all. Mayor Linda Callon and Council Members Second Page June 10, 1981 The first phase of my work will involve reading and familiarizing myself with existing regulations such as the Specific Plan, relevant provisions of the zoning ordinance, grading ordinance, subdivision ordinance and the like. The Staff and I estimate about fifteen to twenty hours for this stage. The second phase of the work involves producing first drafts of regulations and related research. The best estimate of my time for this phase is in the range of eighty to one hundred hours. This estimate includes only one Joint Planning Commission /City Council meeting, and one separate Council meeting. It does not include any re- drafting. To try to minimize my input in the second phase as much as can reasonably be done, the Staff and I will work together to produce necessary first drafts; or, if it appears sensible in given instances (perhaps, for example, in the case of off -road vehicle regulations), the Staff will produce a first draft for our joint review. In other instances, I would prepare first drafts for joint review with Staff. Whenever possible, reference will be made to model ordinances prepared by the League of California Cities, similar organizations, or other public entities. Any work over and above the foregoing estimates would be billed at our hourly rate. The hourly rate for services would remain at Ninety Dollars ($90.00). I would emphasize that the foregoing estimates are not intended to be maximum hours that may not be exceeded. If it appears reasonable or necessary to exceed the estimates to produce legally sound first drafts, I would notify the City Manager and Staff as soon as I am aware of such need and indicate the amount of revision. Without completing the first phase of the work, a more precise estimate is not Mayor Linda Callon and Council Members Third Page June 10, 1981 possible. If I find that the second phase estimate has to be reviewed after completing Phase 1, I will, of course, immediately advise the City. In addition to the foregoing hourly rate, I would bill for any unusual costs incurred such as substantial amounts of photocopies, long distance telephone calls and the like. In SUM, the best present estimate for the above - mentioned work is a range of ninety -five (95) to one hundred twenty (120) hours, or Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($8,450) to Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($10,800), plus costs. I appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the City and I will be glad to answer any questions regarding this letter or to meet with you should you wish. FC:ss cc: Wayne Dernetz Paul Smith Rob Robinson Sincerely, Fred Caploe CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: .AGaTD � BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: 6 -19 -81 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Administration C. Mgr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Adoption of Appropriations Limit for Fiscal 1980 -81 (Proposition 4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issue SUMTazy In November, 1979 the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 4, amending' the State Constitution and placing restrictions on the spending level of local agencies and the State government. Proposition 4 became effective July 1, 1980 and requires annual adoption of an appropriations limit beginning with the 1980 -81 fiscal,,year. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. setting the 1980 -81 Appropriations Limit, as required by Proposition 4. . 9 Fiscal Impacts None at this time. The 1980 -81 Appropriations Limit is $3,534,045. Our appropriations subject to limitation for 1980 -81 are estimated'to total approximately $2,248,600 which is 1,285,445 under our limit: The appropriations limit is increased annually by a compound factor of the change in population times the change in CPI or the change in per capita income. As long as the City's revenue growth-does not exceed the allowable growth of the appropriations limit, the City should not have problems complying with Proposition 4., It will be necessary to monitor the revenues from proceeds of taxes td ensure compliance with Prop. 4. Exhibits /Attachmpants Resolution. No. Background Memorandum Council Action Mallory /Clevenger moved adoption of Res. 1022. Passed 5 -0. �zn.. CITY of = - ATOGA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6 -19 -81 COUNCIL MEETING: 6-23-81 SUBJECT* Appropriations Limit for 1980 -81 as required by Proposition 4 SUMMARY Attached you will find Resolution- No. setting the City of Saratoga's appropriations limit for 1980 -81 as required by the passage of Proposition 4. Proposition 4 added Article XIII B to the California State Constitution, and was effective for the first time during fiscal year 1980 -81. The City is required to annually adopt an appropriations limit, with each year's limit being based upon the base year of 1978 -79, as required by Proposition 4. No mechanism has yet been set up by the State for monitoring, checking or auditing each agencies Prop. 4 limit. However, the City will retain all backup work papers used in calculating our limit for future reference. BACKGROUND This section will summarize the various steps necessary in order to calculate our appropriations limit as required by Proposition 4. Uniform guidelines distributed by the•League of California Cities have been used, as well as information from the State Department of Finance. Step 1 - All revenues received in fiscal year 1978 -79 were separated into two categories., proceeds of taxes, and non- proceeds of taxes. Proceeds of taxes are defined in Section 8(c) of Article XIII B as including, but not restricted to, all tax revenues, and the proceeds from licenses, user chargers and user fees which exceed the costs reasonably borne.by the entity in providing a regulation, product or service, and the investment of tax revenues. The proceeds of taxes for 1978 -79 for the City of Saratoga were $1,648,848 and non - proceeds were $1,489,925 (total $3,138,773). Page 2 Step 2 - All user fees were listed and grouped by function. Costs associated with the regulation, product or provision of services related to each user fee were grouped. Fees in excess of the costs of providing the service must be claimed as proceeds of taxes. The City of Saratoga did not accumulate fees in excess of costs for 1978-79. Step 3 - To develop an amount considered proceeds of taxes for 1978 -79 all revenues were totalled ($3,138,773), non proceeds of taxes were subtracted (- 1,489,925), fees in excess of costs were added (none), which results in a figure of $1,648,848 as proceeds of taxes for 1978 -79. Step 4 - In order to determine the base year (1978 -79) appropriations limit all appropriations for the fiscal year were totalled. This figure includes the appropriation for the operating and capital budgets, supplemental appropriations approved by the Council during the year and an appropriation of a portion of fund balance (reserves) from proceeds of taxes accumulated during fiscal 1978 -79. From the total appropriation the amount of revenue from non - proceeds of taxes is subtracted to leave a remaining $2,829,258 as the base year appropriations limit. Step 5 - To calculate the appropriations limit for 1980 -81, the base year appropriations limit is multiplied by*a.factor of change in population times the change in CPI for 1979 -80, and that amount is then multiplied by the change in Per Capita Income and the population change for 1980 -81. The County of Santa Clara appro- priations transfer of $17,277 for the Library funding is then added. This brings us to a 1980 -81 appropriations limit of $3,534,045. FISCAL IMPACTS At the current time the Proposition 4 Appropriations limit does not have an effect on the City of Saratoga because our proceeds of taxes subject to limit for 1980 -81 are well below our 1980 -81 appropriations limit. In the future, revenues from proceeds of taxes must be monitored to ensure the amount does not exceed the limit under Prop. 4. The potential of Saratoga experiencing a problem with the Proposition 4 limit is not likely to occur unless our revenue growth from proceeds of taxes exceeds the yearly change in CPI or per capita income. Population growth increases will also have a beneficial impact, as our limit increases each year by a factor of our population change. As the City examines the potential of new revenue sources in the months (and years) ahead, attention will need to be paid to the impact of those revenues on our Proposition 4 appropriati ns limit. Patricia M. Mullens CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. dD Dept. Hd. DATE: June 19, 1981 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Planning C. Mgr. SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK SCHEDULE Issue Sumary The Council requested a report from the Citizens Advisory Committee indicating the proposed schedule for completion of the Committee's work and subsequent steps prior to adoption of the amended General Plan by the Council. Recommendation : Acknowledge the report. Fiscal Impacts : None Exhibits /Attachments : Report from General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Council Action Watson /Mallory moved to thank Committee for report and adopt schedule. Passed 5 -0. 9W REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6 -22 -81 COUNCIL MEETING: 7-01-81 SUBJECT: General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Work Schedule Upon resumption of the regular committee meetings in May, follow- ing the month of planning area outreach meetings, the General Plan committee developed a work plan for the completion of their tasks. The work plan was patterned on the Council resolution which defined the purposes and functions of the committee, and was reviewed with the Council at the May 21st GPCAC meeting. The committee has been proceeding according to the work plan, with a projected target date for completion in October. The product which the committee will submit to the Council at that time is expected to consist of: a description of the methods and procedures used by the GPCAC to solicit community input and develop recommendations; summaries of the community's responses to the committee's questions on policies to guide Saratoga in the future; recommendations for amendments to the present General Plan Objectives and Policies based upon the committee's interpretation of the community consensus; an updated text of the General Plan Land Use Element and planning area descriptions; recommendations for changes and additions to the action program for each planning area; recommendations for any changes or clarifica- tion needed in the General Plan Map (and zoning map for consistency); Report to City Council RE: GPCAC Work Schedule a companion map identifying the components of the General Plan; an updated Background and Basic a statement of issues not satis resolved which requires further Council's direction. June 22, 1981 Page 2 open space Data Report; factorily study at the Knowing the Council's desire to adopt the amended General Plan in December, the committee members evaluated whether they could con- dense their schedule to produce the report sooner. It was their judgment that this would be impractical due to the difficulty of assembling the total committee for additional meetings beyond those already scheduled during the vacation months of July and August. The most feasible time schedule appears to be as follows: October 21 - General Plan Committee presents its report and recommendations to Council and the community; Council refers proposed amend- ments to Planning Commission. October 28, - Planning Commission public hearings on November 11,- proposed amendments to General Plan. November 17 - December 2, - City Council public hearings and adoption December 16,- of amended General Plan. January 6, - January 20 - This proposed schedule is tight. The October 21st meeting combines the committee's "feedback to the community" function with its presentation to the Council; it presumes that the Council will make immediate referral to the Planning Commission to begin the public hearing process. The schedule can go awry 1) if more public hearings are warranted than indicated above, 2) if the Council directs additional study of unresolved issues, and /or 3) if the environmental impact report process raises questions calling for further analysis. VMR:cd cc: GPCAC Submitted by //Ac/�� //L� V cci M. Ru -in Planner 1 Approved by inson, J Directo