HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS-�
W
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,NO. 2.6 '-0 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1995 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
7b
SUBJECT: Assignment of City Vehicle to City Codes Administrator
Recommended Motion(s):
Authorize the assignment of a City vehicle ( #56) to the City Codes
Administrator and approve modification of City policy to include
City Codes Administrator as recipient of $100 for an expense
allowance.
Report Summary:
There are several City of Saratoga employees who by'the nature of
their positions require access to a City vehicle on a 24 -hour
basis. These positions include the City Manager, the Street
Maintenance Superintendent and the Parks and Building
Superintendent. These positions may have occasion to be called off
the official "clock" to respond to events in the community that
require immediate attention, expertise or direction.
The position of the City Codes Administrator has evolved in such a
manner to require more than business -hour access to a vehicle.
Specifically, the City Codes Administrator manages the Code
Enforcement Division, also the City's complaint management system
and the Building Division. As noted in the report item 8C of
September 20, 1995, the newer code enforcement responsibilities
require the Codes Administrator to respond to numerous types of
routine field situations, problem cases and emergencies in addition
to conducting periodic construction inspections. After recent
budget reductions to the Code Enforcement staff of .4 FTE, some
added participation by the Codes Administrator has also occurred.
The City Codes Administrator has been utilizing his personal,
unmarked car for City business relating to code enforcement,
building inspections and related activities and has at times faced
skepticism from residents who are less than comfortable about being
approached by a stranger in an unmarked car. Having a marked car
will lessen those occurrences. Also, because there are often
demands from the field to which the Codes Administrator needs to
respond, it is necessary to have a vehicle that is equipped with
safety and identification features including official markings,
radio communications capacity, and lighting and emergency
equipment. Having an assigned vehicle will mean that the Codes
Administrator will continue to be on 24 -hour call to respond to
City business needs and /or emergencies and that the car will be
taken to and from his home. City -owned vehicles assigned to
personnel such as this can be used to go to and from one's place of
work as well as trips incidental to travel to and from the job.
At present, the City Codes Administrator utilizes his own vehicle
for City business. This sometimes presents a problem when
situations arise during and after normal business hours when an
appropriately equipped vehicle is more suited to the demands of the
position. Assignment of a city -owned vehicle to this position will
take away this conflict.
Presently, the Codes Administrator receives $300 monthly for car
allowance, memberships in professional organizations, professional
development funds for attendance at training workshops, seminars,
meetings and conferences. It is recommended that the Codes
Administrator forfeit $200 of the monthly allowance and therefore
have the same monthly allowance ($100) as two other middle managers
in the City who also are assigned city vehicles (the Street
Maintenance Superintendent and the Parks and Building
Superintendent) . The net reduction in compensation would be $2400.
It is further proposed that vehicle #56, a 1986 Chevy Celebrity, be
the specific car assigned to Codes Administrator Joe Oncay.
As far as impacts on the availability of cars for use by employees
throughout the City, there will remain three "pool cars" for shared
use by City employees and four cars that are now specifically
assigned to personnel: the City Manager, the City Codes
Administrator, the parks and Building Superintendent and the Street
Maintenance Superintendent. The $2400 cost savings will be offset
by the annual cost of operating, maintaining and fueling vehicle
#56, estimated to be $1429 for a net savings of $971.
In sum, it is recommended that Council authorize the assignment of
City vehicle #56 to City Codes Administrator Joe Oncay. In
addition, the Council is asked to approve a change to the City's
Management Expense Allowance policy to reflect the change from $300
monthly allowance for the City Codes Administrator to $100 as noted
in the attached summary paragraph from that policy.
Fiscal Impacts•
As noted above, the net cost savings to the City is estimated at
$971 per year.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
None required.
Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motions:
The City Codes Administrator would have to continue to use his
private vehicle for City business and as a result, would not always
have access to the necessary .emergency and safety features
necessary to conduct his duties. The estimated net savings of $971
would also not be realized.
Follow Up Actions:
The City Manager will
new assignment of Cit y
the City Manager t o
Allowance policy and
Attachments:
advise the Public Works Department as to the
vehicle #56 and will advise the Assistant to
make changes to the Management Expense
issue updates to City departments.
Management Expense Allowance policy
3
9 Revised 10/18/95
MANAGEMENT EXPENSE ALLOWANCE
Effective July 1, 1993, a monthly management expense allowance will
replace car allowances, funds for individual memberships in
professional organizations, and professional development funds for
attendance at training workshops, seminars, meetings and
conferences. Any expenses which are incurred by a management
employee which are in excess of the monthly allowance will not be
reimbursed. To offset income taxes on the allowance, a manager
must submit documentation in a form acceptable to the Finance
Director for business - related costs.
The amount of allowance for Department Heads, (Public Works
Director, Community Development Director, Finance Director,
Assistant to the City Manager and Recreation Director) will be $350
per month. The allowance for Middle Management employees will be
[$300 per month for the position of City Codes Administrator and]
$100 per month for the Street Maintenance Superintendent [and], the
Parks and Building Superintendent and the City Codes Administrator
as long as they are assigned City -owned vehicles. Allowances will
be pro -rated for positions which are less than full -time.
* Note: deleted language appears in [ ] and added language
appears in bold type.
4
"Irk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 6 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1995 CITY MGR.
"
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Holiday Schedule for Christmas, Christmas Eve, (1995) and
New Year's Day (1996) and New Year's Eve (1995)
Recommended Motion(s):
That Council approve the following as holidays: Friday, December 22
and Friday, December 29, 1995. With this it is recommended in the
future that the existing City policy for holidays be expanded to
provide direction for those years when the December holidays fall
on Friday /Saturday or Sunday /Monday (combinations currently not
anticipated in current policy). For the Friday /Saturday
combination it is recommended that the City holiday be observed on
the Monday following those holidays; for the Sunday /Monday
combination it is recommended that the City holiday be observed on
the Friday preceding those holidays.
Report Summary:
The end of calendar year 1995 and beginning of calendar year 1996
present a unique opportunity for interpretation of present City
policy relating to days off around the Christmas and New Year's
holidays. At present, our holiday time off policy for this time of
year is as follows:
If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday will be
observed. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding
Friday will be observed. When there are two sequential
holidays falling on weekends (Christmas Eve and Christmas Day,
New Year's Eve and New Year's Day), the nearest additional
weekdays will also be observed.
The language referring to the "two sequential holidays falling on
weekends" covers those years when the holidays are on Saturday and
Sunday. This year these holidays fall on Sunday and Monday. The
question has arisen as to whether City Hall ought to close on the
Tuesdays following the holidays or the Fridays preceding the
holidays. There are several alternatives and /or combinations of
these two days of the week that could be played out here. One
would involve taking each of the succeeding Tuesdays off; a second
would involve taking each of the preceding Fridays off.
Another option postulated would entail closing City Hall the week
of December 25 with the observed holidays being Monday and Tuesday
December 25 and 26 and Friday and Monday December 29 and January 1
respectively. City Hall would be open again for business on
Tuesday, January 2, 1996. Wednesday and Thursday, December 27 and
28 would be days taken on leave time or leave without pay.
The SEA was notified about this issue and provided an opportunity
to comment on this issue. An initial survey was circulated
throughout City departments which asked employees whether they
would prefer taking each of the Tuesdays off or each of the Fridays
off. Of the respondents, 70.5% (31) were in favor of having the
Tuesdays off; 25% (11) were in favor of having the Fridays off, and
4.5% (2) were in favor of having the first Tuesday and second
Friday off. A second survey was sent around asking all employees
to indicate "yes" or "no" as to whether they preferred closing
City Hall the full week of December 25 with the understanding that
the 27 and 28 would either be leave days or taken as leave without
pay. Of the 56 responding employees, 79% (44) support the concept,
12.5% (7) did not support the concept, and 9% (5) expressed no
preference or would cope with either decision.
The occurrence of this year's holidays falling successively on
Saturday and Sunday brings about another combination of days which
also is not addressed by current City policy. It is our assessment
that the following combination should be addressed: that there is
no language to address what happens when the holidays fall on a
Friday /Saturday. Consideration of this scenario in fact helps us
determine how to address many of these "odd" combinations of
holidays.
Service Availability Impacts:
1. Close Both Fridays -The service availability impact of having
City Hall closed on both preceding Fridays would be that there
would be a four -day week the week of December 18 -21 followed
by a three -day week the week of December 26 -28 and then
another four -day week the week of January 1 -5; a.k.a. a "4 -3-
4" plan.
2. Close both Tuesdays -The service availability impact of having
City Hall closed on both Tuesdays would be that the week
before Christmas would be a normal five -day week and the next
two weeks would each be three -day weeks; a.k.a. a 115 -3 -3"
plan.
3. Close the full week of Christmas -The service availability
impact of having City Hall closed the week of Christmas would
entail having a normal five -day week the week before Christmas
followed by a five -day closure of City Hall followed by a
four -day week the week of January 1 -5; a.k.a. a 115 -0 -4" plan.
4. Close on whatever combination of Monday /Friday makes for a
Friday through Monday block of time off -The service impact of
having City Hall closed on an applicable Friday or Monday
relative to the holiday weekends means that the schedule will
never entail more than a 114 -3 -4" plan (i.e., except for
Thanksgiving week, there will only be one other three -day work
week in any given year).
Potential Emplovee Impacts:
Because this would entail compensation and conditions of
employment, there could arise lengthy negotiations about this
issue. The schedule is being brought to the Council's attention
due to the fact that there does not exist specific language in the
current MOU or related City policy documents addressing this year's
scenario or the Friday /Saturday scenario.
Having the holidays taken off on any of the weekday scenarios noted
above would not require employees to use leave credits where that
is applicable. These scenarios would also not require those
employees who do not have leave to take leave without pay.
The scenario which would close down City Hall the week of Christmas
could potentially impact employees' leave times. Were City Hall to
close down, such action might be analogous to the Council
implementing a work furlough where the City would force employees
to take time off from either their leave or time off without pay
depending on the individual employees' circumstances. This would
likely have a positive fiscal impact for the City in that there
would be a reduction in payroll expenses equivalent to the amount
of employee hours taken without pay.
There are other issues which would arise if the City were closed
for business during the week of Christmas: For example, would it
be good customer service to keep a business or homeowner from a
timely issuance of a building permit due to the inability to get
one for five business days? What kind of liability exposure might
we have if we were unable to provide emergency services for sewers
or other infrastructure problems? What criteria would be used to
determine which services are most likely to require a skeleton
crew?
It will be important that whatever decision is made is memorialized
within City policy documents so that there is guidance for future
years having these odd sequences of holidays.
Recommendation:
It is staff's recommendation that if the December holidays fall on
Friday /Saturday that the City be closed on the Monday following
this scenario; on those holidays where they fall on a
Sunday /Monday, it is recommended that the City be closed on the
Fridays preceding those holidays. This will afford the City more
weeks that are four days long and fewer weeks where they are three
days long as noted above in the 114 -3 -4" plans. Such scenarios will
provide a consistent staffing presence and therefore better
3
customer service to our residents. Again, this will also entail
less entangled labor issues that are off -cycle from regularly -
occurring negotiations.
Fiscal Impacts:
There will be no fiscal impact resulting from the recommended
schedule. As noted above, there would be a fiscal impact were
Council to consider the alternative of closing for the full week of
Christmas.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Publication of agenda in the Saratoga News.
Conseauences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
If Council took no action on this issue, staff would be required to
return to Council with some other plan for providing employees time
off during the holidays.
Follow Up Actions:
City Manager to direct Assistant to City Manager to release
notification to the SEA and all other employees regarding the
Council's action on the holiday schedule.
4
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 7(97-,(0 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1995
CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPART.: Community Development
SUBJECT: Synopsis of Construction Activity at 15470 Quito Rd.
Recommended Motion(s):
Direct staff to continue working with Mr. Hammack regarding his
concerns with the construction of the new retaining wall in San
Thomas Aquino Creek.
Report Summary:
At the City Council meeting on September 26, 1995, Mr. Hammack
addressed the Council regarding his concerns relating to the City's
approval for the repair of an existing retaining wall in San Thomas
Aquino Creek located at 15470 Quito Rd. The City Council advised
Mr. Hammack that the issue would be placed on the agenda at the
next Council meeting and instructed staff to prepare a synopsis of
the matter.
On July 26, 1995, the property owner of 15470 Quito Rd., Mr.
Foster, applied for a building permit to repair 36' of an existing
wood retaining wall in San Thomas Aquino Creek. The plans were
reviewed by the Planning Department, Plan Check Engineer and
Building Inspector. The plans consisted of a parcel map indicating
the location of the wall and structural details with associated
calculations. It was not clear from the parcel map that the
proposed work was located in the creek. However, the structural
detail indicated the creek water line. The planner on duty and the
building inspector did not realize the significance of conducting
work within a creek and did not require the necessary approvals
from outside agencies. Since that time, I have reiterated the
proper procedure for processing such application and will prepare
a standard operating procedure for future reference.
On September 6, 1995 work commenced and the Codes Administration
Division received a telephone call from Mr. Hammack expressing his
concerns about the project. The complaint was routed to me and I
realized that approvals from outside agencies had not been
obtained. I instructed staff to visit the site and issue a stop
work order. Staff proceeded to the site, contacted Mr. Foster and
a stop work order was issued.
The proposed project requires approval from four outside agencies;
1) Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) , 2) Department of Fish
and Game, 3) Army Corp. of Engineers and 4) San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). Mr. Foster has
been notified of the approvals required from outside agencies. The
applicant must provide evidence of compliance with SCVWD, SFBRWQCB
and Fish & Game regulation prior to commencing work. The Army
Corp. of Engineers permits this type of work under the federal
existing non - reporting nationwide permit. In accordance with
federal law, the applicant reviews the criteria established in the
federal regulations and, through self evaluation, determines if the
proposed work qualifies under the nationwide permit. If the
project qualifies under the nationwide permit work may commence
provided other required approvals have been verified. Federal law
prohibits the City from imposing any additional notification
requirements regarding compliance with the nationwide permit.
After the stop work order was issued, the Codes Administration
Division contacted all outside agencies and advised them of the
project. On September 11, 1995, Gary Combes, of the Department of
Fish & Game, visited the site and issued approval to proceed on
September 14, 1995.
The applicant submitted plans to the SCVWD on October 10, 1995.
The staff engineer for SCVWD, Richard Anderson, informed me that
the plans appear to be adequate. However, he has scheduled a site
meeting on October 16, 1995 with Mr. Foster, the engineer of record
and myself to review the application. Additionally, he indicated
that the foundation for the new retaining wall must extend
approximately three feet below the creek bed to prevent
undermining. On October 11, 1995, Mr. Foster indicated that he
will contact the Army Corp. of Engineers and complete the self
evaluation to qualify under the nationwide permit. The Army Corp.
of Engineers directs applicants to SFBRWQCB as part of the
nationwide permit process.
Once the SFBRWQCB and SCVWD issues approvals the Department will
review the plans regarding compliance with City ordinances and
aesthetics. The Community Development Director has discussed this
matter with Mr. Hammack and explained that he will meet with Mr.
Foster and Mr. Hammack, on site, prior to authorizing the work to
commence. The Community Development Department received a letter
from Mr. Hammack on September 25, 1995 in which he expressed many
concerns regarding the project. The Community Development Director
has reviewed the letter and noted Mr. Hammack's concerns. The
Department understands Mr. Hammack's concerns and will exercise
necessary discretion in determining an acceptable design for the
new retaining wall.
Fiscal Impacts•
None.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
None.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The approval process for this application may not incorporate
concerns of the neighboring properties.
Follow Up Actions:
None.
Attachments:
None.
c: \wpdocs \reportl.doc
ffx
u7, Ped�
r."' R E SEP 2 5 1995
TO: City of Saratoga CITY OF SARATOGA
Saratoga City Hall CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Saratoga, California
Attn. Mr. Paul Curtis
Head, Community Development
FROM: Calvin M., and Lenore Hammack
15440 Quito Road
Saratoga, Calif. 950'70 Phone /Fax 354 -7991
Ref: Permit for construction of a downstream extension of an
old bank retaining wall on San Thomas Aquino Creek
at 15470 Quito Road by Howland and Carol Foster, owners.
We urgently protest the issuance of the referenced permit for a
very substantial extension of an ancient, hazardous and ugly cement
block retainin(j'wall along the San Thomas Creek running along the
rear of the Foster property, said cement block wall being the only
such construction in the neighborhood. The Hammack property is
adjacent to the Foster property and down stream, the creek also
running along the back of that property and in the township of
Monte Serreno. The Garzee property is directly across the creek
from the Foster property. Only a small fraction of the proposed
extension can be considered a replacement of prior construction,
and no part can properly be called repair. The main part of the
proposed construction is to be on virgin stream bank.
The grounds we submit in support.of this protest are:.
A. The Effects of Illecgal Activity The interrupted allegedly
illegal activity has resulted in damage to the bed and bank of the
creek rendering it even more vulnerable to potential flooding and
thus putting an undue urgency on agencies attempting to evaluate
the proposal for the referenced work. The allegations are recited
at the end of this letter. It suffices here to state that it does
not seem proper that the Foster's purpose should be furthered by
the illegal destruction already done in the creek. Not only was
damage done to the bank and bed of the creek but evidence as to the
preexisting condition of the bank was destroyed, thus the engineers
and agents of the Water District and the Fish and Game department
and the Garzee's insurance company are unable to evaluate fairly
that previous condition. Remnants of the few feet of the end of
the wall that remained after last years flood were also removed
furthering the problems of evaluation of the preexisting condition.
The city should not be hastened, as a result of the illegal
activity, into approving the concrete block wall proposed. Of the
available options this type of construction is the most difficult
to specify, the most costly and time consuming to build, the most
unsightly, the most difficult to modify in case of error.
B. Endangerment of Property. The lands of Garzee and
Hammack are endangered owing to the contemplated modification of
the water flow of the creek by, in our opinion, inexpert hands.
The exact direction and plan shape of the proposed wall has not
been established by any survey nor by the design or approval of a
registered civil engineer specializing in hydraulics. No site
survey or contour maps have been prepared by which such a competent
engineer could design a wall in such a manner as to minimize the
risks inherent in the installation of such a wall. The design of
the wall must minimize velocity and turbulence which can place the
lands of Garzee and Hammack as well as those of Foster at such
risk. There are civil engineers who specialize in locating and
configuring creek retaining walls so as to minimize the hazard of
that construction to property across and downstream and so as to
reduce the hazard to children and pets during high water.
Engineers of this caliber will not proceed without a topological
map of the stream including the main channel and the banks at,
above, and below the position along the creek of the proposed wall
extension. 7t appears No such engineer has been made formally
responsible for the design and location of the wall in any of the
organizations associated with this project, including the City of
Saratoga.
C. Endangerment of Life. No provision has been made, or seems to
be contemplated, to protect the lives of children as is required
for swimming pools. The continuing hazard to children presented .
by a potential drop of six or seven feet into a shallow pool of
water is certainly commensurate with that the hazard of a swimming
pool. At high water, close proximity and immediate depth of high
velocity water probably makes the walled creek of even greater
hazard than the swimming pool. Attempting to extricate oneself
from the creek at high water is almost impossible at the walled
edge of the creek. The added brick augmentation of the existing
wall applied to the proposed wall would increase its hazard.
D. Survey and Property Line No survey of the project has been
conducted by a registered land surveyor or registered civil
engineer as is required by law for such projects. The Garzees
particularly protest the issuance of a wall of this type without
a fully legal land survey. In this case the wall could be
instrumental in determine not only the boundary between the lands
of Foster and the lands of Garzee, but also instrumental in
determining the boundary between the townships of Saratoga and
Monte Sereno. It is likely that the Water District can be held
liable for any loss suffered by the Garzees owing to the issuance
of a permit without a properly performed and documented land survey
describing the exactly where on the site the proposed wall
extension is to be located and the configuration of the extension.
2
E. Unsightliness. The extension will be unsightly from the Garzee
side, and the Garzees particularly protest the construction of the
wall on these grounds. The use of concrete block for this purpose
is so unfortunate in view of the many alternative to the block wall
that are available: Rock, buried scrap concrete, even bagged
concrete would all be preferable to the horrid looking concrete
block construction that is contemplated in the application for
permit.
F. Wild Life Habitat. The habitat of an appreciable amount of
wild life would be wantonly destroyed by the issuance of a permit
for this wall. We hold this truth to be self evident. Were any of
the inspectors of the City or the other agencies to view the
condition of the creek, the wall, and the bank from any more than
the upper edge of the Foster bank they would probably come to the
same conclusion.
G. Precedence The precedence of recent management of the creek
has been to avoid the use of sheer concrete walls if at all
possible. In this particular case there is no compelling need for
the use of such a wall. Issuing a permit for this wall under the
present condition of the terrain and local sets a precedent for
other such construction both by the Fosters and by others. The
Fosters may well expect by this precedent to'be allowed to extend
their wall down stream toward the Hammack property line. The
Garzees, or their successors, can be expected, in view of the
permitted degradation of the opposite side of the bank, to build
a similar wall on their side. The total restriction of high water
flow can then be expected to cause a water velocity increase of
perhaps an order of magnitude at the property line. The precedent
set by the City in granting a permit to this new wall on the virgin
creek bank (No wall had been there before.) can only result in the
lovely San Thomas Aquino Creek becoming a concrete drainage canal
or ditch. Certainly it will no longer be a creek. Our engineers
should no simply rely on the decision of the Water District people,
who are not concerned with community pride, ethics, and the beauty
of nature, the water table, or even the soundness of the structure.
H. The Condition of the Old Wall The decrepit condition of the
existing wall,that wall from which the small length at the end was
torn away, suggests that it is not reasonable to issue a permit for
the sought extension of this wall without considerable modification
of the existing wall upstream from the five foot section that was
torn out in the storm. In issuing a permit for such an extension,
it would seem that the City in a way certifies that the whole wall
is safe. It is perfectly conceivable that were the old wall or a
portion of it collapse that the water could get in behind the newly
constructed wall and be funnelled directly into the downstream
property. It would not seem that the required drainage fill
specified in the original application would resist such erosion at
the rear of the wall. Only the representative of the Water District
has been persuaded to get down into the creek bed to inspect the
3
wall that appears to have more or less survived the storm. We know
of no such inspection either performed or planned by the City
authorities. In the area where it is desired to construct the
extension of the preexisting wall it is clearly seen than this
section is greatly undermined. This is not a condition that can
be blamed on a tree falling on top of the wall. There are several
factors that would seem to be important to one attempting to
evaluate the condition of the existing wall:
1. Undermining. - The undermined condition of that part of the
wall from which the five foot end piece was torn away and the
similar undermining of the wall upstream from the end that was torn
away.
2. The Construction - The design of the original wall should
be determined by a careful inspection by a registered engineer
competent in such matters. One must consider the great age of the
wall and take account of the techniques commonly employed in such
construction at the time it is estimated the wall was built. One
should look for signs that rebar had been used. A casual
inspection indicated that there was none. There seems to have been
no footing provided for the wall other than perhaps a bed of
stones.
3. Necessary Impact - An estimation of the impact that would
have to be applied to the top of a cement wall of proper design in
reasonable condition in order to tear it away from the rest of the
wall.
4. Actual Impact - An estimation of the force or impact that
was applied by the fallen tree that is said to have contributed,
at least to some extent, to the destruction of the end part of the
wall. In this connection one might wish to consider the whatever
softening of the blow would be afforded by the eighteen inch
topping of brick that had been added to the concrete structure
below. By visual inspection, one finds that all the old wall
appears to have been constructed with no concrete or other solid
footing and that there is sever erosion under the wall ' there is sever undermining of that section of the wall
from which the end piece was torn owing to the storm. One must ask
then as to the relative contributions to the demise the wall during
the storm. Was it a giant blow that no wall could have withstood?
Was it that the wall was so inadequately constructed, so undermined
by the water, and so aged by earthquake and storm over the decades
that it just fell away at the slightest provocation? It is noted
that a large ancient section of concrete completely damming creek
indicates at least one previous failure of the wall. The answers
to these question should indicate what may be expected of the
surviving wall after it has been extended. With the indicated
questions, answered in some detail and with considerable expertise,
a reasonable decision might be forthcoming as to the nature of the
modification of the existing wall that might permit a proper
4
termination of that to replace the raw end that had been there
before the storm tore five feet of it away.
I. Misleading Wordina Three critical words have appeared relative
to this application for building permit, and apparently to the
applications to the other agencies. These words would seem to have
a profound influence on the judgement of those evaluating the
proposal.
1. "Repair" and "Replacement" versus Extension - Apparently
in the applications for permits, and in discussions between and
among participants in this affair, regarding the character of the
work intended some misleading words have appeared which seem to
have colored the judgement of the officials involve. Only the
downstream five feet or so of the ancient decrepit wall crumbled
during the storm. Only building a wall of no more than about five
feet length can be possibly called a replacement of the destroyed
section or a repair of the remaining ancient wall. Yet it would
seem that the insurance company is to be charged for an extension
of the wall of some thirty -five feet down stream, possibly
including the actual replacement part. The use of the words
"repair" and "replacement" in a permit issued the City of Saratoga
tends to add the professional authority of the city engineers in
essentially certifying that there was a viable wall in that exact
location for the entire length of the proposed wall and that it was
that wall that collapsed during the storm. According to statements
given to one of us by City personnel, no agent or inspector or
investigator had taken the trouble to descend into the creek bed
to investigate the evidence of destruction prior to the illegal
backhoe work and before issuance of the permit. Furthermore, no
such agent of the City, has yet made such a descent to inspect the
remaining evidence of the tenuous state of the wall before the
storm and the damage to the unwalled bank created by the illegal
use of the backhoe thereon. In addition to the insurance people
the Water District and the Fish and Game people look to the city
for guidance and help in the enforcement of their rules and
regulations. It is astounding, the dependence of the other
agencies and organizations place on the use of the two words
"repair" and "replacement" being allowed and accepted in the permit
by the City. In our view, the use of these words in the
application for the construction of a wall that is to be any longer
than about five feet is intentionally deceptive, and the City is
a party to the deception if it accepts this wording in the issuance
of the permit.
2. Five Foot Wall - The application calls for a five foot
retaining wall. In our view it should be obvious to anyone walking
up the creek, not on its banks, from the Hammack property line that
the wall, installed with appropriate engineering standards, would
be over six feet most of the way and in some places over seven
feet. It is not obvious where a wall of five feet in height could
be installed appropriately. Again we have no information that any
City agent got down in the creek to examine the appropriateness of
this height dimension. We cannot help wondering whether or not
this five foot height dimension was put in the application or the
permit in order to clear the application past the City regulation
limiting hillside retaining walls to five feet. The question of
course is whether or not a creek bank of six or seven feet or more
can be called a hillside. Certainly an engineering drawing for a
wall such as this one would be expected to conform to the physical
realities of the site and not merely conforming to the legal
requirements of the City.
J. Motives for Building the New Wall. In view of all the
commotion caused by this project it behooves a participant in that
commotion to ask what motive drive one to such an unwanted
construction.
1. Increased Lot Size - Attaining the greatest possible area
of level land area in their real estate plot. Land values are
going up. In this way, the lot area available for present
agricultural use is maximized making possible maximum use of creek
water for agricultural and /or garden use. Later on, of course,
this maximized area can be used for the construction of swimming
pools and expanded housing.
2. Reduced Maintenance - One must admit that for the
pleasure of living on a creak, aside from being able to suck water
out of it for gardening, there is a price to pay in the effort and
vigilance it takes to care for it. The termination of one's
property in what seems to be a properly constructed river wall
would seem to endow a piece of property with an appearance of
stability, wishfully increasing its value. However, not everyone
will enjoy having a concrete drainage ditch running by the back
door, and the property value may indeed decrease. Certainly the
value of the property across the creek will decrease.
K. Alternatives. There are several alternatives available to
enable stabilization of the creek. None of these alternatives
would seem as atrocious in appearance, as great in expense, as
difficult to adjust, as harmful to wild life as a concrete wall.
APPENDIX
Violation of Permit Laws
1. Law Violation - We allege that, on or about Thursday,
September 9, 1995. At least one of the Fosters, possibly through
a prime contractor unknown to us, engaged, authorized and ordered
Mr. Dennis Eugene Lisher (owner of Denny's Backhoe, Inc., Gen. Eng.
Lic. No. 698386) to commence work preparatory to construction of
said wall by using his backhoe.to tear out about 35 feet of the
C7
embankment of said creek without having obtained a permit for doing
so from either the Water District or the Fish and Game Department.
We further allege that Mr. Lisher initiated this work according to
instructions.
2. Premeditation. - We submit that Mr. Lisher may have
started his work on the bank without the knowledge that no permit
had been obtained. However, Mr. Lisher continued work after he had
been thoroughly advised that no permit had been obtained and had
been warned of the charges he might face were he to continue
backhoeing the bank. In our view, the Fosters had to be fully
knowledgeable of the legal requirement for getting such permits
because some of us had advised them of this requirement on numerous
occasions. These occasions started well before the storm last
winter, which storm caused destruction of about five feet of the
downstream end of the ancient concrete wall. There was discussion
of the said permits only a week or so before the protested illegal
backhoe action, at which time Mr. Foster stated that he was going
to leave the matter of permits up to the insurance people and the
contractors. The last time that the matter of county and state
permits was raised with the Fosters was during the day the illegal
backhoe work " was in progress, and when the contractor(s)
interrupted their work long enough to determine that there was no
permit and to receive orders from at least one of the Fosters to
continue their illegal activity in spite of warnings as to the
illegality of their actions.
3. Damage. - We submit that great damage was done, by the
backhoe, to the bank of the creek and to evidence of the prior
physical status of the creek in the area of the wall destroyed.
We submit that this evidence had it not been destroyed could have
affected the decisions of the agents of the City of Saratoga, the
Water District, the Fish and Game Department and insurance people.
4. City Blame. - Hearing statements that the Fosters were
informed by the City that was no requirement for any other permit
than that issued by the City, the City people involved were
contacted. These people appear to accept only a limited blame as
follows:
a. The City people did not make a point of informing
Mr. Foster of the law about said permits.
b. The City people did not tell Mr. Foster that no
permit other than theirs was necessary.
C. The issue of permits was simply not discussed.
d. There is no legal requirement for the City people to
inform a person getting a permit from them about the requirements
of other agencies.
7
5. There appears to have been five chances for the violation
of the rules of the Water District and the Fish and Game Department
to have been avoided along with the appearance of possible
conspiracy to intentionally violate these rules.
a. At least one of the Fosters could have heeded our
repeated warnings and could have at least checked with the City or
the SCCWD or the F &G or with their hired civil engineer or licensed
general contractor about the necessity of getting the permits
before work was started.
b. The person who issued the City building permit could
have informed the applicant of the necessity of getting the said
permits. The City inspecting person examined the site at the bank
of the creek. The permit application was reviewed by a structures
engineer at the City. Both of these people must have known of the
requirement for the permit. It is our understanding that it has
been the policy of the City not to issue a permit until the permits
from the County and State agencies had been obtained.
C. The licensed professional engineer (CIVIL) who is
certified to have designed the wall must have known of the
necessity of obtaining such permits. The drawing clearly shows
that the wall was intended to be placed at the creek and he stated
to one of us that he had inspected the site. It is hard to believe
that he would not mention at least the Water District and the
functions of that organization during his claimed inspection of the
site and submission of his plan. Action against this gentleman for
negligence seems appropriate and is being taken before the
Professional Engineering Licensing Board. Effect of this action
on the career of this gentleman may be minimal as he has declared
himself to be retired.
d. Mr. Lisser, and the prime contractor if there was
one, should have assured was, it would seem, ethically bound to
counsel his client in the matter. It is a part of the requirement
for holding General Engineering Contractors license to know the law
relative to the work upon which he is to be engaged and to be
certain that all actions he takes is in accord with the law. We
have been unable to determine the identity of this contractor and
thus do not know whether or not he has a current valid license as
a General Engineering Contractor.
( Denny's Backhoe Inc. appears to have a current general
engineering contractor's license and appear to have known that they
were working on a stream embankment. That organization appears to
have proceeded without establishing the existence of the proper
permits. This action appears irresponsible and possibly in
violation of Codes governing contractors. In fact Denny's Backhoe
Inc. comprises but a single officer, Denny Lisser, the operator of
the machine.)
R
,1
It would seem that to get by these five opportunities for
enlightenment about the requirements of the law without deriving
any inkling about the relevance thereof to the proposed activity
indicates either very bad luck or very laudable determination.
6. ,Motives - One should seek to understand the motives that
may exist for a person to seek to buy pass the process of obtaining
the required state and county permits when such permits are rarely
denied and the mottoes of both agencies seems to be: "We cannot
prevent a land owner from constructing a creek retaining wall on
his property if he wants to ". The motives suggested include:
a. Saving time. Although the eventual issuance of the
permit seems always to be a certainty, the time required and
possible complications can be annoying.
b. Avoiding the bother. The Water district requires at
least an inspection of the site, and the submission of plans
containing the specification of the work to be accomplished.
c. Tile chances of being caught are not great. We are
told that the Water District and the Fish and Game department are
markedly understaffed.
A. Conclusion. We submit that the illegality of action in this
instance is not excusable on the basis of ignorance of the law.and
that offenders should not be allowed to profit by illegal actions
and that particular care should be exercised by the agencies
involved in issuing permits where occurrences of illegalities have
been indicated.
cc: City Council
Mr. Larry Perlin
9
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: (6 ?-S
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1995
AGENDA ITEM: I�
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Comm nity Development ?J
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: f`J
SUBJECT: AZO -95 -001 (a) & (b) - Proposed amendments to Saratoga's
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. An environmental Negative
Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the environmental Negative Declaration and introduce the amended
Ordinances as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Report Summary:
Description:
The Planning Commission has initiated amendments to the following
sections of Saratoga's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances:
a) Article 14- 50.040 Amendment to parcel Lot Line Adjustment
procedures allowing staff to approve Lot Line Adjustments which
conform to all applicable ordinances. Currently, Lot Line
Adjustments are required to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
b) Article 15- 70.020 Amendment
within hillside subdivisions
effect when the subdivision
originally approved, in lieu
setbacks.
Discussion:
to allow residential development
to use those building setbacks in
and site development plan were
of current lot - percentage based
At their July 26th public hearing the Planning Commission voted 6 -0
(Commissioner Patrick absent) to recommend approval of the proposed
amendments to the City Council. These Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance
amendments had previously been reviewed by the Planning Commission at
publicly noticed study session and regular public hearing meetings.
These amendments are intended to "correct" areas of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances which have become unnecessary or ineffective.
Pursuant to City Council policy, these amendments were introduced at the
August 22nd adjourned meeting as an opportunity to familiarize
Councilmembers with the items. The Council was supportive of the
changes and directed staff to schedule the items for formal
consideration at a regular City Council meeting.
The original Staff Memos to the Planning Commission discussing the
proposed amendments in detail are attached for reference. The revised
building Gross Floor Area definition, AZO-95-001 (d) , was accepted by the
Planning Commission as an interim policy guideline only; the Commission
did not want to address amending this ordinance until after the Design
Review Task Force had completed their study.
Public Notice:
A public notice was published in the Saratoga News.
Fiscal Impacts•
None.
Follow -up Actions:
None.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion:
Existing Ordinances would remain unchanged.
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinances
2. Environmental Negative Declaration
3. Staff Memos dated 3/8/95 & 6/6/95
j ames \memo. cc \azo951
U
F Pe MAN
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCEL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burger
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
M E M O R A N D U M Karen Tucker
Donald L. Wolfe
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Walgr ssociate Planner
DATE: March 8, 1995
SUBJECT: AZO- 95- 001(a); Proposed Amendment to Hillside
Subdivision Building Setback Requirements
Description:
The Planning Commission is initiating an amendment to Section 15-
70.020 of the City Code. This amendment would allow residential
development within hillside subdivisions to apply those building
setbacks in effect when the subdivision and site development plan
were originally approved, in lieu of current lot- percentage based
setbacks.
This is the first of four proposed ordinance amendments which were
first presented at the Planning Commission's annual retreat in
January. These amendments are intended to "correct" sections of
the Zoning Ordinance which are not working as effectively as
anticipated; none of these amendments would effect the City's basic
land use objectives and development criteria for the prospective
districts.
Discussion:
Subsection 15- 70.020(b) of the City Code was adopted in 1992 as
part of comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendments which were
reviewed and approved by the City Council based on the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Prior to these amendments, building
setbacks were based on the particular zoning district a property
was located in (see attached setback exhibit). The amendments
called for setbacks to be based either on these minimum distances
or on percentages of the parcel's width and depth, whichever
resulting distance is greater. These percentage setbacks only
apply to undeveloped sites; to apply it to the entire City would
have caused scores of existing homes to be considered nonconforming.
Printed on recycled paper.
AZO- 95- 001(a)
Page Two
On level parcels these increased setbacks have not created
significant hardships. On hillside- parcels, however, these
increased percentage setbacks are often contrary to the intended
building site when the subdivision was first approved. The
attached site development plan for Lot 3 of the Chadwick Place
subdivision represents where the future residence was anticipated
to be built when the subdivision was approved. This plan also
shows typical environmental constraints within the hillsides, such
as steep slopes, fragile drainage systems and open space protection
easements. Applying percentage based setbacks to this parcel now
would result in the home being located off of the approved pad, on
steeper slopes, within an open space easement and closer to the
natural drainage swale.
In order to preserve the intent of the setback ordinance to
increase required setbacks when possible, and to provide
environmentally sensitive hillside building locations in cases
where building sites were included in subdivision -level site
development plans, staff is recommending the following amendments
to Article 15- 70.020:
(a) The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the
approving authority under this Article with power to grant
variances from the regulations prescribed in this Chapter with
respect to site area, site frontage, width and depth, and
coverage, setbacks for front yards, side yards and rear yards,
allowable floor area, height of structures, distance between
structures, signs, off - street parking and loading facilities,
fences, walls and hedges, and alteration or expansion of
nonconforming structures, in accordance with the procedures
and requirements set forth in this Article.
(b) No variance for setbacks Est- anee betweeft strttetttres,
f enees , walls anel hedges shall be required hemmer for new
main and accessary structures proposed to be built en emist
gi-aded pads where:
(1) The kxl pads 1 graded pursuant to an
approved tentative map, recorded final map and approved
grading plan, consistent with the final map; of
(2) The location of the building site was an important factor
in approving the subdivision, as demonstrated by a
preponderance of evidence, such as supplemental site
crttt plans, discussion in staff reports or public
........:::...... .p minutes, applicable environmental documents,
adopted findings and a resolution approving the project
and in adopted conditions of approval.
AZO- 95- 001(a)
Page Three
The i ......................... I.- :► Director shall determine
...:::::::::::::::::...........:.:.: .....:....::::....:: :..........
the applicability of this subsection. The Director's
decision shall be subject'to appeal pursuant to Section 2-
05.030. Relief granted under thisubsection does not
relieve the project from other applicable .... requirements of this
Chapter.
Recommendation:
Direct staff to proceed with preparing the proposed ordinance
amendments for review and continue the public hearing to a date
uncertain. Once the remaining three amendments have been reviewed
by the Planning Commission, a Resolution (including all of the
amendments) together with an environmental Negative Declaration
will be noticed for a final public hearing for formal
recommendation to the City Council.
Attachments:
1. Setback Exhibit
2. Typical Hillside Site Development Plan
Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements:
INTERIOR LOTS
THE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LOTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
VACANT LOTS AND LOTS CREATED AFTER JANUARY, 1992, ARE AS FOLLOWS:
ZONE DISTRICT
FRONT
SIDE
REAR
IMPERVIOUS
SIDE:
10%
of
1st /2st
COVERAGE
R -1- 10,000
25
10
25/35
60%
R -1- 12,500
25
10
25/35
55%
R -1- 15,000
25
12
30/40
50%
R -1- 20,000
30
15
35/45
45%
R -1- 40,000
30
20
50/60
30 %*
HR
30
20
50/60
25 %* (up to max.
15,000 sq. ft.)
THE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL VACANT LOTS AND LOTS CREATED
AFTER JANUARY, 1992, SHALL BE EITHER THE ABOVE, OR AS FOLLOWS,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER:
FRONT:
20%
of
lot
depth
SIDE:
10%
of
lot
width
REAR:
25%
of
lot
depth
SETBACK ENVELOPE
42
* Excluding driveways providing access to required parking
(Impervious Coverage includes any structure or hard surface which
substantially impairs the permeability of the soil).
S\
ov► c D�\c6pme4 or} Iran
cilsru� ve, (CCACV)
Tc,(wej.4 64.
V-,4qCd UX6 �CUOpe-AA
CLIACIC UA e4,4+, (5w6 !4ecr-,v 4ct�oxivl OWC4
c6-tv 4c, 4Ire - w" i cw,17 ;tcx►te.
-w mt 4wc C-,ri , NO
m
om*vpx-vW d PnAyfo*%
JOW�14WM:
t*r Ad TAW
I
D7'
J4
5irm:
vp5. f ox
Jf
tv,
S\
ov► c D�\c6pme4 or} Iran
cilsru� ve, (CCACV)
Tc,(wej.4 64.
V-,4qCd UX6 �CUOpe-AA
CLIACIC UA e4,4+, (5w6 !4ecr-,v 4ct�oxivl OWC4
c6-tv 4c, 4Ire - w" i cw,17 ;tcx►te.
-w mt 4wc C-,ri , NO
m
r
I
93MISS
laill �
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burger
Paul E. Jacobs
M E M O R A N D U M Gillian Moran
Karen Rucker
Donald L. Wolfe
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Walgr n, Associate Planner
DATE: June 6, 1995
SUBJECT: AZO- 95- 001(c &d); Proposed Amendments to
Lot Line Adjustment Procedures and
Allowable Floor Area Definition
Description:
Discussed herein are the last two, of four, proposed ordinance
amendments which were first presented at the Planning Commission's
annual retreat in January. These amendments are intended to
"correct" sections of the Zoning Ordinance which are not working as
effectively as anticipated. At previous meetings the Planning
Commission heard suggested amendments to the building height -to-
allowable floor area and percentage setback requirements. The
remaining two proposed amendments include simplifying the Lot Line
Adjustment application procedures and. clarifying the current
definition of. building floor area.
Discussion:
Community Development Director to act on Lot Line Adjustment
applications which conform to all applicable Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance requirements.
As the Planning Commission knows, the State Subdivision Map Act
(Section 66412) states that local agencies shall limit their review
and approval of Lot Line Adjustments to "a determination of whether
or not the parcels resulting from the Lot Line Adjustment will
conform to local zoning and building ordinances ". Local advisory
agencies are prohibited from imposing conditions or exactions on
Lot Line Adjustment approvals, except to facilitate the relocation
of existing utilities or easements.
The City's Subdivision Ordinance (Section 14- 50.040) establishes
the review procedure used when considering Lot Line Adjustment
applications, and reiterates the criteria outlined in the Map Act.
Printed on recycled paper.
This code section was adopted in 1962 when the City had a Zoning
Administrator, a staff position, which acted as the advisory agency
for all ministerial and most discretionary permit approvals. Much
of the authority of this position was later transferred to the
Planning Commission, which then became the "advisory agency" for
Lot Line Adjustments as well. Since Lot Line Adjustment reviews
are tightly regulated by the Map Act, there is no real benefit to
having the Planning Commission review them. Staff is therefore
recommending the following changes to Section 14- 50.040 of the
Subdivision Ordinance:
14-50.040 Action b
Y ::.::.::.::....
!aaa f findings.
..............................
(a) Within fifty days after the application is accepted as
complete, unless such time is extended by mutual agreement of
the advisory agency and the applicant, the
x shall approve, conditionally
approve or disapprove the application and shall report such
action to the applicant. A copy of said report shall be kept
on f ile in the City of f ices for a period of not less than f ive
years, and in all events, until the recordation of a record of
survey or deed, as required under Section 14- 50.060, and final
acceptance by the City of any public improvements to be
constructed by the applicant and, termination of the
applicant's responsibility to maintain such improvements.
b
The
rn.. ��r ,;;�?��x�.cs��rr���.r�.�i.�r shall
not approve a lot line adjustment unless it makes al'1 of the
following findings;
(1) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with
the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
(2) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with
the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and
this Chapter. For the purpose of this finding, the lot
line adjustment shall be deemed consistent if no new
violation of such regulations is created by the lot line
adjustment, or if the nonconformity created by the lot
line adjustment is specifically approved by the advisory
agency through the appropriate process, such as the
granting of a variance or use permit under Chapter 15 of
this Code or the granting of an exception under this
Chapter.
(3) That the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large for
access through or use of, the subject properties. In
this connection, the advisory agency may grant tentative
approval if it finds that alternate easements for access
or use will be provided, and that these will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by
the public. This Subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to the advisory agency to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements
for access through or use of any portion of the subject
properties.
Clarifying the definition of building Gross Floor Area.
Saratoga's current definition of building Gross Floor Area, as
amended in 1987, has been subject to staff interpretation in
several instances as to what the definition includes or excludes.
Staff is proposing to clarify this definition with the following
text modifications to Subsection 15- 06.280 of the Zoning Ordinance:
15- 06.280 Floor area; gross floor area.
(a) Floor area means horizontal area measured in square ,feet
b Gross floor area means the otal<:<:: >:<::: :>:::: ::::: >::: » :::::: >::: ><:
g
floor space under roof of all floors of a building
me�asured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including
halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and
mechanical equipment rooms, interior courts; wter-o •i`'t-••`
Recommendation:
Direct staff to proceed with preparing the proposed ordinance
amendments for public hearing review and approval. A final
Resolution including each of the four amendments, together with an
environmental Negative Declaration, will be noticed for a public
hearing for formal recommendation to the City Council.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. AGENDA ITEM
9
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1995 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Adoption of CDBG County /City Contract for FY 1995/1996
Recommended.Motion: Adopt Contract and Authorize City Manager to
execute.
Report Summary: Through a Joint Powers Agreement the City of
Saratoga participates with nine other small cities and Santa Clara
County as Urban County recipients of Community Development Block
Grant funding. The federal government requires each participating
jurisdiction to annually execute a contract specifying each party's
responsibilities and obligations. Attached to the contract is a
list of projects and the budgeted amount for this year.
The contract has been revised from its earlier format and there is
an addendum to Exhibit G. The revisions to the contract focus on
specific insurance levels required of cities and non - profits when
major constructions projects are undertaken. The addendum to
Exhibit G is simply formalizing the current insurance requirements
that are practiced in most Urban County Cities. Other than the
changes mentioned, the contract formalizes the existing operation
of the program and does not impose any new obligations on the City.
The City's balance as of July 1,' 1995, for FY 1995/1996 is
$511,867.64.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Follow -Up Actions: Staff will send signed CDBG County /City Contract
for 1995/1996 to the County.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: City will
not be reimbursed for projects eligible for CDBG funding.
Attachments:
1. CDBG County /City Contract for 1995/1996
2. List of projects for FY 95 -96
3
TWENTY -FIRST PROGRAM YEAR
' SUMMARY OF ALLOCATION
CDBG FY95/96
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
PROJECT SCR IO PROJECT O
NUMBER FUNDING
FY95/96
SG DEV FOR LOW INCOME
SA -88 -11
15,897.96
HSG DEV FOR LOW INCOME
SA -92 -11
13,868.03
HSG DEV FOR LOW INCOME
SA -93 -11
49,957.00
ADA COMPLIANCE
SA -94 -41
3,690.00,
CITY -WIDE CURB CUT PROG
SA -94-42
112,500.00
HOUSING REHAB ADMIN
SA -94 -52
1,954.65
ADA COMPLIANCE - ARCHITECTURAL
SA -95-41
124,000.00
BARRIER REMOVAL CITY FACILITIES
LOW INCOME HOUSING FUND
SA -96 -11
50,000.00
TRI- AEGIS- ALLENDALE HOME
SA -96 -12
50,000.00
ACQUISITION
INNVISION - MONTEREY ST INN
SA -96 -13
5,000.00
EMERGENCY HOUSING CONSORTIUM-
SA -96 -14
10,000.00
REHAB RECEPTION CENTER PHASE II
EMERGENCY HOUSING CONSORTIUM
SA -96 -15
3,000.00
MONTEREY GLEN INN REHAB PHASE II
TIMPANY CENTER REHAB OF FACILITY
SA -96 -16
5,000.00
SARATOGA AREA SENIOR
SA -96 -31
18,500.00
COORDINATING COUNCIL - DAYCARE
SARATOGA AREA SENIOR
SA -96 -32
18,500.00
COORDINATING COUNCIL -
OPERATIONS
URBAN COUNTY REHAB SERVICES
SA -96 -53
15,000.00
GENERAL ADMIN
SA -96 -91
15,000.00
511,867.64
Prepared by Lisa Perez. Countv HCD
21 vear Proiects
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 (o 23 AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1995
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
CITY MGR.
DEPT. HEAL
SUBJECT: Approval to purchase replacement play structure at
Congress Springs Park
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to authorize issuance of a $13,006.93 purchase order to
Landscape Structures, Inc. for purchase of -a replacement play
structure for Congress Springs Park.
Report Summary:
The Parks & Buildings Maintenance Superintendent has secured a
proposal to replace the play structures at Congress Springs Park
which were vandalized in early August. The recommended replacement
structures would meet new applicable safety standards and are
designed for children between the ages of 5 and 12 years. The
Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the design of the
replacement structures on September, 5 and recommends Council
approval of them.
The new structures would cost $13,006.93 and would be obtained
through a vendor which has recently supplied several of the play
structures at other City parks. Approval of the purchase at this
time is requested as it will take between 6 and 8 weeks for the new
structures to-be delivered. In the meantime, staff will solicit
bids for installation of the structures including disabled access
modifications to the play area now required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. This work is estimated to cost an additional
.$9,000, bringing the total cost of the replacement to around
$22,000.
Fiscal Impacts•
A claim has been filed with the City's insurance carrier, ABAG Plan
Corp., for replacement of the play structures and all related work.
ABAG staff has indicated that the City's claim will be honored less
the City's $5,000 deductible amount. The claim will be processed
once cost estimates for purchase and installation of the new
structures are submitted. Thus, the City should receive an
insurance settlement for around $17,000, while the deductible
amount of $5,000 can be funded from the balance in the Park
Development Fund (Fund 31). Once bids for the installation are
approved, a resolution to amend the budget as follows will be
presented for Council approval:
Increase Park Development (Fund 31) revenues by $17,000 to
reflect receipt of the insurance settlement.
Transfer $22,000 from Fund 31 balance to Activity 36 (Park
Maintenance), Account 6715 (Land Improvements) to fund the
purchase and installation of the new play structures.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Authorization to purchase the replacement play structures will not
be provided. Staff would follow whatever other course of action
the Council would choose to pursue.
Follow Up Actions:
1. A purchase order for $13,006.93 will be issued to Landscape Play
Structures, Inc.
2. Bids will be solicited for installation of the play structures
and access modifications to the play area.
Attachments:
1. Report from Parks & Buildings Maintenance Superintendent.
2. Quotation from Landscape Play Structures, Inc.
3. Plans for proposed replacement play structures.
J
SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED PLAY - STRUCTURE AT CONGRESS SPRINGS
PARR
Recommended Motion(s): Approve purchase of replacement play -
structure for Congress Springs Park
Report Summary: On August 8, 1995 the old wooden play- structure at
Congress Springs Park was destroyed by an arson fire. This
structure which was over fifteen (15) years old, consisted of a
platform, slide, swings and a tire swing. These play- structures
were scheduled to be replaced within the next five to six years to
meet SB2733 State Legislation which mandates compliance with
Federal Playground Safety Standards by the year 2000.
The property loss is covered by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) group policy with the City. ABAG will pay for
the purchase of the replacement and its installation, less the
$5,000 deductible. The total estimated cost of $22,000 for the
purchase of a new structure and installation. The new play -
structure must meet current standards which are determined by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), "Standard
Consumer Safety Performance' Specification for Playground Equipment
for Public Use ", and the Federal Consumer Products Safety
Commission's (CPSC) 1°Publ.ic Handbood for Safety ". This new
structure must meet the Americans with Disabilities Act which
requires all public facilities (including playgrounds) be free of
architectural barriers.to access if constructed or installed after
January 1, 1995. The recommended new play- structure will conform
to all mandated standards.
The play- structure components consists of a platform deck, peak
roof, spiral slide, snake climber, curved slide and an independent
swing set. The cost of this play- structure is $13,007 to purchase,
approximately $9,000 to install the structure and modify the play
area to comply to ADA access standards. ABAG has stated that they
will cover the purchase cost and installation, less the $5,000
deductible, once they receive the formal estimates for purchase of
the new structure and its installation.
On September 5, 1995 the Parks and Recreation Commission approved
the play- structure replacement as designed.
Fiscal. Impact: This is an un- anticipated expenditure of $5,000 for
the deductible.
Follow Up Action: None
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommendation Motion:
The play- structure would not be purchased at this time and possibly
be rescheduled for a later date. This structure is important
because it provides play environment for many children between the
ages of 5 to 12 years old who are involved in /or with the many
activities scheduled throughout the year at Congress Springs Park.
~ ' =. - F _RD�T: 1,r1 i 1EGC~ U �?�P�.'' V
4rE x411_149 . 47 902
09: =C
@9 tUJy
2RMILANDSCAPE
STRUCTURES TD :6129726091 PAGE 1/3
r r.
�c��1LN GVtT'N �LU1NC�
QUOTE SHEET Quote No: 1061719
Date: 09 -06 -95 Rep Organization: ROSS RECREATION
By: RF Contact Person: 3WI14G PHILBIN
Project Title: CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
Location: SARATOGA, CA
Phone No:
Style: Playbooster Posts: Aluminum Bury Type: Direct Bury
Q'T'Y N0. DESC RI IFTION UNIT UNIT WEIGHT PRICE
WT. PRICE
PLAYSTRUCTURE COMPONENTS
POSTS
2 111404 124" ALUM. POST
4 111403 182" ALTUX, POST FOR ROOF
ROOFS
1 111408 PEAK ROOF
DEGKS
2 111228
1 111248
ENCLOSURES
1 111267
1 111267
1 116247
SLIDES
1 111414
1 11,5353
ATTACHMENTS
1 111359
SQt3JI�PE TENDSP.. ECK
TRANSFER MODULE, RIGHT 48" DECK
POLY MALL
POLY WALL W /DIHEEL
VERTICkL LADDER - PANEL 24"
SLIDEWINDER 48" DECK
SPYROSLIDE FOR 72" DECK
/CONNECTORS
SNAKE CLIM13EiR 72" DECK
Weight & Cost of Playstructure Items
Concrete: 27.20 cu -ft, Fcatings: 15
Labor; 34.00 Tian - riours
INDEPENDENT COMPOISNTS
TNDEPENDEN'r SWINGS
1 100050 5" ARCH BELT SwM"G, 2 PLACE
30 118.00 60
236.00
41 161.00 164
644.00
200
1143.00
127 480.00 254
960.00
400
1821.00
105
368.00
ill
463.00
40
335.00
208
1015.00
470
2330.00
102
675.00
2114 $ 9990.00
245 1480.00
Weight & Cost of independent Items 245 $ 1490.00
Concrete: 7.00 c1.1 -ft, FoOtingS: 4
Labor: 3.00 Mar- -Hours
FF. ` - : r� 0 PP F'cPT I0t'1 El-U i P. 40.3 7411049
-9S 09:29 FROM:LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES 10=6129726091
Page: 2
Date: 09 -06 -95
`I._ i
QUOTE SHEET Quote No: 1061719
Project Title: CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
N0. 47 D4 '
PAGE 2/3
Style: Playbooster Posts: Aluminum Bury Type: Direct Burg
QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT WEIGHT PRICE
WT. PRICE
- - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight & Cost of Equipment 2359 $ 11470.00
Estimated requirements for Equipment.
Ccucrete: 34.20 cu -ft, Footings: 19
Labor: 37.00 Man -Hours T"
Estitrated Man -Hours do not include site preparation ko&4,r
Quote is valid for 30 days. Signed Date
1uA2rkWA ink
Alp-
MI C).
"` �bG1` 7tii` ST12FE►' 1{; 4' t3 :i�Gf.flEtA,t+c�'•Weipc�tjsa.9 ►�ai�4J
0517$'x:: 2�33P7�< i�Sl �Q :32q?003Si'•r/YX:'iS= aT!.'`)�2' ;x .:
r sf±r
CCI \IGI �I_SS �hI III \I IURIIr1:1
LA�ID+SCA�E
SrRuG7URES INC
ROUTE 3. 601 7TH $T. SOUTH DElANO, MINNESOTA 55328 (612) 972-3391 1A0432SM35 FAX (612) 972-6091
106 17 19
BY MCM
CCI \IGI �I_SS �hI III \I IURIIr1:1
LA�ID+SCA�E
SrRuG7URES INC
ROUTE 3. 601 7TH $T. SOUTH DElANO, MINNESOTA 55328 (612) 972-3391 1A0432SM35 FAX (612) 972-6091
106 17 19
BY MCM
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
SARATOGA, CA
PUYBOOSTER COMPONENT SYSTEM
9 -6 -95 RF
ROSS RECREATION
SMNL N FEET
IT 1'
SATETY 1101E
wn • mnw �m1r � v n
mtun at
1ma v K s®. . u
loon a u A1� mw
os anaAn m+ow c j
- --
/
/ 111111
Qt
sMmEr6roT7M
I
I
1
116247
2r BECK OFF
PUN. WDER
31' -9°
LAM �SCA�
\
1
IIS7SS
77 W(ROM
I
I
• I
L
111767
POLY VmL
W/iE° 72 s111um
\\
L / I I
48 �. 72 1
4U 111767
32 1 Fmy `Au
111716 ,11106
4r MW tur 16 8 °FNt R0°` '
r - --
r— TRANSFER
1 POW , 1
i
MMUM Tau OF /
Acmmm PRO!-
SURFACM
32'
ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO. IRL
555 5th Street, /210
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707)526- 4800/ Fax (707)528.Og12
F------ - - - - --
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
_J L_
I 1
I
I I
I I
100
1
BELT SW , 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
8
L------- - - - -��
girl x �9
tXF! to
J l KxII \IG`'
994 by Larxt=" Structures Im M NtO reserved.
u►NCSCAVE
10/
106 17 19
BY MCM
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
SARATOGA, CA
PLAYBOOSTER COMPONENT SYSTEM
9 -6 -95 RF
ROSS RECREATION
SCALE: M FEET
0' 1' 5' 10'
SAFETY NOTE
WS A OUW.X HWW VXW Or AT {LAST Tit
HDGHT Or TIE HP ACQ59B[ wrir/r�ll
IEIOW Or TIE AMICE"t C0X1ENT. (REF
O'9C ovalm Sm1m 10: affACNP.)
STRUG7�R�=I"
31' -9 ""
1994 by Landscape structures Inc. All rights reserved.
e e0... S
32'
ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO. INC. .
555 5th Street, 1210
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 526 -4800 / Fax (707) 526 -0812
— — — — — — — — —
1
I
I I
I I
100050 I
5' ARCH
1 BELT SWING
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1!5�
— — —
iSPIROSUOE
L------- - - - --1
NUy�
11WJJUF0
J 77
ic-
LLA
C�O
La
tz
C)
/
I
'
111414
SUDEWINDER
\
I
\
\
111267
POLY
(WALL
W EFL 72
717J59 \
— —
SNAKE CUMBER
1
48 I 72
I
— — —
116247 40 —
24' DECK RIFF. 111267
PERM. LADDER 32 POLY WALL
24
111248 111408
/
1 6 Q PEAK ROOF
—i.
TRANSFER U
MODULE
I r— �
` TRANSFER I
PP I I
\ 1 I
1 I
I 1
I 1
1 MINIMUM AREA OF 1 /
ACCESSIBLE PROTECTIVE I /
\ 1 SURFACING
\ I
1994 by Landscape structures Inc. All rights reserved.
e e0... S
32'
ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO. INC. .
555 5th Street, 1210
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 526 -4800 / Fax (707) 526 -0812
— — — — — — — — —
1
I
I I
I I
100050 I
5' ARCH
1 BELT SWING
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1!5�
�
L------- - - - --1
NUy�
11WJJUF0
yW<
ic-
LLA
C�O
z U
Egli,
ic-
LLA
C�O
La
tz
C)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z % 2 Z AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1995 CITY MGR.:/
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
S8(4
SUBJECT: Grant of Right -of -Way to San Jose Water Company for water
main installation in Village Parking District No. 2
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to approve the Grant of Right -of -Way and authorize its
execution by the City Manager.
Report Summary:
San Jose Water Company is requesting a Right -of -Way in Village
Parking District No. 2 for the purposes of installing and
maintaining a water main to serve Tract No. 8683, the five
townhouse units currently under construction at the -end of Fifth
Street. If approved by the City, water service to the development
would be provided through a connection to the existing water main
on Fourth Street rather than through a new extension on Fifth
Street which would need to cross Big Basin Way. Because of'the
considerable additional cost to provide water service to the
development from Fifth Street, and the desire to not trench across
Big Basin Way, staff recommends approval of the Water Company's
request.
Fiscal Impacts•
The Water Company is requesting acquisition of the Right -of -Way for
the sum of $1. However, staff has worked out a separate
arrangement whereby the developer will reseal and restripe the
entire parking lot at his expense. This will allow for at least
two additional parking spaces to be created, thus satisfying a
request made earlier this year by several of the property owners
within the District who, you may recall, contended that the number
of spaces originally promised them when the District was set up,
were never all provided.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The Grant of Right -of -Way will not be approved. The Water Company
will instead proceed to serve the development through an extension
along Fifth Street.
Follow Up Actions:
The Grant will be executed and recorded.
Attachments:
1. Grant of Right -of -Way.
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
San Jose Water Company
1221 South Bascom Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128
Attn.: James Bariteau
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX:
None /No Monetary Consideration
APN:
R I G H T- 0 F - W A Y
T H I S I N D E N T U R E, made and entered into this
day of , 19 , by and between
First Party, and SAN JOSE WATER
COMPANY, a California corporation, Second Party.
WITNESSETH:
First Party, for and in consideration of the sum of one (1) dollar, in
lawful money of the United States of America, to him in hand paid by Second
Party, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do by these presents, grant
to Second Party and to its successors and assigns forever:
The right and privilege of excavating for and laying pipelines as
and when and as often as the same may be desirable in the opinion of Second
Party, together with all fittings, connections and appliances which Second Party
may desire to install in connection therewith, for the transmission and
distribution of water and also the right of maintaining, using and replacing and /or
enlarging the same for such purposes and also the right and privilege of
relaying, repairing, removing and /or renewing the same. using pipe, fittings,
E5- 240.doc (City of Saratoga)
connections and /or appliances either of the same size or sizes as may first be
installed or of any other size or sizes and also a right -of -way along the same,
upon, in, through, along and across the following described land situate in the
County of Santa Clara, State of California, to wit:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Saratoga, County of
Santa Clara being an easement for the construction, repair, maintenance
and replacement of a water line and appurtenances thereto, described
as follows:
Beginning at the northeasterly comer of Parcel E as said Parcel is shown
on that certain Parcel Map filed for record in Book 440 of Maps at pages
41 and 42, Santa Clara County Records, said point being on the
southerly line of Fourth Street as shown on said Map; thence along the
said southerly line of Fourth Street N47000'00"W 35.27 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said southerly line S43 °00'35 "W
154.80 feet to the northeasterly line of Lot 1 as shown on the Map of
Tract No. 8683, filed for record in Book 663 of Maps at pages 6 and 7,
Santa Clara County Records; thence along said northeasterly line of said
Lot 1 N47 000'00 "W 14.00 feet to the northwesterly comer of said Lot 1;
thence along the northwesterly line of said Lot 1 S43 000'35 "W 150.00
feet to the southwesterly comer of said Lot 1, said point being on the
northerly line of Fifth Street as shown on said Map; thence along said
northerly line of Fifth Street N47000'00"W 12.00 feet; thence leaving said
line N43 000'35 "E 145.21 feet; thence N88 000'35 "E 15.56 feet; thence
N43 000'35 "E 148.59 feet to the northeasterly line of said Parcel E and
the southerly line of said Fourth Street; thence along said line
S47 000'00 "E 15.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
The foregoing rights and privileges hereinabove granted are made
upon the following terms and conditions:
First Party shall neither construct nor permit to be constructed any
building or any other permanent structure on said right of way.
First Party shall neither plant nor permit to be planted trees within
said right of way.
E5- 240.doc (City of Saratoga)
First Party shall neither change nor permit to be changed the grade
over said right of way.
The respective rights, covenants and conditions contained herein
shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, successors
and assigns of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, First Party has executed this
Indenture the day and year first above written.
E5- 240.doc (City of Saratoga)
M
By:
M
By:
Q
Z
CJ)
Q
(32
ii
.FOURTH STREET
N47.00.00'W
p`L 0
� QV
-
o.e
. 7)0.
67.00
T,
I I• /�
- -35.27 -•
1
I
cD
CD
I
�I
m
1
15• WATPP
W' EASEMENT
I o I 'v
O an I
z 0
I I z
EXISTING IO' STORM
DRAIN EASEMENT 0
�Q�
N88.00'35 -E 15.56 -I- N47 00'00 -W — — --
/ 62.83
N88'00*35 -E 15.56
3•
PGI. 44 0
- - - -�
�� P •& 42
o0 0
00 o
M
T NO•
W� ��• � �,�,TRAG S 1 W
Q og8�6
00 663 0
I �n
I I
N4410LWN 11.00-'
N47.00'00'W 62.83
IF H STREET
SCALE : I- � 40'
,
K! RKEBY ENGINEERING CORP. I
10950 N. Stoney Ave.
Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408)252-9690 j
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION
SCCIe: I" = 40' (Date: JUNE 1995 Job No. 93
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V ��j AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1995 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Approval of Program Supplement #12 to the City -State
master agreement for Federal -Aid projects
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to adopt the Resolution approving Program Supplement #12 to
the Local Agency -State Master Agreement for Federal -Aid Projects.
Report Summary:
The attached Resolution, if adopted, will approve Program
Supplement #12 to the Master Agreement dated August 17, 1977,
between the City and the State covering terms and conditions for
receipt of federal funds for local transportation projects.
Program Supplement #12 incorporates the storm damage repairs
completed earlier this year to Pierce Road between Masson Court' and
Vintage Lane into the master agreement. The Program Supplement
must be approved before the City can apply for and receive federal
funds which are administered by Caltrans, and the approval of the
Program Supplement must be memorialized by the City Council by
adoption of a resolution.
Fiscal Impacts•
Since the work performed constitutes emergency repairs and was
completed within 180 days from the end of the storm period, the
City is eligible for 100% reimbursement of all costs associated
with the repair work, approximately $90,000. The approved budget
contains a General Fund revenue estimate of $75,000 in Account 9890
(Refunds & Reimbursements) for this item.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Conseauences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The resolution would not be adopted and the Program Supplement
would not be approved. Until it is, the City can neither claim nor
receive federal reimbursement for costs incurred.
Follow Up Actions:
The Program Supplement will be transmitted to Caltrans along with
certified copies of the resolution. Upon receipt of the fully
executed copy, a claim for reimbursement will be processed with
Caltrans.
Attachments:
1. Resolution approving Program Supplement #12.
2. Program Supplement #12.
04- SCL -0 -SAR
ER- 2851(002)
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
DATE: 09/21/95
1. The effective date of this agreement is 01/03/95
2. All maintenance, involving the physical condition and the
operation of the improvements, referred to in Article VI
MAINTENANCE of the aforementioned Master Agreement will be
performed by the Local Agency at regular intervals or as required
for efficient operation of the completed improvements.
3. The Local Agency will advertise, award and administer this
project in accordance with the current Local Program Procedures
or the new Local Programs Manual, when issued.
4. The Local Agency agrees the payment of Federal funds will be
limited to the amounts approved by the Federal Highway
Administration in the Federal -Aid Project Agreement (PR -2) /Detail
Estimate, or its modification (PR -2A) or the FNM -76, and accepts
any increases in Local Agency Funds as shown on the Finance or
Bid Letter or its modification as prepared by the Office of Local
Programs.
5. Emergency repair work will be reimbursed at 100% if completed
within 180 days from the end of the storm period. The storm
period is January 3, 1995 through and including February 10,
1995. Local Agency records must clearly identify those costs
incurred on or after January 3, 1995. Incurred costs are defined
as disbursements made or in process for goods and services
delivered. Emergency repair work completed after August 9, 1995
will be funded at the federal -aid reimbursement ratio of 88.53 %.
Restoration work, including preliminary engineering, will be
reimbursed at an 88.53% ratio. The Local Agency will be
responsible for the matching requirement.
6. In executing this Program Supplemental Agreement, Local
Agency hereby reaffirms the "Nondiscrimination Assurances"
contained in the aforementioned Master Agreement for
Federal -Aid Program.
7. Whenever the local agency uses a consultant on a cost plus basis,
the local agency is required to submit a post audit report cover-
ing the allowability of cost payments for each individual consul-
tant or sub - contractor incurring over $25,000 on the project.
The audit report must state the applicable cost principles utili-
zed by the auditor in determining allowable costs as referenced in
CFR 49, part 18, Subpart C - 22, Allowable Costs.
Page 2 of 2
Date: September 21, 1995
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 012 Location: 04- SCL -0 -SAR
to Project Number: ER- 2851(002)
LOCAL AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT E.A. Number: 04- 927839
FOR FEDERAL -AID PROJECTS NO. 04 -5332
This Program Supplement is hereby incorporated into the Local Agency -State
Agreement for Federal Aid which was entered into between the Local Agency
and the State on 08/17/77 and is subject to all the terms and conditions
thereof. This Program Supplement is adopted in accordance with Paragraph 2
of Article II of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of
Resolution No. , approved by the Local Agency on
(See copy attached).
The Local Agency further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds
obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply with the covenants or
remarks setforth on the following pages.
PROJECT TERMINI:
IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA ON PIERCE RD. BETWEEN MASSON COURT & VINTAGE
LANE (DAF# Sar -BJ -1)
TYPE OF WORK: EMERGENCY REPAIR LENGTH: 0.0 (MILES)
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASE(S) OF WORK
[X] Preliminary Engineering [ ] Right -of -Way [ ]
[X] Construction Engineering [X] Construction
Estimated Cost Federal Funds
$ 104375109G $
City of Saratoga
By
Date
Attest
Title
Matching Funds
104375 $
Local OTHER OTHER
0 $ 0 $
0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By
Chief, District Liaison Branch
Office of Local Programs
Date
I hereby Certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance:
Accounting Officer
Chapter statutes I Item
303 1995 2660- 101 -890
Year
95-96
Date
$ 104375.00
Program 1BC1 Fund Source
20.30.010.650 C 225000 892-F
[7
AMOUNT
104375.00
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT #12 TO LOCAL AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT
FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECTS #04 -5332
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga and the State of California
Department of Transportation have entered into a Local Agency -State
Agreement for Federal Aid on August 17, 1977, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article II of said
master agreement, said agreement may be supplemented from time to
time, and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has completed a project to repair
damage to Pierce Road between Masson Court and Vintage Lane caused
by the storms of January, 1995, and
WHEREAS, Program Supplement #12 to said master agreement will
incorporate said project into said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga that Program Supplement #12 to Local Agency -State
Agreement #04 -5332 is hereby approved subject to all of the terms
and conditions thereof, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized and
directed to execute Program Supplement #12 on behalf of the City.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 18th day of October,
1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: Mayor
Deputy City Clerk
•.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z(oZd
AGENDA ITEM S
MEETING DATE: October 10, 1995 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Communications Site Lease Agreement- Pacific Bell Mobile
Services for Lease of a Portion of Congress Springs Park
for Installation of a Personal Communications Service
Antenna Site.
Recommended Motion(s): Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate a
Lease Agreement Between the City and Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Under the General Terms and Conditions as Contained in the Staff
Report of October 10, 1995.
Report Summary:
Background
In August. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (PBMS) agent, JM Consulting
Group, Inc., contacted City staff to discuss the desire of PBMS to
install a new mobile telephone system in Saratoga and surrounding
jurisdictions using a technology which PBMS has named Personal
Communications Service (PCS) . A fact sheet prepared by JM
Consulting entitled, "The Next Generation of Wireless Technology ",
provides some information on the nature of the PCS system.
PBMS is seeking to locate five cell sites in Saratoga. According
to PBMS these sites should be located in the vicinity of the areas
circled on the attached map to provide the needed coverage for the
mobile network. The sites tentatively identified are: 557 -near
Fruitvale and Saratoga /Los Gatos Road, 542 -near the Route 85 /Quito
Road overpass, 541 -near Route 85 and Cox Avenue, 554 -near the
intersection of Blauer and Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, and 555 - located
in the Village area. JM Consulting has already filed an
application for a site in the Village to be placed on top of the
liquor store which will meet the need for location 555.
The firm has approached the City proposing to lease a portion of
Congress Springs Park near the old storage building adjacent to
Glenbrae Avenue and the freeway soundwall, just west of the last 30
foot pole installed for the screening which protects the freeway
from balls leaving Congress Springs Park.
JM Consulting has submitted a proposed lease agreement to the City
which is attached.
Page 2 - Communications Site Lease Agreement- Pacific Bell Mobile
Services
Discussion
A PCS cell site consists of 2 modular cabinets connected together
which measure four feet three inches long by five feet three inches
high by two feet five inches deep. They are mounted on a concrete
foundation. They do not have to be installed within a building.
A typical antenna array consists of six antennae, mounted in pairs,
placed 120 degrees apart atop a 30 foot tubular pole similar to a
street light standard. The antennae are mounted on a typical 8
foot mast arm which extends off of the mounting pole. Each antenna
is five feet high, eight inches wide and four inches deep. See
attachments.
The PCS system operates at very high frequencies (1710 -1880 MHz,
and 1850 -1990 MHz). The transmitter has a maximum input power of
250 Watts.
PBMS is proposing to enter into a lease agreement with the City for
a five year term with an option to extend the lease for five
additional five year terms. JM Consulting has indicated the PBMS
is proposing to pay the City $500 a month to lease the site from
the City.
Congress Springs Park is in the R1- 12,500 Zoning District of the
City. Under the provisions of that zone, public utility facilities
require securing a Condition Use Permit in order to place a
facility in that zoning district. The proposed lease does contain
a provision that the lease would expire if required permits are not
obtained by PBMS. However, this provision should be worded to make
such an expiration automatic rather than upon 30 days written
notice by PBMS as the proposed agreement provides. With such a
provision the City could negotiate the lease conditional upon PBMS
securing of the proper Conditional Use Permit through the normal
planning process. This would avoid the chicken /egg problem of
first applying for a CUP and then having the City not agree to a
lease. Because of this it seems more appropriate for PBMS to file
for the CUP with the concurrence of the City, rather than for the
City to act as applicant.
The City Attorney is reviewing the proposed Lease Agreement and
there will no doubt be modifications proposed to the Agreement as
it is (in my view) in a form which is more suited to private
property and location on top of a building rather than on public
property and an open site.
At this point the staff is seeking general direction from the City
Council as to whether it wishes to entertain such a proposal. In
terms of the potential down side regarding use of the park, staff
does not believe that the placing of a cell site at the location
indicated would interfere in any way with current operation and use
of the park nor do we expect that it would interfere in the future.
We do feel that a 30 year lease is overly long and that $500 a
month for the entire term of the lease is not in the best interest
of the City..
Page 3 - Communications Site Lease Agreement- Pacific Bell Mobile
Services
Fiscal Impacts: Would increase revenue to the general fund in
the use of money and property category by at least $6,000 a year.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: None at this stage as a
public hearing would be required on any application filed by PBMS.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: PBMS would
presumably seek another nearby site or abandon its efforts to have
the network serve Saratoga.
Follow Up Actions: Complete negotiations on the Lease Agreement
and return the Agreement to the City Council for approval. _Have
PBMS file for a Conditional Use Permit.
Attachments:
Letter of Interest from JM Consulting Group
Proposed Communications Site Lease Agreement
The Next Generation of Wireless Technology
Typical Antenna and Equipment Specifications
Map of Proposed Cell Site Locations in and Adjacent to Saratoga
Consulting Croup, Inc.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
August 8, 1995
Mr. Harry Peacock
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: SF541 -02 G2 & 6th
Congress Springs Park
Dear Harry,
D E C E � V E (1
U
AU6 V IM
crty u F SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
It was nice to speak to you last week about Pacific Bell Mobile Services (PBMS) proposal to
install Personal Communications Service (PCS) antennas at Congress Springs Park and
possibly other sites in the City of Saratoga.
I'm sorry I missed your meeting today with the Mayor of Saratoga and Gene Zambetti of
JM Consulting Group. Although you have probably received our promotional material, I
thought I'd send another package for your review along with a draft lease template.
In the meantime I will discuss the outcome of your meeting with Gene and look for other
potential sites in the City of Saratoga. Perhaps we can meet next week to address any
further questions or concerns. If you have any questions you may call me on my direct
line at (415) 737 -5361.
Sincerely,
JM CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
Randy S wabacher
Site Acquisition Representative
RFS /cm
cc: SF541 File
844 Dubuque Avenue • South San Francisco, California 94080 • Telephone: (415) 737 -5338 • Fax: (415) 737 -5301
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT ( "Lease ") is dated this
day of 1995, by and between PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES,
a California corporation ( "Lessee ") whose address is 4420 Rosewood Drive, Building
2, 4th Floor, Pleasanton, California 94588, and a
( "Lessor ") whose address is
The parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Premises. Lessor owns the real property legally described in Exhibit
"A" commonly known as (Assessor's Parcel
Number ). Subject to the following terms and conditions, Lessor
leases to Lessee that portion of Lessor's property depicted in Exhibit "B ", including
any applicable easements for access and utilities (the "Premises ").
2. Use. The Premises may be used by Lessee for any lawful activity in
connection with the provision of mobile /wireless communications services,
including without limitation, the transmission and the reception of radio
communication signals on various frequencies and the construction, maintenance
and operation of communications facilities. Lessor agrees, at no expense to Lessor,
to cooperate with Lessee, in making application for and obtaining all licenses,
permits and any and all other necessary approvals that may be required for Lessee's
intended use of the Premises.
3. Condition Precedent. This Lease is conditioned upon Lessee, or
Lessee's assigns, obtaining all governmental permits and approvals enabling Lessee,
or its assigns, to construct and operate mobile /wireless communications facilities on
the Premises.
4. Term. The term of this Lease ( "Term ") shall be five (5) years v
commencing with the issuance of a local building permit allowing Lessee to
construct its mobile /wireless communications facilities on the Premises, or
December 31, 1996, whichever is earlier ( "Commencement Date "). Lessee shall have
the right to extend the Term of this Lease for five (5) additional terms ( "Renewal
Term ") of five (5) years each. Each Renewal Term shall be on the same terms and
conditions as set forth herein. This Lease shall automatically be extended for each
successive five (5) year Renewal Term unless Lessee notifies Lessor in writing of
Lessee's intention not to extend this Lease at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration of the original Term or Renewal Term.
5. Rent. Upon the Commencement Date, Lessee shall pay Lessor, as
rent, the sum of Dollars ($ ) ( "Rent ") per month. Rent shall be
payable on the 1st day of each month, in advance, to Lessor's address specified in
Paragraph 17, Miscellaneous.
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 1 of 6
SP 7/24/95
If the Commencement Date is other than the first day of a calendar
month, Lessee may pay on the first day of the Term the prorated Rent for the
remainder of the calendar month in which the Term commences, and thereafter,
Lessee shall pay a full month's Rent on the first day of each calendar month, except
that payment shall be prorated for the final fractional month of this Lease, or if this
Lease is terminated before the expiration of any month for which Rent should have
been paid.
6. Improvements; Access.
(a) Lessee shall have the right (but not the obligation) at any time
following the full execution of this Lease and prior to the Commencement Date to
enter the Premises for the purpose of making necessary inspections and engineering
surveys (and soil tests where applicable) and other reasonably necessary tests
(collectively "Tests ") to determine the suitability of the Premises for Lessee's
Facilities (as defined herein) and for the purpose of preparing for the construction of
Lessee's Facilities. During any Tests or pre- construction work, Lessee will have
insurance as set forth in Section 12, Insurance, and will notify Lessor of any
proposed Tests or pre- construction work and will coordinate the scheduling of same
with Lessor. If Lessee determines that the Premises are unsuitable for Lessee's
contemplated use, then Lessee will notify Lessor and this Lease will terminate.
(b) Lessee has the right to construct, maintain and operate on the Premises
radio communications facilities, including but not limited to radio frequency
transmitting and receiving equipment, batteries, utility lines, transmission lines,
radio frequency transmitting and receiving antennas and supporting structures and
improvements ( "Lessee's Facilities "). In connection therewith, Lessee has the right
to do all work necessary to prepare, add, maintain and alter the Premises for Lessee's
communications operations and to install utility lines and transmission lines
connecting antennas to transmitters and receivers. All of Lessee's construction and
installation work shall be performed at Lessee's sole cost and expense and in a good
and workmanlike manner. Title to the Lessee's Facilities and any equipment placed
on the Premises by Lessee shall be held by Lessee. All of Lessee's Facilities shall
remain the property of Lessee and are not fixtures. Lessee has the right to remove
all Lessee's Facilities at its sole expense on or before the expiration or termination of
this Lease.
(c) Lessor shall provide access to Lessee, Lessee's employees, agents,
contractors and subcontractors to the Premises twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven
(7) days a week, at no charge to Lessee. Lessor represents and warrants that it has full
rights of ingress to and egress from the Premises, and hereby grants such rights to
Lessee to the extent required to construct, maintain, install and operate Lessee's
Facilities on the Premises.
(d) Lessor shall maintain all access roadways from the nearest public
roadway to the Premises in a manner sufficient to allow access. Lessor shall be
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 2 of 6
SF 7/24/95
responsible for maintaining and repairing such roadways, at its sole expense, except
for any damage caused by Lessee's use of such roadways. If Lessee causes any such
damage, it shall promptly repair same.
(e) Lessee shall have the right to install utilities, at Lessee's expense, and to
improve the present utilities on or near the Premises (including, but not limited to
the installation of emergency back -up power). Subject to Lessor's approval of the
location, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Lessee shall have the
right to place utilities on (or to bring utilities across) Lessor's properties in order to
service the Premises and Lessee's Facilities. Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall
execute easement(s) evidencing this right.
(f) Lessee shall fully and promptly pay for all utilities furnished to the
Premises for the use, operation and maintenance of Lessee's Facilities.
(g) Upon the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Lease, Lessee
shall surrender the Premises to Lessor in good and broom clean condition, less
ordinary wear and tear.
7. Interference with Communications. Lessee shall meet and comply
with all non - interference rules of the Federal Communications Commission
( "FCC "). Lessor shall not permit the use of any portion of Lessor's property in a way
which interferes with the communications operations of Lessee described in
Paragraph 2, above. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by Lessor,
and Lessor shall have the responsibility to promptly terminate said interference. In
the event any such interference does not cease promptly, the parties acknowledge
that continuing interference will cause irreparable injury to Lessee, and therefore
Lessee shall have the right to bring action to enjoin such interference or to
terminate the Lease immediately upon notice to Lessor.
8. Taxes. Lessee shall pay personal property taxes assessed against the
Lessee's Facilities and Lessor shall pay when due, all real property taxes and all other
taxes, fees and assessments attributable to the Premises and this Lease.
9. Termination. This Lease may be terminated without further liability
on thirty (30) days prior written notice as follows: (i) by either party upon a default
of any covenant, condition, or term hereof by the other party, which default is not
cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default; (ii) by Lessee for
any reason or for no reason, provided Lessee delivers written notice of termination
to Lessor prior to the Commencement Date; (iii) by Lessee if it does not obtain or
maintain, licenses, permits or other approvals necessary to the construction or
operation of Lessee's Facilities; or (iv) by Lessee if Lessee is unable to occupy or
utilize the Premises due to ruling or directive of the FCC or other governmental or
regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, a take back of channels or change in
frequencies; or (v) by Lessee if Lessee determines that the Premises are not
appropriate for its operations for economic, environmental or technological
reasons, including without limitation, signal strength or interference.
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 3 of 6
SF 7/24/95
10. Destruction of Premises. If the Premises or the Lessee's Facilities are
destroyed or damaged so as in Lessee's judgment to hinder the effective use of
Lessee's Facilities, Lessee may elect to terminate this Lease as of the date of the
damage or destruction by so notifying Lessor no more than 30 days following the
date of damage or destruction. In such event, all rights and obligations of the parties
which do not survive the termination of this Lease shall cease as of the date of the
damage or destruction.
11. Condemnation. If a condemning authority takes all of the Premises,
or a portion which in Lessee's opinion is sufficient to render the Premises
unsuitable for the Lessee's use, then this Lease shall terminate as of the date when
possession is delivered to the condemning authority. In any condemnation
proceeding each party shall be entitled to make a claim against the condemning
authority for just compensation (which for Lessee shall include, the value of its
Lessee's Facilities, moving expenses, prepaid rent, business dislocation expenses,
bonus value of the lease and any other amounts recoverable under condemnation
law). Sale of all or part of the Premises to a purchaser with the power of eminent
domain in the face of the exercise of its power of eminent domain, shall be treated as
a taking by a condemning authority.
12. Insurance. Lessee shall maintain the following insurance: (1)
Commercial General Liability with limits of $5,000,000.00 per occurrence, (2)
Automobile Liability with a combined single limit of $1,000,000.00 per accident, (3)
Workers Compensation as required by law, and (4) Employer's Liability with limits
of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence.
Each party to this Lease shall each maintain standard form property insurance ( "All
Risk" coverage) equal to at least 90% of the replacement cost covering their
respective property. Each party waives any rights of recovery against the other for
injury or loss due to hazards covered by their property insurance and each party
shall require such insurance policies to contain a waiver of recovery against the
other. Lessee shall name Lessor as an additional insured with respect to the above
Commercial General Liability insurance. Lessee shall have the right to self- insure
with respect to any of the above insurance.
13. Assignment. Lessee may assign this Lease at any time upon notice to
Lessor.
14. Title and Quiet Enjoyment.
(a) Lessor warrants that it has full right, power, and authority to execute
this Lease; Lessor further warrants that Lessee shall have quiet enjoyment of the
Premises during the Term of this Lease or any Renewal Term.
(b) Lessee has the right to obtain a title report or commitment for a
leasehold title policy from a title insurance company of its choice. If, in the opinion
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 4 of 6
SF 7/24/95
of Lessee, such title report shows any defects of title or any liens or encumbrances
which may adversely affect Lessee's use of the Premises, Lessee shall have the right
to terminate this Lease immediately upon written notice to Lessor.
15. Repairs. Lessee shall not be required to make any repairs to the
Premises except for damages to the Premises caused by Lessee, its employees, agents,
contractors or subcontractors.
16. Environmental . Lessor represents that the Premises have not been
used for the generation, storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials,
hazardous substances or hazardous wastes. In addition, Lessor represents that no
hazardous materials, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, pollutants, asbestos,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum or other fuels (including crude oil or
any fraction or derivative thereof) or underground storage tanks are located on or
near the Premises. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, Lessee relies
upon the representations stated herein as a material inducement for entering into
this Lease.
17. Miscellaneous.
(a) If any provision of the Lease is invalid or unenforceable with respect to
any party, the remainder of this Lease or the application of such provision to
persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be
affected and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest
extent permitted by law.
(b) This Lease shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors
and permitted assignees of the respective parties.
(c) Any notice or demand required to be given herein shall be made by
certified or registered mail, fax, return receipt requested, or reliable overnight mail
to the address of the respective parties set forth below:
Lessor:
Lessee: Pacific Bell Mobile Services
4420 Rosewood Drive, Building 2, 4th Floor
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Lessor or Lessee may from time to time designate any other address for this purpose
by written notice to the other party.
(d) This Lease shall be governed under the laws of the State of California.
(e) The substantially prevailing party in any legal claim arising hereunder
shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if
any.
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 5 of 6
SF 7/24/95
(f) Terms and conditions of this Lease which by their sense and context
survive the termination, cancellation or expiration of this Lease will so survive.
(g) Upon request either party may require that a Memorandum of Lease be
recorded in the form of Exhibit "C ".
(h) This Lease constitutes the entire Lease and understanding between the
parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other leases concerning the
subject matter contained herein. There are no representations or understandings of
any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to this Lease must be in writing
and executed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease as of the date first
above written.
ATTEST WITNESS
Date:
ATTEST WITNESS
Date:
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
SF
LESSOR
By: _
Title:
Tax ID #:
Date:
LESSEE
PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, a
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
By:
Title:
Date:
Page 6 of 6
7/24/95
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LESSOR'S PROPERTY
The Lessor's property of which Premises are a part is legally described as follows:
(e.g., Legal Description from Title Report description)
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 1 of 1
SF 7/24/95
Exhibit "A"
EXHIBIT B
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
The location of the Premises within the Lessor's property together with access,
ingress, egress, easements and utilities are more particularly described or depicted as
follows:
A final drawing or copy of a property survey depicting the above will replace this
Exhibit "B" when initialed by Lessor.
Notes
1. This Exhibit may be replaced by a land survey or Site Plan of the Premises once it
is received by Lessee.
2. Setback of the Premises from the Lessor's boundaries shall be the distance
required by the applicable governmental authorities.
3. Width of access road shall be the width required by the applicable governmental
authorities, including police and fire departments.
4. The type, number and mounting positions and locations of antennas and
transmission lines are illustrative only. Actual types, numbers, mounting
positions may vary from what is shown above.
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page i of 1
SF 7/24/95
Exhibit "B"
EXHIBIT C
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
Pacific Bell Mobile Services
4420 Rosewood Dr., Bldg. 2, 4th Floor
Pleasanton, California 94588
Attention:
MEMORANDUM OF LEASE
THIS MEMORANDUM OF LEASE ( "Memorandum ") is executed as of
199_, by and between ( "Lessor "), and PACIFIC
BELL MOBILE SERVICES, a California corporation ( "Lessee ").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee have executed that certain Communications
Site Lease Agreement ( "Lease ") dated as of 199_, covering certain
premises and related improvements ( "Premises ") in certain buildings situated on
certain real property located in the City of , County of
. State of California, and more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee desire to record notice of the Lease in the
Official Records of County, California;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Lessor and Lessee
hereby declare as follows:
1. Demise. Lessor has leased the Premises to Lessee and Lessee has
hired the Premises from Lessor, subject to the terms, covenants and conditions
contained in the Lease.
2. Expiration Date. The term of the Lease ( "Term ") is scheduled to
commence on or about , 199_ and shall expire (_) years
thereafter, subject to Lessee's option to extend the Term pursuant to Section 4 of the
Lease for . additional terms of years each.
3. Lease Controlling. This Memorandum is solely for the purpose of
giving constructive notice of the Lease. In the event of conflict between the terms of
the Lease and this Memorandum, the terms of the Lease shall control.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 1 of 2
SF 7/24/95
Exhibit "C"
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this
Memorandum of Lease as of the date and year first written above.
ATTEST WITNESS LESSOR
Date:
ATTEST WITNESS
Date:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
Name:
Title:
LESSEE
PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES
By:
Title:
A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION
On before me, . personally
appeared _ , personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the per-son(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same
in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on
the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF )
On before me, . personally
appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same
in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on
the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature:
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2
SF 7/24/95
Exhibit "C
The
Next Generation
of
Wireless Technology,
Consulting Group, Inc.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
PACIFICWA WAMBELL.
Mobile services
fact sheet
PCS Service Will Extend the Reach of the Average Consumer
Personal Communications Services (PCS) is a family of new services that will
change telecommunications in two ways. First, it will permit calls to be routed to people
instead of places. Calls will follow the user through 'follow -me calling' or through the
use of a new PCS personal phone number. Second, PCS will enhance the control
people have over their telecommunications services by allowing them to determine
when and where they can make and receive calls.
"Market trials and research studies point to a broad appeal for PCS," said Terry
Valeski, Vice President of Marketing and Business Development for Pacific Bell Mobile
Services. "And the reality is that for the first time in history, cordless and cellular
phone sales are exceeding sales of wired telephones."
Pacific Bell Mobile Services will offer the ability to tie traditional wireline services
together with PCS mobile voice and data services. 'We realize that a large
percentage of people value a wireless service that enhances their wired telephones
instead of a stand -alone wireless service,' Valeski said.
Imagine people in homes and businesses being free to make or receive calls
without being restricted by their telephone cords. Conversely, for cellular users today,
imagine being able to bring calls inside buildings and having your outside wireless
service work with your home and business phone systems. We will also offer PCS
services for those consumers who want to keep their wireless calls completely separate
from their wired services. A flexible, full- range, family of services is our vision of PCS.'
Pacific Bell Mobile Services believes the growth of PCS will be different than that
of cellular services, which have traditionally been aimed at business users. While
business customers are an integral part of their planned customer base, the company
is focusing on developing applications and services for the largely untapped mass
market.
"We envision a PCS world in which the average consumer will be able to have
one voice mail system working across their wireline and wireless services. If they are
Internet users, they could also expect to retrieve their voice messages by e-mail. We
want to be as simple yet as sophisticated as our range of users will be,' Valeski said.
Pacific Bell Mobile Services expects PCS to cost consumers less than cellular
service. New features such as text message service, integrated billing with Pacific Bell,
new coverage options, and the ability to work with wireline services are expected to
appeal to the mass market. A variety of options are being examined to make it more
convenient for consumers to acquire PCS phones and activate the service.
PCS is based on the newest form of digital wireless technology which improves
upon the sound quality of cellular. Complex encryption techniques virtually eliminate
the ability to eavesdrop on PCS calls and minimize the risk of unauthorized users
placing fraudulent calls on a PCS phone, one of the biggest problems facing the
cellular industry today
Pacific Bell Mobile Services plans to offer PCS service widely throughout
California by early 1997.
U=
UR"
PACIFIC13BELL.
Mobile s•r icts
fact sheet
Economic Benefits of PCS
1. Wireless services will be more affordable for more people
• Todav's high prices for cellular service are due primarily to a lack of
competition.
• "Cellular service in California is not currently competitive and market
forces are not yet adequate, to protect California customers from paying
unjust and unreasonable rates for such service," according to the
California Public Utilities Commission.
• With competition, wireless prices will fall making the service affordable
to more people. An FCC study estimates that adding an additional
wireless firm will lead to a 25% reduction in prices.
2. Development of PCS will create new jobs
• Estimated 300,000 jobs could be added to U.S. economy in next ten to
15 years through the contributions of PCS, according to President Clinton.
• Initial granting of bandwidth for PCS by the Federal Communications'
Commission led to a $11 billion investment in PCS systems whose
impacts included $3 billion in exports and 100,000 jobs in 1992, the
president said.
3. Wireless Communications Improves Productivity, Service:
• 83 % of users studied said quality of business relationships improved
• 80% said they had improved service to existing customers
• 77% said sales and field people generate more revenue
• 72% said sales and field people make more contacts per day.
(Sources: Wireless for the Corporate User, 11- 12193, V. 2, No. 4;
Mobile Phone News, 1111193)
PACIFIC , , BELL,
Mobile Ssrvicss
fact sheet
ase Studies of Wireless Applications:
• Bank ofAmerica
Realized a 20% increase in productivity among its 400 - member automated teller
machine repair staff by equipping them with wireless links for hand -held
computers. (Source: Network World, 818194)
• AT &T
AT &T says mobile offices have increased by 15% to 29% the time its sales
people spend with customers. (Source: Wall St. Journal,. 6117194)
• American Express
Using virtual offices helped American Express increase sales calls 40 %' set ua
20.000 new establishments improve customer slelecommut in isfaction ratings by 28%
improve employee satisfaction by 25% (Sourceg Re view, 10194)
• United Services Automobile Association
USAA in San Antonio Texas has increased the productivity of executives and
technicians at its headquarters by issuing them PCS phones for use on and off
their campus The purpose is to make them reachable for important decisions or
questions when they aren't near their office phone. (Source: National
Underwriter, 414194)
• United Parcel Service
UPS dramatically increased customer satisfaction by using a custom designed
cellular data service to keep track of every package traveling aboard its 56,000
trucks each day. UPS now knows the precise location of every package.
(Source: Radio Communications Report, 1013194)
• AVIS
Avis doubled the base of customers they were able to serve without increasing
personnel at rental counters With wireless data, preferred service customers
aboard buses heading for Avis parking lots are able to complete their rental
transaction before they arrive. Their reservation is verified, the car selection
confirmed, billing information validated, the credit card charge approved and the
rental contract signed. Customers receive a parking space number and a
vehicle description. Then the bus drops them off in order of parking space.
(Source: Wireless for the Corporate User, V. 2, No. 2., 1993)
• Pitney-Bowes
Pitney -Bowes in Stamford, Conn. justified their investment in a wireless data
system with a payoff of their investment in 2.4 years. They were able to reduce
di_ isnatching office space and staff by 60% cutting 18 call centers to six Field
service reps gained 8% in productivity because they no longer had to search for
pay phones. (Source: Computerworld, 217194)
• Physician Sales & Service Inc
Half of sales force was equipped with laptop computers and modems for wired
and wireless communication, and the Jacksonville, Fla., company plans to
provide them to all field sales reps. Wireless communication saved each rep
about one half hour per day. Also helps ensure rapid delivery of supplies to
doctors and cynics by enabling rep to check inventories and customer accounts
while at customer's site (Source: Investor's Business Daily, 11116194)
• Travelers Group (insurance)
Company's 236 auto insurance claims adjusters use analog cellular network to
process claims. This lets them track down auto parts in salvage yards produce
detailed damage estimates update their schedules without traveling to the office
Have used this for two years. By using existing laptop computers and cellular
phones, the cost of adding wireless data capacity was only $500 per user.
(Source: Investor's Business Daily, 11116194)
0
PACIFICr�BELL,
Mobile Services
fact sheet
PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES
Pacific Bell Mobile Services (PBMS) is new subsidiary of Pacific Bell. Established in July 1994,
PBMS plans to offer customers more choices in high quality, reliable and affordable
telecommunications products and services by focusing on the emerging new wireless
communications systems called Personal Communications Services (PCS).
PCS is a rapidly evolving digital technology that is expected to change the future of
telecommunications through easy -to -use, lightweight and highly mobile communications devices -
including portable phones, pagers, computers and personal digital assistants. In the future, PCS
will provide voice and data capabilities for customers' communications needs anywhere and at
any time. Unlike most cellular systems, PCS is based on digital technology and thus offers better
voice quality and the capacity for multiple communications services. Many experts believe that
PCS will be more affordable to a wider range of consumers than today's cellular options. PCS will
be more secure than today's cellular communications devices, and offer better protection from
fraud, as well as more privacy.
PCS phones will fit in pockets and handbags, and offer such features as voice mail, call -
screening, call - waiting call- referral, short messages and paging, among others. You will be able
to have a phone conversation whether you are in the garden, at a soccer match or in a shopping
mall. It also will let users call for emergency assistance without looking for a pay phone.
"Pacific Bell Mobile Services' goal is to be California's premier wireless communications services
provider," says Lyn Daniels, PBMS president and chief executive officer. We are uniquely
positioned to achieve this goal because we are the only regional telephone company eligible to
bid for the higher capacity PCS licenses in its service area that were auctioned by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). This will enable PBMS to apply immediately the customer
knowledge and technical expertise our company has acquired through years of offering
communications services to Californians as well as through intensive PCS research efforts over
the past three years — and to build and bring to market a superior PCS wireless communications
network throughout California."
Pacific Bell Mobile Services plans to offer PCS services widely throughout California by early
1997.
0
BASIC WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
.r_
Typical
An'.tenna..,
and
Equipment
Specifications
Consulting Group, Inc.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
BTS (Base Transceiver Station)
The BTS is a self - contained, all weather cabinet designed to house all of the radio
equipment, back up batteries and monitoring devices created for the specific site.
Size and W sight of BTS and Ba& Unit
The unit is 51.25" wide by 28.75" deep by 47" tall. The base unit is 51.25" wide by 28.75" deep
by 16" tall . The cabinet and the base unit together weigh approximately 1,500 pounds
when fully configured. An additional sub -base may also function as a weight distribution
load assembly.
Clearances
The cabinet needs to stand alone with space required on all sides. Access space is required
directly in the front to facilitate opening the door to a 90 degree position.
Installation hookups and Power Requirements
All hookups enter at the base of the unit. The power needed at the cabinet can be three
phase or single phase (208V or 240V respectively) and will be protected by a 20 or 30 Amp
circuit breaker.
Antennas
Heights
Antenna heights are determined by Pacific Bell Mobile Services' Radio Frequency
Manager.
Number Size TVDe and Mounting
The sites will consist of three (3) sectors of up to three (3) antennas each. Each antenna
typically is 6 " -8" wide by 60" tall by 4 deep and weighs approximately 10 pounds. These
dimensions do not include mounting hardware.
Low Noise Amplifier
Each antenna will be installed with a low noise amplifier. It is approximately 12" x 9" x 5"
in size and will mount within 8' of the antennas.
Configuration Layout
Typically, antenna sectors will be facing in three different directions: 0 degrees, 120 degrees,
and 240 degrees of True North.
Coaxial Cable
Number of Runs
There will be two (2) coaxial cables per antenna. In a three sector site there could be up to a
total of eighteen (18) runs..
Dilllensions
The cable sizes that will be used are either 7/8" or 1 -5/8 ".
2 Technical data
The RHS 2102 consists of two main pleces; a cabinet and a mounting base. They are both assembled In
factory and delivered to site. The mounting base is intended to be delivered to site and installed during
preparation of the site. It eontalas terminals for the power connection, mains switch, overvoltago
protectors, space for a transport module and For the antenna cables.
2.1 Physical dimensions
Cabinet
Volume, Re:
49S
Weight, lbs:
empty
375
batteries
176
climate unit
other
220
_ equipment
287
1058
fully equipped
Mounting base
Volume, Re.:
13.1
Weight, lbs:
220
51.18"
.ice- y
51 Mai
..................... » ......;
im ISO
Mounting
base
51.18"
Outside measurements of cabinet and mounting base-
51 1/9
Cfl'S COMMUNICA110N5 L30X
$ IM
BTS. DWG
4r
16"
BTS (Base Transceiver Station)
DECIBEL PRODUCTS IftALLORMER
DB98OH90.- { 4(' 17710 -ISM L*tz
-M 1800 -1000 MHZ
Q00 , 15.5 ded DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA
frlod•t Number
Terminatlort
089001 t90N•ta / .M
N- Fema)•
I Oe9eOHOOE4.0LI4,1
7.19 Female
Frequency Rang*
•tQ: 1710 -1 am MHz
-M: 1830.1990 MHZ
Gain
> 13.3 d8d. 17.9 d81
Null Fill
First lower ntA is '
> -1 ad8 down from max.
VSWR
< 1.3:1
8.amwldth
(3 d8 from maa4
Horizontal 90 a 3.0'
Vertical S.S a 0.S'
Front to Back Ratio
> 23 d8
Polarization
Vertical
Max- Input Power
230 Watt
Application
PCN, PCS. E-NETZ
Otter Information
Qowntitt brackets avuUbie: DBWal
Wight
10 LBS.
Wind Area
3.3 M (.31 "
Wind Load
131 Ibf (5a2 M 39.4 kp (at 200 krn/h)
Max. Wind Speed
140 mph (220 kmlh)O
Material
Reflector Screen: PassMW Akmlrlum
Radlatorw Paaaitled Ahrrnintam
Radome: ASS
Moundng Hardware: Gahwized Steel
Color
Normal Gray
Mounting
Moundng daunps to be ordered separabe
Weather Protection
Fully protected by metal
and A8S
Ughtning Protection
AS metal parts grounded
Packing Slze
72' x 12'x e'
Shipping Weight
13.2 1b3 (a kg)
Radiation Pattern's (Relative Fleid Strength)
W
W
Horizontal
Vertical
�u
5&
CONNECTOR
P
15.5 dBd (17.6 dBi) Gain - Directional
Antenna with 900 horizontal 3 dB beam -
width for -KU, 1710 -1880 MHz and
-M: 1850 -1990 MHz.
Typical monopole antenna &
mounts shown in parking area.
Typical roof mounted antennas &
equipment with screening.
Typical roof mounted antennas
painted to match color scheme.
S/b'd
mm
WAVIM t J .—
n -7,Aro 70P
,r sot a
MAIM AW4
I
�r
S/b'd
mm
WAVIM t J .—
n -7,Aro 70P
,r sot a
MAIM AW4
I
R �)
mm A�-M
YM
MAOE Y
17-3/0
T
,,45 3r ZW
aMOWING
Mna ff
,SR -1 Q
I
law C"
B-o• (*m
JUA M
JSR -11.25
— 1HSX6
. ,T :i M O&YO
AND WASMM AS1Y 11rw
OOk0 MM O,Ar ODaT 11ATI" MOO= "n't
(2.)
AM O-I30 rME 2 GNAT COMM (. • 20 DAVD-7.000 M
(S) Fina yA14!<Af:1 m TO AM O 1080-B.
(4.) oMaM (4 » GFZD4
(IP3) WAM
(a) ALL pQ0W sty RK.vA1a80 PIM AS1, AM
co a� .)
'GIC PF
A1i11 A-121
r wl w�
A� s a
HMO ms AM a
aeouMo+mc . ,L
A:TM A-8i
POLL SECTION
PDT TO 9CJ1E
jM iDLBD -BASE PLATE -ROUND
11A
DIA
I1LTYAA _
MAIM AW4
30• K
R �)
YM
17-3/0
=100 x SM
,,45 3r ZW
2021-1
,M-10 St-r 30'
25
11A
j � cusr
iN. �` n. � L C ( � �. �a„ % • ii + @ll.lu`pt RR wuwR rn. a..o wraa A
1_ � � �. � . d .. L. YrNI d F !t R t i i,� � ^i/ 1111WRt " pl. _ i R •� I I ] -.. .. ii r
l
^Ines J L
71 N era
EL
„ tJlllq "'R DM RY
wslm ea
S 1 A
5 r
I
G „ �
'cA
.eNeq 9
~N
iMt � IRIINi � (G � •1 `` rOY , 9� � Q /I i�' {ldC � � ,
InlWl � � r WN ra , �• � N � R
A A4. <
wrsyruter
°"' w .n +'�d�. e 6e '� � coui e I _�lt,do f, •eyar .
�Q�• e g
-us OOr 4 N
�; •� ♦ 1� d d 5� A. 0p i 3
qr `
,I
r s �
a"ry i � roll d
R PI y l d
- - g
LAN
r
yq r�
i V p1 $i b
q r R
rnu
all
�' •"" 4 , �\ �, -� may.
1 J
e°
q•oln i
' Y r GIMI
wti
r^tn yl � y,
l�ttfr
sr
tlNls4
0. rF
mt,,f
•r °-' r �
� JET 1�
°°"""' a `�
t
y
$a
d
y
a� Mr
~N
iMt � IRIINi � (G � •1 `` rOY , 9� � Q /I i�' {ldC � � ,
InlWl � � r WN ra , �• � N � R
A A4. <
wrsyruter
°"' w .n +'�d�. e 6e '� � coui e I _�lt,do f, •eyar .
�Q�• e g
-us OOr 4 N
�; •� ♦ 1� d d 5� A. 0p i 3
qr `
,I
r s �
a"ry i � roll d
R PI y l d
- - g
LAN
r
yq r�
i V p1 $i b
q r R
rnu
all
�' •"" 4 , �\ �, -� may.
1 J
e°
q•oln i
f
T
I�
PAI
sr
f(,4 �. V
mt,,f
•r °-' r �
� JET 1�
°°"""' a `�
t
y
$a
d
y
a� Mr
f
T
I�
PAI
d
f
T
I�
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
REPORT
Ann Marie Burger
11/30/95 Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
TO: City Council Karen 7ucker
Donald L Wolfe
FROM: City Codes Administrator, Joseph Oncay
SUBJECT: Status of Construction Activity in San Tomas Aquino
Creek at 15470 Quito Rd.
Background:
At the regular Council meeting on October 15, 1995, staff
presented a synopsis of construction activity at 15470 Quito
Road. The construction activity consists of repairing and
extending a retaining wall in San Tomas Aquino Creek. A copy of
that report has been attached for your review. During oral
communication at the November 15, 1995 regular Council meeting,
Mr. Hammock, 15440 Quito Rd., addressed the Council regarding the
lack of construction activity at the site. Council instructed
staff to prepare a status report of the project for Council
review at the December 6, 1995 Council meeting.
Report Summary:
The permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game limits all
work in or near the creek to the period of April 15 to October
15. The owners, Mr. & Mrs. Foster, were not able to obtain the
necessary approvals from the Army Corp. of Engineers prior to
October 15, 1995. Therefore, no work may commence in or near the
creek until April 15, 1996. Staff spoke with the representative
of Fish and Game, Mr. Combes, regarding the project. Mr. Combes
confirmed the fact that no work may proceed until next year. He
does not believe that there is an imminent hazard. He has
instructed the Foster's to "winterize" the bank until such time
that the work may proceed. "Winterizing" consists of placing
plastic sheets over the affected bank and securing it with sand
bags. Mr. Combes indicated that "winterizing" on a daily basis
during construction after October 15, 1995 was not an option at
this time.
At the time of this report, "winterizing" has not been completed.
However, at the City's request, Mr. Combes has advised the
Foster's to complete the required "winterizing" within 5 days or
the Department of Fish and Game will issue a citation for the
violation.
Staff have been in contact with the project engineer for the
Printed on recycled paper.
************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
• User name: JOE (19)
Queue: SARATOGA /PLANSTAFF
• File name: A
Server SARATOGA
• Directory:
• Description: LPT1 Catch
* December 1,
95 2:47pm
*
*
*
J 000 EEEEE
*
J 0 0 E
*
J 0 0 E
*
J 0 0 EEEE
*
J 0 0 E
*
J J 0 0 E
*
JJJ 000 EEEEE
*
*
************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
*
*
*
L PPPP TTTTT
*
L P P T
*
L P P T ..
*
L PPPP T
*
L P T
*
L P T ..
*
LLLLL P T ..
************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Richard Anderson. He
does not believe that an imminent hazard exists on the site. He
has made specific recommendations for the construction of the
retaining wall. However, SCVWD does not have an easement on the
Foster property and has no authority to mandate implementation of
those recommendations. Nevertheless, the Foster's have agreed to
construct the new wall in accordance with those recommendations
as soon as work is authorized to commence. Once plans and
specification have been prepared by the Fosters and approved by
SCVWD the City will issue a permit for the proposed work.
The City has the possible option of declaring the existing
condition a nuisance and conducting an "Emergency Abatement" in
accordance with the City Code. However, this approach will most
likely require the City to comply with the regulation established
by the SCVWD, Army Corp. of Engineers and the Department of Fish
and Game. At this time, it is unclear if this approach is a
viable option. Staff is working with the aforementioned agencies
and the City Attorney to explore the possibility of exempting the
City from regulatory statues.
The City continues to move forward with an equitable solution to
this situation. The City is in continual contact with the
Foster's. Recently, staff received a letter from the Foster's
describing their difficulties in settling the insurance claim
against the adjacent property owner. The tree which fell into
the creek, diverted the waters, and damaged the Foster property
was located on Mr. Mar's property across the creek. A copy of
the letter has been enclosed for your review.
Staff will continue to work within the context of the City's
authority to insure the safety of all affected properties and
address Mr. Hammock's concerns.
attachments:
1) Synopsis of Construction Activity dated Oct. 18, 1995
2) Copy of Foster letter dated November 28, 1995
c: \wpdocs \fosterl.rpt
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1995
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPART.: Community Developmen
SUBJECT: Synopsis of Construction Activity at 15470 Quito Rd.
Recommended Motion(s):
Direct staff to continue working with Mr. Hammack regarding his
concerns with the construction of the new retaining wall in San
Thomas Aquino Creek.
Report Summary:
At the City Council meeting on September 26, 1995, Mr. Hammack
addressed the Council regarding his concerns relating to the City's
approval for the repair of an existing retaining wall in San Thomas
Aquino Creek located at 15470 Quito Rd. The City Council advised
Mr. Hammack that the issue would be placed on the agenda at the
next Council meeting and instructed staff to prepare a synopsis of
the matter.
On July 26, 1995, the property owner of 15470 Quito Rd., Mr.
Foster, applied for a building permit to repair 36' of an existing
wood retaining wall in San Thomas Aquino Creek. The plans were
reviewed by the Planning Department, Plan Check Engineer and
Building Inspector. The plans consisted of a parcel map indicating
the location of the wall and structural details with associated
calculations. It was not clear from the parcel map that the
proposed work was located in the creek. However, the structural
detail indicated the creek water line. The planner on-iiuty and the
building inspector did not realize the significance of conducting
work within a creek and did not require the necessary approvals
from outside agencies. Since that time, I have reiterated the
proper procedure for processing such application and will prepare
a standard operating procedure for future reference.
On September 6, 1995 work commenced and the Codes Administration
Division received a telephone call from Mr. Hammack expressing his
concerns about the project. The complaint was routed to me and I
realized that approvals from outside agencies had not been
obtained. I instructed staff to visit the site and issue a stop
work order. Staff proceeded to the site, contacted Mr. Foster and
a stop work order was issued.
The proposed project requires approval from four outside agencies;
1) Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) , 2) Department of Fish
and Game, 3) Army Corp. of. Engineers and 4) San Francisco Bay
The approval process for this application may not incorporate
concerns of the neighboring properties.
Follow Up Actions:
None.
Attachments:
None.
c: \wpdocs \reporti.doc
huwland and Carol Foster
15470 Quito Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 395 -8552
Mr. Richard E. Mar
State Farm Insurance Claim Office
2045 Hamilton Avenue
Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95125
November 28, 1995
RE: State Farm Claim No.:
State Farm Insured:
Date of Loss:
Dear Richard:
Via Telefax: (408) 879 -3335
05- A304-703
Robert Paul & Shawna Garzee
01/08/95
We are in receipt of your letter of November 1, 1995, regarding settlement of the claim
for our retaining wall. We called you on November 13th, after returning from a 3 week
business trip, and explained that the numbers you used to calculate your settlement
were based on our quotation of August 8, 1995, from .Schooler Construction Co., Inc.
These numbers were derived before the meeting on October 11, 1995, with Richard
Anderson of the Santa Clara Valley Water District ( SCVWD) - which you also attended,
and the intervention of Mr. Calvin Hammack, who has claimed before the City Council of
Saratoga, that he represents your very busy client in this matter. During the meeting
with Mr. Anderson, additional requirements were made by the SCVWD in order for them
to issue us a permit. Based upon Mr. Hammack's concerns, the City of Saratoga is also
requiring additional "beautification° stipulations, which again will be reflected in the
overall cost. All of these issues have resulted in delays and we are now stuck in two
dilemmas.
The first dilemma is that the time has expired for us to do work on the wall based on the
permit from the Fish and Game Department. Rather than finishing the wall, we must
now "Winterize" the area and wait until after the rainfall period to commence repair work.
This requires visquine and sand bags and labor - again, additional charges. Everyone
expects that there will be additional erosion and creekside damage which will have to be
dealt with and repaired.
The second dilemma is that neither the City of Saratoga, nor the Regional Water Quality
Control Board will issue us permits until the SCVWD issues us a permit. We cannot get
the SCVWD permit without additional engineering. Although our insurance company,
Farmers Insurance, has recently paid us $5,135.00, ($6,135.00 based on the original
claim, less our $1,000.00 deductible). All of this has been used to satisfy our obligations
for the additional engineering, consulting and excavation work done to date. You have
stated on many occasions that your company intends to pay this claim, yet to date, no
moneys, other than the original bill from Melvin Hill for the first engineering drawings,
have been paid. We have no money to pay for the additional engineering required, so
we are in a "Catch 22" situation.
Howland I. and G A L. Foster
November 28, 1995
State Farm Insurance Claim Office
Page 2
As we have explained to you many times, Richard, it is not our desire to drive the cost of
the project up; in fact, our original proposal was for approximately $8,000. It is due to
negligence that the additional property damage was incurred. We do not feel that we
should have to assume the burden of the labor and the costs to rectify the situation to
meet the requirements of all of the agencies and concerned citizens involved. Besides
the actual costs of this project, we have spent well over 40 hours of our own time, trying
to get the necessary permits, etc. Nowhere in your proposal are we being compensated
for this time.
Our most recent quotation from Schooler Construction which was prior to the October
11 meeting is $37,920.00, not including permits, approvals, inspection fees, engineering
costs, drafting and design costs, consulting costs, and required landscaping and
beautification. Consultation, engineering and drafting fees through October 10 are
$3,911-25.
To be honest, Richard, as the requirements keep changing weekly, the idea of a fixed
settlement does not seem appropriate. We cannot obtain any further permits until the
required additional engineering is completed and approved. When all respective
agencies have given us the necessary permits, we can then go to our contractor for a
final bid. In the meantime, the "Winterizing" must be bid, approved and accomplished by
a licensed contractor since I, Howie Foster, am under the care of a licensed Dr. for a
shoulder injury. When and where do the costs and the requirements of our time stop?
Please do not waste any more of your time or ours submitting blanket offers and release
forms for our approval. We require a letter from State Farm within ten days agreeing to
pay all invoices for the repair of damages as they are submitted.
In addition, we require a written stipulation from State Farm to extend the time past the
one year statute of limitations on negligence actions on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Robert
Garzee and State Farm. If both of these items are not received within 10 days from the
date of this letter, we will be contacting your supervisor with the same request. If within
five days of that request we do not receive these letters, we will be forced to seek
appropriate legal remedy.
Sincerely, Z-Cizi�
Howland I. and Carol . Foster
cc: City of Saratoga, Building Department
Attn: Jim Sutherland
Mr. & Mrs. R.P. Garzee Via Telefax: (408) 354 -3577
Thomas J. Ferrito, Attorney at Law