Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, October 4, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

RECORD WITHOUT FEE
PURSUANT TO GOV'T CODE SECTION 6103

Recording Requested by:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara, California

When Recorded, Mail to:

Office of the City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

Form per Gov't Code Section 27361.6 [SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE]

HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT

This Agreement, (herein, "Agreement"), is made and entered into this ___ day of ___________, 2022, ("Effective Date"), by and between Riccardo Marino, owner of certain real property located at 633 Park Court (“OWNER”) and the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 ("CITY"). CITY and OWNER may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."

A. R
ecitals .
(1) California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. authorizes the CITY to enter into a contract with the OWNER of qualified Historical Property to provide for the use, maintenance, and restoration of such Historical Property so as to retain its characteristics as property of historical significance.

(2) OWNER possesses fee title in and to that certain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, shown on the 2022 Santa Clara County Property Tax Rolls as Assessors' Parcel Number 269-52-009, and generally located at the street address 633 Park Court, in the City of Santa Clara ("Historic Property"). A legal description of the Historic Property is attached hereto as "Legal Description," marked as "Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference.

(3) The Historic Property is on the City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties list. OWNER submitted a Mills Act Proposal to City on January 12, 2022.

The Proposal included a Primary Record from the State of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation. A true and correct copy of the Proposal is attached to this Agreement as “Exhibit B”.

(4) CITY and OWNER, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this Agreement both to protect and preserve the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property and to qualify the Historic Property for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Section 439.2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

•
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 6/30/2022

Page 2 of 8 ends

B. Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and OWNER, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, do hereby agree as follows:

(1) Effective Date and Term of Agreement . The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date of this Agreement and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the effective date, such term will automatically be extended as provided in paragraph 2, below.

(2) Renewal.
(a) Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, ("renewal date"), one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of this Agreement unless notice of nonrenewal is mailed as provided herein.

(b) If either the OWNER or CITY desires in any year not to renew the Agreement, OWNER or CITY shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreement. Unless such notice is served by OWNER to CITY at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by CITY to OWNER at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the balance of the remaining term of the Agreement as provided herein.

(c) OWNER may make a written protest of a nonrenewal notice issued by CITY. CITY may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to OWNER o f nonrenewal. If either CITY or OWNER serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the ter m then remaining, from either original execution date or the last renewal date of the Agreement, whichever is applicable.

(3) Standards for Historical Property . During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements, and restrictions:

(a) OWNER shall preserve and maintain the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property. "The S ecretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," marked as “Exhibit C” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference, contains a list of those minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use, and preservation of the Historic P roperty, which shall apply to such property throughout the term of this Agreement.

(b) OWNER shall, when necessary or as determined by the Director of Planning and Inspection, restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and the Califo rnia Historical Building Code and in accordance with the attached schedule of pote ntial home improvements, drafted by the OWNER and approved by the City Council, attached hereto as "The Description of the Preservation and Restoration Efforts," marked as “Exhibit D” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference.

(c) OWNER shall allow, and CITY requires, that after five (5) years, and every five (5) years thereafter, an inspection of the property’s interior and exterior shall be conducted by Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 6/30/2022

Page 3 of 8 ends

a party appointed by CITY, to determine OWNER’ continued compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNER acknowledge that the required inspections of the interior and exterior of the property were conducted prior to the effective date of this Agreement.

(4) Provision for Information.
(a) OWNER hereby agree to furnish CITY with any and all information requested by the CITY to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

(b) It shall be the duty of the OWNER to keep and preserve, for the term of the Agreement, all records as may be n ecessary to determine the eligibility of the p roperty involved, and the OWNER compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to blueprints, permits, historical and/or architectural review approvals, and schedules of potential home improvements drafted by the OWNER and approved by the City Council.

(5) Cancellation.
(a) CITY, following a duly noticed public hearing as set forth in Cal ifornia Government Code Section 50280, et seq., shall cancel this Agreement or bring an action in court to enforce this Agreement if it determines any one of the following:

(i) the OWNER breached any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement; or

(ii) the OWNER allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets standards for a qualified historic property.

(b) CITY may also cancel this Agreement if it determines that:

(i) the OWNER allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets building standards of the City Code and the codes it incorporates by reference, including, but not limited to , the Uniform Housing Code, the California Historical Building Code, the California Fire Code, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings or;

(ii) the OWNER has not complied with any other local, State, or federal laws and regulations.

(iii) the OWNER failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in subparagraph 3(b) of this Agreement.

(c) In the event of cancellation, OWNER shall pay those cancellation fees set forth in California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. As an alternative to cancellation, OWNERS may bring an action in court to enforce the Agreement.

(6) No Waiver of Breach.
(a) No waiver by CITY of any breach under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach. CITY does not waive any claim of breach by OWNER if CITY does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for under the terms of this Agreement or in the City's laws and regulations are available to the City.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 6/30/2022

Page 4 of 8 ends

(7) Mediation.
(a) Any controversies between OWNER and CITY regarding the construction or application of this Agreement, and claim arising out of this contract or its breach, shall be submitted to mediation upon the written request of one party after the service of that request on the other party.

(b) If a dispute arises under this contract, either party may demand m ediation by filing a written demand with the other party.

(c) The parties may agree on one mediator. If they cannot agree on one mediator, there shall be three: one named in writing by each of the parties within five days after demand for mediation is given, and a third chosen by the two appointed. Should either party refuse or neglect to join in the appointment of the mediator(s) or to furnish the mediator(s) with any papers or information demanded, the mediator(s) may proceed ex parte.

(d) A hearing on the matter to be arbitrated shall take place before the mediator(s) in the city of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, at the time and place selected by the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall select the time and place promptly and shall give party written notice of the time and place at least fifteen (15) days before the date selected. At the hearing, any relevant evidence may be presented by either party, and the formal rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings shall not govern. Evidence may be admitted or excluded in the sole discretion of the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall hear and determine the matter and shall execute and acknowledge the award in writing and cause a copy of the writing to be delivered to each of the parties.

(e) The submission of a dispute to the mediator(s) and the rendering of a decision by the mediator(s) shall be a condition precedent to any right of legal action on the dispute.

A judgment confirming the award may be given by any Superior Court having jurisdiction, or that Court may vacate, modify, or correct the award in accordance with the prevailing provisions of the California Mediation Act.

(f) Each party shall bear their own cost(s) of mediation.

(8) Binding Effect of Agreement.
(a) The OWNER hereby subjects the Historic Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. CITY and OWNER hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and re strictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the OWNER successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering, encumbering, or conveying the Historic Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.

(b) CITY and OWNER hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations, and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that OWNER’ legal interest in the Historic Property.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 6/30/2022

Page 5 of 8 ends

(c) CITY and OWNER hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and maintaining the historic characteristics and significance of the Historic Property for the benefit of the CITY, public (which includes, but is not limited to the benefit to the public street generally located at 633 Park Court), and OWNER.

(9) Notice.
(a) Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.

CITY: City of Santa Clara
Attn: City Clerk
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

OWNERS: Riccardo Marino
633 Park Court
Santa Clara, CA 95050

(b) Prior to entering a contract for sale of the Historic Property, OWNER shall give thirty (30) days notice to the CITY and it shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified above or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.

(10) No Partnership or Joint Enterprise Created . None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns; nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.

(11) Hold Harmless and Indemnification . To the extent permitted by law, OWNER agree to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its City Council, commissions, officers, agents, and employees from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim arising there from for which OWNER shall become legally liable arising from O WNER’ acts, errors, or omissions with respect to or in any way connected with this Agreement.

(12) Attorneys' Fees. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to costs and other relief ordered by the court.

(13) Restrictive Covenants Binding . All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner pursuant to this Agreement.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 6/30/2022

Page 6 of 8 ends

(14) Mills Act Historic Property Contract Application Requirements . An application for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract shall be made through the Planning Division and shall include the following:

a. a Historic Resources Inventory form;

b. the description of the preservation or restoration efforts to be undertaken as referenced in paragraph 3 (b) as Exhibit "D";

c. a statement of justification for the Mills Act Historic Property designation and reassessment; and,

d. the Mills Act Historic Property Contract filing fee pursuant to paragraph 17.

(15) Mills Act Historic Property Contract Approval. Based upon the Historical and Landmarks Commission's ("Commission") review of the Mills Act Historic Property Contract criteria and recommendation to Council, and based upon the recommendation and approval by Council, a Mills Act Historic Property Contract may be entered into with OWNER. The decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive in the matter.

(16) Recordation and Notice . No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the CITY shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara.

(17) Fees. The Planning Department may collect such Mills Act Historic Property Contract application fee of $7,564.00 (seven thousand, five hundred, and sixty-four dollars), or other fees for the administration of this contract as are authorized from time to time by the City Council. Such fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which these fees are charged. OWNERS shall pay the County Recorder's Office recordation fees for recordation of this Mills Act Historic Property Contract a nd the recordation of the OWNERS updated Historic Resources Inventory form.

(18) Ordinary Maintenance. Nothing in this contract shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any Historic Property covered by this contract that does not involve a change in design, material, or external appearance thereof, nor does this contract prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition, or removal of any such external architectural feature when the Director of Planning and Inspection determines that such action is required for the public safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California Historical Building Code and when such architectural feature can be replaced according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards.

(19) California Historic al Building Code . The California Historic al Building Code ("CHBC") provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of structures desi gnated as Historic Properties. T he CITY's building permit procedure shall be utilized for any Historic Property which is subject to the provisions of this Agreement, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the C HBC. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prevent any fire, building, health, or safety official from enforcing Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 6/30/2022

Page 7 of 8 ends

laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and standards to protect the health, safety, welfare, and property of the OWNERS or occupants of the Historic Property or the public. (20) Conservation Easements .
(a) Conservation easements on the facades of the Historical Property may be acquired by the CITY, or on the CITY's behalf, by a nonprofit group designated by the CITY through purchase, donation, or condemnation pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.

(b) The OWNERS, occupant, or other person in actual charge of the Historical Property shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of the Historic Property, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature.

(21) Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement is, for any reas on, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, such decision shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions of this Agreement. CITY and OWNER hereby declare that they would have adopted this Agreement, and each section, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

(22) Integrated Agreement - Totality of Agreement. This Agreement embodies the agreement between CITY and OWNER S and its terms and conditions. No other understanding, agreements, or conversations, or otherwise, with any officer, agent, or employee of CITY prior to execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement. Any such verbal agreement shall be considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon CITY.

(23) Captions. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation.

(24) Statutes and Law Governing Contract . This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California.

(25) Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 6/30/2022

Page 8 of 8 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER S have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara

RAJEEV BATRA
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771

“CITY”

Riccardo Marino
Owner of 633 Park Court

By: _____________________________
Riccardo Marino
633 Park Court
Santa Clara, CA 95050

“OWNER”

Exhibits:

A – Property Description
B – Primary Record
C – Standards for Rehabilitation
D – Restoration Schedule

633 Park Court
10-year Work Plan
December 23, 2021
The following is a brief outline of some of the larger projects we intend to tackle for upkeep and repair as well as restora>on of our beau>ful li?le bungalow in the Park Court development which is now over 95 years old. Any old house needs almost constant maintenance, especially one made mostly of wood. But in addi>on to maintenance projects, we intend to tackle some major upgrade projects, such as the seismic improvements, to help assure that our house will last for another 100 years.

Years 1 – 3
Seismic Retroﬁt of Founda>on
Fortunately, this house (b.1925) was built with a concrete founda>on. But it meets the standards of the 1920s, not today’s rules about resistance to a seismic event.

We will do an inspec>on and make a determina>on about how best to do a seismic retroﬁt and upgrade to improve the ability of the house to withstand the next earthquake(s). •Have a professional make an inspec>on and help us determine the scope of work needed, and how best to proceed.

At a minimum the scope will include:
oBol>ng the house down, so it doesn’t twist oﬀ its founda>on oInstalla>on of plywood shear panels on the cripple walls, o‘hold down’ straps and plates to a?ach the ﬂoor framing of the house to the shear panels of the cripple wall, and
oplates and bolts to a?ach the wooden bo?om plate to the concrete founda>on wall o‘thru-bol>ng’ and other heavy connec>ons to resist both side-to-side mo>on and upliX oInstalla>on of other metal hardware or wood assemblies as suggested by the engineer.

This voluntary work will include a permit applica>on.

Epoxy repair of Historic Wood Doors and Windows
This work to be done following the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Proper>es
•Repair dry rot on numerous doors and windows to avoid replacement where possible. •Add weatherstripping, add insula>on, and perform other retroﬁt work to improve the energy eﬃciency of these historic character-deﬁning features and materials Major Landscape Maintenance
There is constant work to do in this category to keep the house looking its best and worthy of its historic designa>on, but some planned work includes:
•Remove trees that can harm founda>ons of main dwelling and/or garage unit •Prune trees in the front yard to further limit damage to main dwelling •Repair and repaint
ooutdoor fence, as well as
ogates on the front and on the back of the house
Electrical and Other Upgrades
Older houses can oXen be in many ways ‘smarter’ than newer ‘smart houses’.

Well implemented and hidden automa>on will improve electrical energy eﬃciency, increase the comfort of us residents, and also put emphasis on the beau>ful features of our historic property.

The planned work includes:
•Controlled and automa>c switching to reduce energy usage •Replacement of all light ﬁxtures with more energy eﬃcient hardware •Installa>on of new exterior lights along the perimeter of the property to create a pleasant and beau>ful environment at night
Other than aesthe>c and func>onal improvements, we plan on paving the way to ‘go green’ with solar:
the conduit currently in place (underground, in the backyard) is too small to contain cables appropriate to carrying a large amount of energy from the garage to the energy grid connected to the main dwelling, and back. Hence we will include
•Replacement of electric conduit from main dwelling to garage, to meet current code and standards and get ready to install solar panels
Years 4 – 5
Roof
•Replace rooﬁng over En>re House and Garage
•If possible, use a thicker ‘architectural grade’ shingle in a color/style that is period- appropriate for the 1920s.

Water preserva>on
•Design and installa>on of a grey water irriga>on system.

This would be done according to Santa Clara’s rules for this new way to further save energy and resources, especially important nowadays with the ongoing drought and the needs of the increased popula>on in the area
•Installa>on of water saving faucets in kitchen and bathrooms Electrical energy
We are eager to install energy saving and green energy genera>ng equipment as soon as possible.

It is important for all of us.
•Installa>on of solar panels on the roof, to generate green energy. othe panels should be installed on the roof of the garage unit in order to reduce to zero the risk of compromising the roof of the house
oThe system will include a ba?ery backup.

Wood Maintenance
•Repeat Termite Treatment in both house and garage
•Repair decayed wood at base of siding and other miscellaneous places, •Repair of dry rot anywhere it has appeared on the exterior wood, in prepara>on for repain>ng of the en>re structure
Years 6 – 7
Landscaping
We will Renovate and Upgrade all Landscaping around the house including:
•Redesign the garden wall at the front of the house
•Redesign various large trellises to provide shade and privacy screening Paint
•Prepare and Repaint En>re Exterior in period-appropriate colors so as to maintain the historical value of the house
Interior Improvements
•Paint selected interior rooms
•Replace kitchen and bathroom ﬂoors as needed
Years 8 – 9
Update Mechanical, Electrical Equipment
Because of the unavoidable eﬀects of climate change, nowadays more a?en>on is being given to energy, its produc>on, and its consump>on.

While we can't know, today, what exactly technology will oﬀer 8-9 years down the line, we look forward with hope to the technological advancements we wish to see, and we plan to replace the already outdated equipment currently in the house with new, more eﬃcient equipment:
•New whole-house HVAC system. Requires electrical and plumbing work. •New tankless water heaters at least at two loca>ons:
oOne for the kitchen, and
oOne for the garage
•New furnace-less and tankless space heaters
oE.g. split AC system with heat-pump
Year 10
Work on more Hidden Assets:
•Excavate crawl space to meet code-required ver>cal clearances under wood ﬂoor structure •Upgrade agc insula>on and other insula>on to reduce need for AC / heater •Upgrade agc ven>la>on both in main house and garage unit to increase Sincerely,
Riccardo Marino
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-683 Agenda Date: 6/2/2022

REPORT TO HISTORICAL AND LANDMARKS COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Consideration of Historic Resource Inventory Property Designation and a Historical Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) for 633 Park Court

BACKGROUND
The property owner, Riccardo Marino is requesting a Historical Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) for the property located at 633 Park Court. A requirement of the Mills Act is that the building must be a qualified structure, listed on either a local, State, or National register. The subject site is not currently listed on any of the aforementioned inventories. Therefore, the applicants are seeking local listing on the City’sHistoric Resource Inventory (HRI). The property must be added to the HRI prior to approving a Mills Act contract.

The subject property is located north of Park Court and northeast of the circular neighborhood roadway. The Park Court residential neighborhood is in the Old Quad historic neighborhood. The existing residence on the property is a 1,001 square-foot one-story vernacular Craftsman bungalow, with basement, constructed in 1925. The property has a detached two-car garage accessed through the alley to the rear.

DISCUSSION
The Mills Act Program allows a qualified property owner to receive a potential property tax reduction and use that savings to assist in offsetting the costs to rehabilitate, restore and maintain their property. To qualify for the program, the property and/or building must be listed on either a local, State, or National register. The property owner must also have a plan to restore and rehabilitate the property. As the subject site is not listed on any of the aforementioned inventories, the property owner is seeking local listing of the property on the City’sHistoric Resource Inventory (HRI); as well as approval of a Mills Act Contract and the adoption of a Ten-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan for the property.

A Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A Form was prepared by Craig Mineweaser and Bonnie Montgomery (“evaluators”)of Mineweaser and Associates, in December 2021, assessing the historical significance of the property based on National and State (California) Register criteria and the City’slocal criteria for significance. Based on the evaluation, the property is eligible for listing on the City of Santa Clara adopted Criteria for Local Significance under criteria of architectural, cultural, historical, architectural, and geographical. The residence retains the majority of character defining features of the original building architecture; as well as its contribution to a potentially eligible Historic District (Old Quad) due to its proximity to other historically significant properties. There are presently two properties within 200 feet of 633 Park Court that are listed on the City’s HRI.

In regard to the Criteria for Local Significance, the evaluator identified the property as eligible for City of Santa Clara Printed on 5/27/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-683 Agenda Date: 6/2/2022
listing on the City’s HRI for the following:
· Historically or culturally significance based on Criterions 1 and 5 for its association with early prominent settlers, broad patterns of the City’s economic growth, development, and local history;
· Architectural significance based on Criterion 1 for retention of the majority of character defining features of the Neoclassical architecture and construction period; and · Geographic significance based on Criterions 1 and 2 for the pattern of residential development and visual contribution to the historic setting in the Old Quad.

The DPR Form (Attachment 3) details the criteria for evaluation and listing of a potentially historic resource. The analysis concludes that the property meets the requirement of greater than 50 years in age and retains sufficient integrity to qualify as a historic resource based on the evidence presented in the analysis.

The property owner submitted a Statement of Justification and Ten-Year Plan (Attachment 5) for the interior and exterior of the residential structure and property grounds. The 10-Year Plan includes a seismic foundation retrograde, new roofing, and a new HVAC system.

Staff finds that the work proposed under the 10-Year Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed changes support the preservation, protection, and maintenance of a structure that is qualified to be a locally significant resource.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Mills Act Program is exempt from CEQA environmental review requirements per CEQA Section 15061(b) (3). The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment

PUBLIC CONTACT
Mills Act Contracts are not publicly noticed as they are a private contract between the City and property owner.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historical and Landmarks Commission find that the Mills Act application and associated Ten-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan accomplish the intent of preserving and maintaining the historical significance of the historic property and, therefore, recommend Council approve the addition of the property to the HRI; approve the Mills Act Contract; and adopt a Ten-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan associated with the Historical Preservation Agreement for the property located at 633 Park Court.

Prepared by: Steve Le, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Rebecca Bustos, Senior Planner
Approved by: Lesley Xavier: Planning Manager

ATTACHMENTS
City of Santa Clara Printed on 5/27/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-683 Agenda Date: 6/2/2022

1. Statement of Justification

2. Legal Description

3. Historic Survey (DPR Form)

4. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation

5.Ten-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan

6. Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement
City of Santa Clara Printed on 5/27/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
From: Amrita and Riccardo Marino
633 Park Ct, 95050 Santa Clara, CA
To: Planning Department
City of Santa Clara
Dec 27, 2021
Re: Letter of justiﬁcation for registration of 633 Park Ct into HRI & Mills Act Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Staﬀ,
We are Amrita and Riccardo Marino, the residents and homeowners of 633 Park Ct.

We'd like to express our gratitude for the possibility of taking active part in a movement that aims at preserving history in our city.

Love, at ﬁrst sight, does exist! We felt it as we drove up the corner and saw 633 Park Court - and knew immediately this was our home.

As more of our friends and colleagues put down roots in the Valley settling into their large ranch houses, we were not convinced with what we were seeing. There is a reason for this.

Riccardo grew up in one of the most charming places the world has to oﬀer - the south of Italy. His daily life took place in the backdrop of Renaissance architecture, cobblestone alleys, little stone bridges that connect the houses, and streets adorned with ﬂowers & beautiful plants. He lived and worked in diﬀerent parts of Europe before moving to Santa Clara.

Amrita studied design in San Francisco’s design district surrounded by the quaint Victorian architecture of Potrero Hills. Her days in California were ﬁlled with decoding the origins of San Francisco’s design space for assignments and daydreaming about having her own historical home someday.

Little did she know that she would meet the love of her life during an oﬀ-hand visit to her sister’s house in Franklin Square, Santa Clara, a few blocks away from Park Court. Despite being a city girl, Santa Clara grew on her in no time. While dating, we started looking for a place to call our home. Despite our distinct roots, and not really knowing what we were looking for, we were aligned that our home needed to have an emotional resonance, be an enduring piece of property, and be well made.

The compass pointed to 633 Park Court and we outbid 18 bidders because we felt like we came home when we ﬁrst walked into the charming side garden path covered in pink ﬂorals, gleaming original hardwood ﬂoors, and vintage french windows that ﬂooded the house with natural light.

We bless our home daily. We tied the knot under the solid wooden pergola of our serene backyard, surrounded by our raised garden beds. We feel indebted to Anne, the previous owner who meticulously preserved the historical characteristics of the property.

We are so blessed to enjoy the charming environment the rest of the vintage homes in Park court creates. Riccardo feels like he’s back home in Italy when he can get a piece of fruit from the trees while walking in the neighborhood. Our ﬁrst baby girl’s name is inspired by the neighborhood. Riccardo spent weeks remodeling a small cat house to match the style and colors of 633 Park so it lives on as a seamless extension of the house!

This home is special because it personiﬁes our idea of a perfect home, why wouldn’t we want to preserve it? In the dynamic landscape of Silicon Valley, some things need to stay unchanged. When we learned from our neighbors about the Mills Act we got to work. Some of our priorities are maintaining the foundation of the house, adding solar panels for eﬃcient energy, and preserving the landscaping.

As we create our own traditions, passing this home down to our children just as we found it is one of the chief motivations driving the decision to apply for the Mills Act. It will be a small token to remember all the warm memories that lived here!

Attachment: Pet shelter before and after remodeling
Before:

After:

Exhibit "A"
Legal Description
A.P.N.: 269-52-009
Real property in the City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:

PARCEL ONE:

PORTION OF LOTS 67 AND 68, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "MAP OF PARK COURT",

WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON FEBRUARY 16, 1925 IN BOOK "S" OF MAPS, PAGES 38 AND 39, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUllfEASTERLY LINE OF CYPRESS STREET AT THE COMMON CORNER FOR LOTS 67 AND 68, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP HEREINABOVE REFERRED TO; THENCE SOUTH 28° 50' EAST 55.66 FEET AND SOUTH 37° 34' EAST 60.89 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF ALTEVOGT WAY, /JS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY AND ALONG SAID LINE OF ALTEVOGT WAY, 49.44 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 67; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 67, NORTHWESTERLY 114.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CYPRESS STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AND ALONG SAID LINE OF CYPRESS STREET

30.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL TWO:

ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN 10 FEET OF CYPRESS STREET WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN AND NORTHEASTERLY LINES OF LOT 67 AS SAID CYPRESS STREET AND LOT 67 ARE SHOWN UPON THE MAP ENTill.ED, "MAP OF PARK COURT", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON FEBRUARY 16, 1925 IN BOOK "S" OF MAPS, PAGES 38 AND 39.

*R esource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Park Court Lot 67Page 1 of 17 P1. Other Identifier: ___
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRH P Status Code
Oth er Listings
Rev iew Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: Not for Publication x Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. US GS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 633 Park Ct City Santa Clara Zip 95050 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S, 594411 mE/ 4133090 mN e. Oth er Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN
269-52-009
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The Park Court neighborhood is an early example of a circular or semi-circular “court development.” In A Field Guide to America’s Historic Neighborhoods and Museum Houses: The Western States, Virginia and Arcie Lee McAlester write that “geometric plans,” subdivisions with streets curved into symmetrical geometric shapes, were favored by a few developers, particularly during the 1910s and 1920s” (p. xxxix). Only a few similar subdivisions exist from this period in the South Bay, and none seem to be as large as Park Court.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single family property *P4. Resources Present: x Building
Structure Object Site District
Element of District Other (Isolates,
etc.)
P5b. De
scription of Photo: (view, date,
accession #)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: x Historic Prehistoric
Both
1925/96 years (county records)
*P7. Owner and Address:

Riccardo Marino____________________
633 Park Ct________________________
Santa Clara, CA 95050_______________
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Craig Mineweaser, AIA,
and Bonnie Montgomery, MA, 17154
Monte Grande Dr, Soulsbyville, CA
95372
*P9. Date Recorded: December 2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
In
tensive_____________________
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") none_ ____________________________________ *At
tachments: NONE Location Map x Continuation Sheet x Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

*Resour
ce Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *NRHP Status Code 5S2

Page 2 ends

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name: Park Court Lot 67
B2. Common Name: none
B3. Original Use: single-family residence B4. Present Use: single-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: vernacular Craftsman bungalow *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Rebuild chimney (5/27/1997 BLD1997-113747); Windows for French doors, alter exterior (5/26/1999 BLD1999-122403); Bathroom remodel (7/26/2011 BLD2011-27112); 200 amp panel upgrade (8/11/2011 BLD2011-26275); upgrade kitchen (9/22/2014 BLD 2014-36278).
*B7. Moved? x No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Detached garage, built 1999 (3/20/1999 BLD1999-122380).

B9a. Architect: none b. Builder: Walter A. Altevogt
*B10. Significance: Theme Architecture/Shelter Area City of Santa Clara Period of Significance Interwar Period (1918–1945) Property Type residential Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The subject property is part of the stolen and occupied land of the Ohlone and Muwekma Ohlone people, who lived on this land for over 7,000 years. The Spanish colonization of Alta California began in 1769 with the Portolá expedition of 1769 and continued with the expedition of Juan Bautista de Anza. On January 12, 1777, the Franciscan order founded Mission Santa Clara. The Franciscans brought the native Ohlone people into the Mission to Christianize them and use their labor to operate the Mission. In 1821, Mexico gained its independence from Spain. In 1836, civil commissioners took control of Mission Santa Clara from the Franciscan order. Mexican governors granted large portions of the mission lands to private individuals until Mexico ceded California to the United States with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848. California was admitted to the Union as a state in 1850. In 1851, the Jesuits established Santa Clara College on the old mission site. The Town of Santa Clara was incorporated on July 5, 1852. It received its charter from the State in 1862. In July 1866, J. J. Bowen made the first official survey of Santa Clara, establishing the municipal limits as well as base and range lines for legally recording property transfers. The Town of Santa Clara recorded the map in August 1866 and began the long task of officially granting property to owners who had purchased town lots under a previous numbering scheme established in the 1850s. (Continued on page 5, DPR523L) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) none *B12. References:
(See pag
e 11, DPR523L)
B13. Remarks:

Evaluation for addition to City of Santa Clara Historic Resources Inventory *B14. Evaluator: Craig Mineweaser, AIA, and Bonnie Montgomery *Date of Evaluation: December 15, 2021
17 I
NT
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____

(Continued from page 1, DPR523a, P3a)
House sites in what is now called the Santa Clara Old Quad were laid out on a rectilinear grid with narrow but deep lots arranged around the perimeter. Broad streets were built and utilities installed ready for house construction.

Each house was to face out from the center of the block, and its neighbor would usually be comparatively far away across a wide, tree-lined street. Park Court has a different feeling: houses on the outside and inside of the court face each other, neighbors are closer and the street is narrower, producing a more intimate rhythm of buildings and a different feel to what we call “neighborhood” (McAlester and McAlester, 1998, 700).

Most houses in Park Court, including 633, are of a vernacular Craftsman bungalow style. Were Park Court to be classified as a Historic District, most of the houses would be labeled as “contributing structures” to the significance of the district. There were fewer than half-a-dozen different floor plans used, each group with the same basic shape, but with some variety to the exterior architectural details of porches, columns, trims, siding, etc. Usually houses of the same shape were not located next to each other. Visual mixing in this way brought variety, something vital with a development such as this. (Compare Figures 19, 20, and 21 with the subject property.) Although currently under intense market pressure to enlarge the homes in this development, most houses in Park Court are still relatively intact and display their original design or at least the original form and mass.

Due to this site’s position on the curve of the street, the front half of the site is wedge shaped and quickly narrows from almost 50 feet wide to about 30 feet wide at the backyard. The lot is not wide enough for a driveway, so there is no curb cut in front of the house; instead, like the other houses that back onto Cypress Alley, the garage takes up most of the backyard. Half of the tiny front yard sits behind a low, decorative brick fence that was added in recent years. Lush new plantings and small trees help give privacy to the dining area on the brick patio. Google Street View images between 2008 and 2021 show that the front yard has been recently landscaped, but the house has not changed little, except for new exterior paint (Figures 5–8). The side yards are quite narrow (Figures 2 and 3) and the backyard is dominated by the garage (Figure 17).
633 Park Court is one of the small, narrow house designs that has a simple façade, the only design flare being the slight bump-out of about 18 inches on the right-hand portion of the front. This has its own asymmetrical gable and a triangular cutout over the slightly recessed door. With the off-center front door and the raised gutter line at the right corner, the design of the façade looks as if it was inspired by the soon to be popular Eastern Romantic Cape Cod style house design with a similar projection. This house design is repeated several times throughout the development; slight variations of the façade details add variety. Figures 19–21 are examples that show the similarities of 620, 663, and 723 Park Court to the subject property. 633 Park Court has a simple plan typical of many bungalows. Its shape is that of a slightly elongated, ground- hugging, one-story, rectangle with the narrower end facing the street so that it would fit on this very slender, tapered lot. At the right of the front facade a small extension creates a larger dining room and allows for a recess in which the front door is placed. This gives just the hint of an inset front porch. Just inside the recessed front door is a very tiny vestibule, with the living room to the left and the dining room on the right. Beyond the dining room is the kitchen that was completely updated in a 1997 remodel. Through the living room, straight ahead a tiny hall gives access to the bathroom and two bedrooms at the back of the house. This form is very common for small bungalows.

The side-gabled, asphalt-shingled roof has a ridge line parallel to the street a little less than half-way back on the depth of the house. On the left is a long, fairly steep slope to the façade. This slope is interrupted on the right side by a front-facing asymmetrical gable (the right gutter is higher) with its ridge at a right angle to the main roof. The roof over the entire back half of the house also has a two-slope center-ridge form with a rear-facing gable. The ridge height and slopes of this section match the front roof portion. While there are gutters and downspouts all around, this Park Court house design has no roof overhangs to protect the sidewalls, so the gutters hug the top of the walls (Figure 15). Although the profile of the gutters varies slightly, all the ones we viewed in Park Court on this style (Continued on next page)
3 17
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____

(Continued from previous page)
house had the same flat front, simple, over-sized, box-gutter design placed at the top of the wall, rather than the edge of an overhang, and returned around the corners like the return trim on a Colonial Revival house. The 3x4, corrugated downspouts are not period-appropriate, but are replaceable.

Although the style and the color of the brick used in the rebuilt chimney on the west side of the living room does not fit the period, its shape, placement, and size are all quite appropriate for a Craftsman-era home.

The “double-ogee” style wood siding evident on all sides of the house was a very popular shape for Craftsman style homes but was used on many different styles of houses until about 1950. The same siding was used on all parts of the house, but the minimal weathering scars on the siding and the window and door trim of the front of the house could indicate that this material is new. Or it could simply mean that, since it is the south wall, it was so heavily weathered that it was all stripped and refinished. Either way it was a quite competent job and is in very good condition. The sash appears to be quite weathered original material fitted in a manner typical of inexpensive houses of the era. It would benefit from weather-stripping and other retrofitting work to increase energy efficiency.

The fenestration is varied in type, but all is in the Craftsman vocabulary. Both front rooms have very simple wood casement windows facing the street. Possibly site-built or built by one of the local mills, they are vertically proportioned, 10-lite wood sash windows with a group of two on the living room and three on the dining room. The trim on these windows, and all the siding on this, the south facing wall, may have been stripped and repainted, or been totally replaced as the boards are all much smoother, with sharper edges than the other sides of the house.

Either way, it is in very good condition now, it displays good workmanship, and it follows the rules of the Secretary’s Standards (Figure 8).

On the west side of the house at either side of the rebuilt chimney are two small square wood windows. They are sized and arranged common to the Craftsman style. On the east side of the dining room is a matching 10-lite casement window (Figure 14). Over the kitchen sink there is a group of three, 6-lite, wood casement windows that appear to be original. There is a 9-lite, cross-buck style door in the kitchen leading to the side yard. It may be original, but it is an unusual style for a Craftsman era home (Figures 9 and 10).

Other windows in the back rooms are the slightly elongated proportion wood windows that are ubiquitous on old houses. These are 1-over-1, double-hung, wood sash windows with wide plain-front, wood casing, wider head trim, and heavy wood sills and stools.

An interesting detail of the front door recess is the triangular-shaped, pedimental cutout over the door. This is likely a less expensive riff on the aforementioned Cape Cod style design that often had an arched top door in this position.

However, throughout the Court the shape of the recess and the door style varies on the houses of this same design.

The door style also varies on this plan around Park Court, but this wood, ten-lite style door is possibly original.

There is a decorative, but functional vent in the front gable; it is smaller than what is needed from a functional standpoint, but some of the houses of this style do not have any front vent. The side gables have matching wood vents in a larger size. A small, casement style, wood window is located in the wall of the attic and can provide some additional ventilation (Figure 16).

On the rear elevation, a pair of wood, 10-lite, French-style doors has been added accessing the rear patio area. While not historic, they are in the style of the rest of the windows and doors. A slanted door set at ground level swings up to allow access down a few concrete steps to a partial basement with a concrete slab floor and poured concrete foundation walls, an arrangement and construction very typical of houses of the 1920s (Figure 12).

Just a few steps from the house, at the back of the tiny square, gravel-surfaced backyard, a modern two-stall garage (built in 1999) has replaced the original garage. Like neighboring properties that back onto the alley, the garage is compatible with the house in form, materials, and detailing; except for its large size, it has little detrimental effect on (Continued on next page)
4 17
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __5___ of __17___

(Continued from previous page)
the historic residence. This garage is deeper than many because it includes an office space in the back portion which is accessed by a pair of French doors like those shown in Figure 12, but with 10-paned side-lites on either side (Figures 17 and 18).

CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
Each of the windows, doors, vents, trim, etc. discussed above are character-defining features as they contribute to our understanding of the style and historic significance of this resource. The siding and other materials are similarly contributing historic materials. All of these materials and features have been restored or well maintained. (End of DPR523b, P3a)
(Continued from page 2, DPR523b, B12)
J. J. Bowen surveyed 52 sub-lots on the outskirts of Santa Clara that did not conform to the uniform base and range numbering systems of blocks in what is now called the Old Quad. The Plat of Santa Clara, compiled with names of property owners, dates from the first half of the 1870s. On that map, the subject property is within the boundaries of Sub-Lot 50, 134.87 acres that belonged to the estate of John Grandin Bray, who died in Santa Clara on February 3, 1871. Born in Otsego, New York, in 1812, John G. Bray arrived in California in 1850 and settled soon afterwards in Santa Clara. Bray’s heirs subdivided Sub-Lot 50 in 1886 (SCC Recorded Maps Book B, Page 34). The subject property is in Lot 9, bounded on the north by Cypress Street (now Cypress Alley), on the east by Union Avenue, on the west by Alviso Street, and on the south by the lands of C. A. Phelps (Sub-Lot 52). Son George Bray inherited Lot 9 in the distribution of his father’s estate in April 1886 (Hoag, 2020). A 1914 county assessor’s map shows that George continued to own the property. George Bray died on January 9, 1921.

On June 26, 1924, the San Jose Mercury reported that “William F. and Mary Schick conveyed to R. D. Shimer 13.354 acres of land located on Cypress avenue and Alviso street, adjoining Union avenue, part of the Bray estate in the town of Santa Clara.” The deed has not yet been found that transferred this land from George Bray’s estate to Mr. and Mrs. Schick. According to the 1920 census, William F. and Mary Schick lived in a rented house on Capp Street in San Francisco. A German immigrant, William F. Schick worked in a brewery. These were not the kind of people who engaged in real estate deals. They were perhaps parties willing to be the owners of record on the deed to shield a buyer who did not want to be identified in public records. The Southern Pacific Railroad was famous for this strategy, buying up properties along new railroad alignments in the names of persons unconnected to the railroad, who would eventually be compensated for transferring the titles to the railroad when the right-of-way was assured.

Robert Delno Shimer was another link in the chain of title that would lead to the San Jose real-estate firm of Barnett & Phelps. Shimer purchased land in 1924 and 1925 that would be developed as these housing tracts:

1. Park Court (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 38, February 16, 1925)

2. Alameda Court (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 14, May 17, 1924)

3. Alameda Residence Tract No. 1 (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 27, August 5, 1924)

4. El Camino Park (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 48, May 18, 1925).

5. Alameda Court Extension (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 50–51, June 1, 1925) Except for Park Court, the San Jose real-estate firm of Barnett & Phelps handled the transactions for Shimer, recorded the subdivision maps on his behalf, and marketed the lots to the public. Senior partner Thomas C. Barnett and junior partner John R. Phelps formed Barnett & Phelps in 1914 (Sawyer, 1924, p. 1651; San Jose Mercury, January 19, 1915). Shimer identified himself publicly as a servant in the household of John R. Phelps. Shimer was first listed in the 1916 San Jose city directory as Phelps’ “yardman.” Shimer continues to appear in city directory and census records living in the household of John R. Phelps, sometimes listed as a gardener, a chauffeur, or a houseman until his death on October 6, 1935. (Continued on next page) age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __6___ of __17___

(Continued from previous page)
Shimer may have been a proxy buyer for Barnett & Phelps, as the Schicks likely were, or he could have had the capital to purchase the real estate himself. Son of a wealthy commission merchant in New York City, Robert Delno Shimer was born on August 15, 1879. On January 16, 1911, Shimer married a widow, Mrs. Anne C. (Justice) Patterson. The wedding announcement in the New York Times described Shimer was “in the commission business in this city, and although the heir of a wealthy family is said to be possessed of a large fortune in his own right. While still a young man, he has spent much time traveling, and has been around the world several times. He recently returned from Auckland, New Zealand, where he owns a sheep ranch of 8,000 acres.” The newlywed Shimers, the Times reported, were to spend the winter in Palm Beach and return to a home on Riverside Drive in Manhattan in the spring. A biographical sketch of Mrs. Shimer (https://www.rmslusitania.info/people/saloon/anne-shymer/) reported, “They lived together as man and wife for period of four weeks and then they separated.” R. D. Shimer “took off for parts unknown” while Anne anglicized her last name to Shymer. The couple had not yet divorced when Anne lost her life aboard the ship Lusitania on May 7, 1915. The ship was sunk off the coast of Ireland by a German submarine’s torpedo. Anne’s family filed a claim against the German government. R. D. Shimer heard about the family’s action and filed a $50,000 claim of his own, which was dismissed “because the couple had not lived together as husband and wife since 1911.” Anne’s claim was finally settled in 1925.

It is as yet unknown how much money Shimer had left of his fortune in 1916 when he resurfaced from “parts unknown” to settle in San Jose. If Shimer was using his own capital, or purchasing on the expectation of collecting from his estranged wife’s estate, Shimer might have ended his real-estate buying spree in 1925 after it became clear that he would not receive $50,00 from the government of Germany.

On the evening of January 24, 1925, the San Jose Evening News announced that Barnett & Phelps “disposed of 75 lots on Park Ave., to be known as Park Court to Walter Altevogt.” Shimer was not mentioned, an argument for him not having put up capital for this transaction. The article continues, “These lots, valued at $123,000, were exchanged for 23 acres on Bascom Ave., formerly the property of V. A. Hancock, eight homes in Burrell park and the balance in money. Altevogt will start at once work on 20 houses in Park Court, and more are to go up later.” The deed recorded that day reveals only that R. D. Shimer granted the 13.354 acres to Walter A. and Katherine M. Altevogt (SCC OR Book 134, Page 191). Barnett & Phelps recorded the map of Park Court on February 16, 1925 (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 38; Figure 4, top). The certificate of ownership named Mr. and Mrs. Altevogt as owners, subject to a deed of trust naming the California Mutual Building and Loan Association as beneficiary and the San Jose Abstract & Title Insurance Company as trustee. The Altevogts were speculating that they would be able to build and sell these houses to pay off the mortgage. Builder Walter A. Altevogt appears to have arrived in San Jose at the beginning of 1924, based on his first recorded real-estate transactions in Santa Clara County on February 5, 1924 (SCC Official Records Book 71, Pages 8, 16, 19). Altevogt built 14 houses in the Burrell Park subdivision in 1924 based on recorded completion notices. He exchanged eight of those completed houses as part payment for the Park Court lots in January 1925.

Burrell Park was a Barnett & Phelps subdivision along Park Avenue between Davis and Hedding streets that was recorded on June 14, 1922 (SCC Recorded Maps R, Page 13; Figure 4, bottom). Building lots were opened to the public for sale on November 12, 1922. The lots had a typical 50-foot frontage, but were very deep, between 175 and 210 feet. In March 1924, Barnett & Phelps re-subdivided most of Block 2 and all of Block 3 into a curvilinear court development, with Burrell Court on the north side and Hedding Court on the south (SCC Recorded Maps Book S,

Page 5 ends

in Burrell Park Block 1: he bought eight lots and subdivided them into sixteen smaller lots; Altevogt had a new street surveyed, Katherine Court, between Davis and McKendrie streets, to provide street frontage to all the lots (Figure 3B). (Katherine Court was named for Walter A. Altevogt’s wife, the former Katherine M. Dinsmore, whom he married on June 4, 1924.) With the Park Court subdivision in 1925, Walter Altevogt and Barnett & Phelps would (Continued on next page)
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomia l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __7___ of __17___

(Continued from previous page)
design from the start a fully expressed curving geometric shaped subdivision with all the houses built at once. It would be an instant neighborhood of 85 bungalows with similar character-defining features.

Park Court resident and local author Mark Thomas Hoag found in the Santa Clara Board of Trustees minutes that Walter Altevogt received permits to build 85 houses in Park Court (35 on October 10, 1924, and 50 on January 19, 1925) before he became Park Court’s owner of record on January 24, 1925. John R. Phelps also appeared before the Board of Trustees to discuss extending sewer, water, and gas service to the new subdivision, a cost he would provide ahead of construction to Walter Altevogt with the understanding that he would be reimbursed after Altevogt sold the houses. On August 13, 1925, the Santa Clara News reported that gas mains had been completed through Park Court and that electrical service was about to be installed.

On May 2, 1925, “W. Altevogt, Builder and Owner” took out a full-page advertisement in the San Jose Evening News (Figure 1). Barnett & Phelps were also authorized to sell lots and featured Park Court among the subdivisions they advertised (Figure 2). Walter Altevogt filed notices of completion on August 12, August 21, and September 26, 1925, for 21 houses (Table 1).

Between October 26 and December 28, 1925, Tilden Lumber & Mill Company of Oakland and University Electric Compan
y of Santa Clara placed liens on 49 houses in Park Court, making a total of 70 Park Court houses known to have been built in 1925. The houses not found in the public record in 1925 included the subject property (Lot 67) and Lots 2, 9, 38, 63–66, 68–70, 72, 73. Most of these houses were likely also built in 1925, given their architectural similarity to houses known to have been built that year. The subject property, for example, has a façade similar to 620 Park Court (completion notices filed on August 21, 1925) and 663, 662, 692, and 723 Park Court (liens filed on October 26, 1925). An aerial photograph taken on March 13, 1931 (Figure 3), shows only three vacant lots (Lot 2, 2171 Park Avenue; Lot 72, 2231 Park Avenue; Lot 73, 2221 Park Avenue). (Continued on next page)
Lot Current Address Lot Current Address
1 2151 Park Ave 3 540 Park Ct
4 550 Park Ct 5 560 Park Ct
6 570 Park Ct 7 580 Park Ct
8 590 Park Ct 10 620 Park Ct
11 630 Park Ct 12 640/642 Park Ct
13 650 Park Ct 14 660 Park Ct
31 651 Park Ct 32 641 Park Ct
33 631 Park Ct 34 621 Park Ct
37 574 Park Ct 41 642 Park Ct
71 2241 Park Ave 74 555 Park Ct
75 2201 Park Ave
Figure 2. Barnett & Phelps advertising
subdivisions for sale, San Jose Mercury Herald,
June 28, 1925, page 3.

Table 1. Notices of completion filed for these 21
lots on August 12, August 21, and September 26,
1925 (Source: Building and Engineering News).

STOP PAYING RENT
Own your own home. We can aupply a
home thnt will ,wt you. Price $3950
nnd up. In any of thcae trn.cu ,itualc on
or adjacent to

THE ALAMEDA
Alameda Manor Alameda Court
Alameda Residence Tract
Burrell Park
Park Court Emory Court
· Alameda Court £xtcnaion
El Camino Park ·
Sale.men on the Tracts Sunday,
Barnett · & Phelps
246 South Firat St. S: J. 284
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __8___ of __17___

(Continued from previous page)
Walter Altevogt was in a money bind at the end of 1925. From December 17 to December 20, 1925, he advertised in the San Jose Mercury “For Rent / Park Court Homes / Cheap rent— will give long lease. New bungalows, paved street. Forty houses to pick from. / Phone S. C. 396.” More than half of the bungalows he built were vacant, more than half had liens placed upon them. Altevogt successfully convinced banks to loan him money and construction suppliers to deliver materials. He built 70 houses, but he was not successful in selling them as quickly as he built them, and he did not pay his creditors. The San Jose Evening News (April 2, 1925) had already publicized a breach of contract suit against Altevogt for close to $4000 in damages brought by a local plumbing house, Snyder & DuBrutz, for agreeing to pay for plumbing materials for 100 houses in September 1924, presumably during construction planning for Park Court.

John R. Phelps came to Altevogt’s rescue. In a grant deed made on December 19, 1925, and recorded on December 23, Phelps purchased all of the Park Court subdivision from Altevogt except for Lot 13 (650 Park Court) and portions of Lots 71 and 72 (2241 Park Avenue), which had been lots Altevogt had sold to third parties. Altevogt sold to Phelps many other lots he owned in San Jose, including those in Burrell Park and the Chapman and Davis Tract (SCC OR Book 205, Page 416). All of these properties had been mortgaged to the California Mutual Building and Loan Association, a debt Phelps assumed with a new trust deed (SCC OR Book 205, Page 420). The San Jose Evening News on December 23 reported the sale of 98 lots in the Park Court subdivision “upon which 80 new homes stand.” The purchase price was $498,000, a spectacular sum in 1925. It seems unlikely that Altevogt received that windfall in cash; it is more likely that the figure represented Altevogt’s debts that Phelps assumed.

Walter Altevogt’s career as a contractor had its high point in 1925 with Park Court. Before legal troubles consumed him in 1926, Altevogt built an eight-unit bungalow court (Villa Court) that still stands today at 859 Villa Avenue (City of San Jose building permit, May 13, 1926). He appears to have built nothing more in Santa Clara County.

Marital discord, money troubles, and brushes with the law plagued Walter Altevogt before he arrived in San Jose, a subject Mark Thomas Hoag outlines in his recent book (2020). Another book could be filled with the exploits of Walter Altevogt after he built Park Court, but this report will limit the narrative to his conflict with the California Mutual Building and Loan Association.

Whatever arrangements Walter Altevogt made to satisfy his debt to the California Mutual Building and Loan Association, he was not pleased with them. For the next two years Altevogt attempted to extort money out of the financial institution, threatening to distribute flyers to the public that would expose their business practices. Finally, on December 5, 1927, California Mutual Director John D. Crummey met with Altevogt in San Jose’s Montgomery Hotel and gave him $7500 in marked bills and a train ticket to Florida. The County Sheriff then entered the room and arrested Altevogt on felony blackmail and extortion. He pleaded guilty and was granted five years’ probation on the condition he “leave San Jose and start in business anew elsewhere, and promised to refrain from charges against the organization which had hauled him into court” (San Jose Mercury Herald, November 17, 1929). Altevogt left San Jose in April 1928, taking with him Genevieve “Hatty” Ricker, a local woman he then married in Reno. (His marriage to Katherine Altevogt ended in a contentious divorce that made newspaper headlines daily at the end of 1926.) Four months later, a telegram from Altevogt’s new wife arrived at a lawyer’s office in San Jose, with the news that Altevogt had killed himself with a dose of strychnine in Richmond, Virginia. Altevogt was found alive and well by authorities in Richmond. In November 1929, Altevogt was discovered in Oakland and brought to San Jose on a bench warrant for violating his parole. He claimed to have no knowledge of the telegram announcing his suicide in 1928. The judge suggested that “the conditions of his parole could be better complied with if he stayed away from this vicinity.” Altevogt returned to San Jose in dramatic fashion in May 1931, when he walked into a local business, announced he was better off dead, and took strychnine. He vigorously resisted attempts by police and doctors to apply emergency measures that eventually saved his life. Released from San Jose Hospital, Altevogt left San Jose for good. Inquiries in San Jose from his relatives in the Netherlands in 1946 found him living in Grass Valley. Altevogt died of a stroke on September 12, 1953, in Snyder, Texas. (Continued on next page) age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __9___ of __17___

(Continued from previous page)
After Altevogt’s notorious affairs became front-page news, the residents of Park Court sought to have the Altevogt name stripped from association with their neighborhood. The Park Court tract map recorded in 1925 gave the lots on the north side an Altevogt Way address. The lots on the south side had Park Court addresses. Newspaper articles in 1926 mentioned residents living on Altevogt Way. On January 17, 1927, residents of Park Court successfully applied to the Santa Clara Board of Trustees to have the street name Altevogt Way changed to Park Court. The San Jose Mercury on October 21, 1930, reported that Altevogt Way was officially changed by city ordinance to Park Court. Resistance to the Altevogt Way address might have kept the Park Court neighborhood from being listed in Santa Clara city directories at first. Not until 1928 did Park Court appeared in the reverse city directory, when 65 houses were listed. Most of the houses were occupied, but in the 1929 city directory, 24 addresses were listed as vacant, indicating that most occupants were short-term renters.

The subject property, addressed as 74 Park Court until 1957, was sporadically occupied and vacant between 1928 and 1934, suggesting it was being rented. On December 3, 1934, Harvey and Cora B. Mann sold the house to Kenneth Rayner (SCC OR Book 707, Page 542). On May 5, 1935, the San Jose Mercury announced the wedding of Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Rayner, who were “at home at 74 Park Court, where Mr. Rayner has recently purchased a home.” The Rayners sold the home to Mary Gertrude Mallen on November 25, 1935 (SCC OR Book 184, Page 219).

Mrs. Mallen owned the house until her death on November 11, 1945. The house had several occupants for the next ten years until Darwin and Irene Sawyer purchased the home around 1955. After Mr. Sawyer’s death in 1971, the chain of title breaks until Rene and Kathleen Weibel sold the house to Nelson F. and Joleen E. Roque on July 30, 1976 (SCC Doc. No. 5364140). The house changes hands three times (SCC Docs. No. 7645975, 9839551, 10640000) until Anne E. Hansen purchased the house on May 22, 1997 (SCC Doc. No. 13713960). Anne Hansen has been a realtor in Santa Clara County since 1990. All of the building permits recorded for this address (listed in section B6 and B8) are from the period Ms. Hansen owned the house. The current owner, Riccardo Marino, purchased the house on April 19, 2021 (SCC Doc No. 24926298).

SIGNIFICANCE
To evaluate the property located at 633 Park Court for its historic significance and eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the CRHR uses generally the same guidelines as the National Register of Historic Places (developed by the National Park Service); as such, selected language from those guidelines will be quoted below to help clarify the evaluation discussion. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the CRHR, a structure must usually be more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must also retain its physical integrity. The house, built in 1925, meets the age requirement, but the detached garage, built in 1999, does not.

According to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, development of historic contexts is the foundation for decisions about identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties. Chapter 3 of the City of Santa Clara’s General Plan (“Treasuring Our Past, Present, and Future”) is the closest approximation of an historic context statement now written about the City. Santa Clara County has an Historic Context Statement, under which the house at 633 Park Court falls under its Architecture/Shelter theme in the Inter-War period (1918–1945) of residential architecture.

Criterion A/1: Properties can be eligible for the National Register (Criterion A) or California Register (Criterion 1) if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national or state history. The property is associated with residential patterns of development during the Inter-War period (1918– 1945) of Santa Clara history, as described below in evaluation of local criteria for significance, but it does not appear individually eligible for the National Register or California Register under Criterion A/1. (Continued on next page)
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __10___ of __17___

(Continued from previous page)
Criterion B/2: Properties may be eligible for the National Register (Criterion B) or the California Register (Criterion 2) if they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. The property has had many occupants over the past century, some tenants, some homeowners. All were people of modest means and accomplishments. The property does not appear to be significant based on its association with personages as required to be eligible individually for the National Register or California Register under Criterion B/2.

Criterion C/3: Properties may be eligible for the National Register (Criterion C) or the California Register (Criterion 3) if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the wo
rk of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Contractor Walter A. Altevogt built dozens of simple bungalows in San Jose and Santa Clara between 1924 and 1926. He is more remembered as a criminal mastermind than as a master builder. The property would therefore not appear to qualify for the National Register or California Register under Criterion C/3.

Criterion D/4: All research and physical investigation of the project’s site has focused only on the ground above the structure. Therefore, no informed determination can be made regarding this property’s potential to yield archeological information important in prehistory or history or its eligibility for either the National Register or California Register under Criterion D/4.

In 2004, the City of Santa Clara adopted Criteria for Local Significance. Under these criteria, “any building, site, or property in the city that is 50 years or older and meets certain criteria of architectural, cultural, historical, geographical or archaeological significance is potentially eligible” as a “qualified historic resource.” The property meets the following local criteria:

Criteria for Historical or Cultural Significance
No. 1. The site, building or property has character, interest, integrity and reflects the heritage and cultural developments of the city, region, state, or nation.

No. 5. A building’s direct association with broad patterns of local area history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes or social, political, or economic trends and activities.

Included is the recognition of urban street pattern and infrastructure.

Criteria for Architectural Significance
No. 1. The property characterizes an architectural style associated with a particular era and/or ethnic group.

Criteria for Geographic Significance
No. 1. A neighborhood, group or unique area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history.

No. 2. A building’s continuity and compatibility with adjacent buildings and/or visual contribution to a group of similar buildings.

The subject property is in the Park Court subdivision, about 80 modest bungalows built on small lots by speculative builder Walter A. Altevogt in 1925. Most were built in a single year by the same contractor. Their exteriors are simplified versions of Colonial Revival, Cape Cod, and Craftsman domestic architecture styles popular during the 1920s. The subject property shares character-defining features and materials, such as windows, door frames, rooflines, and chimneys with its neighboring houses. All houses are similar in size, scale, materials, and lot size.

This early automobile suburb along Park Avenue, an alternative to The Alameda linking Santa Clara with San Jose, offered the working family a location convenient to jobs in local industries. First-time homebuyers could obtain a ready-built home with a monthly mortgage payment favorably comparable to prevailing residential rental rates. The prosperity of the 1920s spurred a residential building boom that realtors such as Barnett & Phelps used to market (Continued on next page)
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __11___ of __17___

(Continued from previous page)
themselves as early “subdivision specialists.” The Great Depression and World War II would pause such ambitious housing schemes until the late 1940s, which saw the full flowering of residential subdivisions as fully built neighborhoods.

INTEGRITY
Integrity refers to a property’s ability to convey its significance. Significance is conveyed by the retention of a resource’s visual and physical characteristics and its surroundings. The National Register criteria recognize seven aspects to integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these aspects.

The modern test of integrity according to the California Office of Historic Preservation is to stand on the sidewalk and ask yourself the following question: “Does the resource display enough of what made it significant for its historical period that it can be easily grasped by the average passerby?” Properties must have sufficient integrity in addition to meeting the criterion for significance to be considered a qualified historic resource.

The residence at 633 Park Court retains its integrity in all seven aspects: the house has been refurbished inside and restored outside and its form and massing remain unchanged; its design, materials, and workmanship remain unchanged since its construction in 1925. The house is in its original location and continues its use as a single-family residence. The house may be tiny, but with a few details it manages to convey a designer’s competent hand in a simplified, vernacular Craftsman style. Its setting, feeling, and association remain intact as part of the Park Court subdivision, a rare well-preserved neighborhood of the Inter-War period in the City of Santa Clara.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The house at 633 Park Court is eligible for listing on the City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties List based on age (97 years), integrity, and meeting local criteria for historical, cultural, architectural, and geographic significance. In addition, the Park Court neighborhood is historically significant as the largest remaining intact example in Santa Clara of a locally rare “geometric planned” pattern of development from the early part of the 20th century. The entire development is eligible to be listed on the local HRI, and possibly on the California Inventory, either as a District or in whatever way possible, to bring attention to its importance and the fragile nature of a historic neighborhood subject to the abuses of modern planning and zoning rules often inapplicable to saving historic resources.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Garcia, Lorie, George Giacomini, and Geoffrey Goodfellow. Place of Promise: The City of Santa Clara, 1852–2002.

Santa Clara: City of Santa Clara, 2002.

Garcia, Lorie. Santa Clara: From Mission to Municipality. Santa Clara: Santa Clara University, 1997.

Hoag, Mark Thomas. Park Court, Santa Clara, California: The Treasures Within. San Jose: BR Printers, 2020.

McAlester, Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.

McAlester, Virginia, and Arcie Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to America’s Historic Neighborhoods and Museum Houses: The Western States. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.

Map of the Town of Santa Clara, drawn by C. E. Moore (1893).

National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Technical Bulletin No. 15. 1997.

Santa Clara County Deeds, Miscellaneous Records, and Official Records. On file at the Clerk-Recorder’s Office.

Santa Clara County Recorded Maps. On file at the Clerk-Recorder’s Office.

Thompson & West. Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County. San Francisco: Thompson & West, 1876.

U.S. Federal Census, 1860–1940.
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomia l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page __12___ of __17___

Figure 1. Park Court, full-page advertisement, San Jose Evening News, May 2, 1925.

A Community of Distinctive Small Homes 2 Blocks From the Alameda Drive _. Out Today , and Choose Your Home
General
Specification& of
Park Court Home,
FOUNDATION - Si.ttik ••4
=•t11 .. 111 Matt,. IINI ~llltJ!- -
paAMIHO-?,'o. I .._bet thfOOllll
oaL Ro. .. i"r11 i.mbu I.I• No. I.
lffflJUOJt P'tNIIH L1JW8U
Cklor, "*tcd lunbcr .C 6nt ~ilJ.
ftn l,- ~ al!d dd«u, ET"'f
piece it HW, du11. 111d pctifdb'
......

JIIOOPING-.~ o. I cotdar lllr,i111f,n
l1id 4 IKM• i. 11M: ~utlofr. '"" ,_
CrKk'- bol .. u,d WupL
IAIH, WINDOWS. DOOi.i-Ai t
am-..df. UNI uimonl 111 q11;1li11
th,-a,.._.

PLOOIIIING-:0.o. I wlolH 61k (Ga·
'" kardwoe,d) 1•,...s'Ou1.

BUILT-IN f&AT\JllB-a ubia,o-" ~ ,-i!M111H. w, • ._..,....., ho«Mttlicbc:tt. '
KAllDWAU - Al lio ♦• 11 .,,
-::= ~•~,:r.d:.~,:~!ii:

J11RDLACB -V1,nn1-o- ,-.t,
H-U4 P1n$>1a(c wltidl &i«• IN-llt:r
hn1b1r1..tu.-oluL
WA.TU HE.AT.ER-.\1110•11lc
Hutu1 f■ rai.W U par\ oi 1h1 .jp
-•I 61 .,.,..,_ '--· 111.nu . .1!1 ..._"
wattr whn a f11K,,t 11 11,r.e, OIi.

PLUM81NG - Hip,r•k phu11b,,.
iac•.,.,,_mlM11trD1111m-1hroucti,o.t.

Com. °"1 todat and d1oo.e 7ou.r Park C-Gurt h.- f1'1llffl tho nwnbn o( cham1ln1 little pl~• that haq alriud:, b.eH completed and tliat will b• open for iup.ction tod.,. fot tb• Hnt tim ..

Pule Court M • ditti.nctlff i-... tract in manJ' ,.,.,._ The lou h.a¥e all bffn cut f,,_. ._ foJI i,.a, in• apricot orchard and matun produdnr 1,.._ ba.,. b.e.• lch OIi 9ftl"J' lot (w• h.av. been <-Ucful ton¥• u fflUJ' u pouible)--.nou1h to •irppl7 anJ' famil 7 witli frub hvit all .-.on, r!•:;: ':;Li:,-.!;'~ ~~!;:=:if~~n~h:-"::!~ ;;~i= r~!~:::. to .. ,h hoimc.

SUPERB LOCATION
P•rk C...t M loc.ated 1'itht in the pathwa y o, San J-•• fute.t fTOW • inr hom• ue.-17 t-wo block, west of ~ A'--d• and jl'tt ftO'{b of &r~IJ Park. Then i., no more duir•\le home MC.lion an,.whc.r.. ud thoae who obtain a h-• Mr• w1ll ha•• ua..- to con1rah 1lat a them• ,cl¥e• ma11i1 tilnu ia 1•-.n to c1MM.

ATTRACTIVE DESIGNS
Park Court Mfflff aNO dittinctiff and dows:1-to-th-inute la aver, w•J'• M•"J' of thc111 hav e bnn 1pect.ll,. dui.aned by Woll• & Hinitu. apec.ialltu In honil. •lrnin1. Ocher, .,. reproduction, of th• NOrW JM11Mila.r 1e11•Jl lio.nta hom Southern CaUJomla. n.... h-ea an J,,nt th• rltbt ,iu for the aVcrat• family a11d a·,e ltYlh ln th• li neal ""•1• The7 are '°'-ltUI, Nl'le,it bou-buih of th. be.t maltrWa. all co,utl\lC• tion don• under tli• IUPCflli.tioa or tli• OWII~, a pra.ctiul bullder of rnan1 yean' u:pe:rie:M••
$4500 TO $6500
Surpri1 i.n.1IJ moderat• Opet1in1 p!'iltc:a prenll , Complel•cl home, ranp from $4500 ' to $&SOO, accordl taf lo ''" and locatloa. Our method of buUdin1 homn in Hriet. aftd of pu~ a., i111 maltrial• f111' an cnt if• ,eriu of hoffl411 at o•e ti.me, cna.br.. u, to produce uau.uallr rm.

Ii- at a price ran,e lit.a.I put& tliem withi11 re.acb of mo.I •"Y (amU1. '========= You ....;11 •Pp~at• th• prKH more wlw.n J'CM.1- tM h-,1 EASY·RENTAL PAYMENTS
AnJ Par\ Court home Illar k pu.rchued D11 the •NJ' P'1"'flll plb.

A 1raall an1ount of ca,J, ntak4=1 :,OU th• proud pNICW)r of tho ho--♦ of ,-our d,ok-nd ••all ~fttal p..,._•nt.t rno11thl,- talt• c.aro of 1M balanc•. Buyinr on• of 11,uo bom•• U like payi or rent f.., • few ,ean.

The onl1 difrcrcnu b tba.t al th. o"'d of • f•• ,...,, ,...,. own the homo i.nttead of • bti1Kh of mutlJ' .,...,1 r~ip tt. You 1et a dollar' , worth of home f« ..-cl"J' dollar 7ou pay when JOU l,v7 In. Park Court - -ud that', all PIJ' funi .ly could ulc _. upact.

EVERY HOME AN INVESTMENT
MoreoNr, JOU: have the ,atiffact ion of ktaowin.r that e'l't rJ tnonth J'OUr propcT17 i., lnc.ttNin.r in valu- fw hi1b Jt•d• dalra.lt l• ~me 1it111 ltke thuo are i• demand . Th.1 ca n n,ever be worth Jen. and at• tute to be wo,tJi mon. You bu1 a homo, of cOU.l'ff, for tlie pleuurc you 1et out of ii, hlJI it II alwa.,- 1atld 7i11r tq know U.at U.e teal -, nluu M -11 a, the p)u,u,c vaJuc U thtl'•I .

HIGH GRADE IMPROVEMENTS
The moat modeffl'lmp,oV'CJ!Mnl& a.re bcina hur ried to eomp l etlon P••d •h·•U. coau•t• •ldewallu, curb• ■ nil l'Uttw1; 1aa.and electr ic ity ; Wlller : omamen.tal electro ll- throuahout tlio ll'a.ct. etc. Thua. illlpro•cmcnlt a.re all lie.int paid for by the owner of th• tnct. Th• pure.bu• ptice of you, h- indud« ••el'Jthi.n,--tliat'• •II 1ou pay, Co!IMI ~t today and make :,our H lection.

VISIT PARK COURT TODAY
Toda,', bt.J)'e,. 1et tbc advantar• of open intr priu • which u• th• lowe.,t that wilh•tt be quoted In Puir Cowt. M•eover, tc>4aTa lM.iy~ Ila,.. all the advanta.1e or choiu of locatioci. 1t1le of home, •tc. But whether JOU are read1 to ulec\ • hom• or DDl-come out lo P•rlr Court !i::':.1,::1u::: !i& :::.:ed::.:!,::;t ,::t~:ir.t .• ~inr.~r~~::
•nd ,is-room ~ dctlt n 1,11d coru tructlon,. Vi.lion- an wcko-.

Aalc q,iettlon• fl'fHII Ille Inell with the 0H1111e badsu. .

W. AL TEVOGT, Builcler and Owner
Talk With Any Salesman on the Tract or Write Any
San Jose or ~anta Clara Realtor -
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomia l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: __Park Court Lot 67___________________________________________________________________________________ Page _13____ of __17___

Figure 2. See page 7.

Figure 3. Aerial photograph, March 13, 1931,
of Park Court (1925) and Burrell Park
subdivisions, west of Park Avenue, amid
orchards and farmland. A. Alviso Street ends
at outlet of Park Court. B. Katherine Court,
created out of eight lots of C. Burrell Park
Block 1 (1922). D. Re-subdivision of Burrell
Park Blocks 2 and 3 (1924) that turned
extension of Hedding Street into a court.

Source:
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ ,
Flight C_1456, Frame 17.

Figure 4. Top, Park Court subdivision map, sheet 1 (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 38). Bottom, composite of Burrell Park Block 1 (SCC Recorded Maps Book R, Page 13) and Re- subdivision of Burrell Park Blocks 2 and 3 (SCC Recorded Maps Book S, Page 5).

I
" -: : :-:::-- - : \ \ /
t. '- • • , ....... :" ·. ·. I
-1,f,~-IillIJJJi < . _. ··-=-:-
... _: \ I
age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _______Park Court Lot 67 _________________________________________ Page __14___ of __17___

CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHS: 633 PARK COURT
September 22, 2021
Figure 5. 633 Park Court. Recently landscaping with
lush plantings and new brick pavers gives a little privacy from the street.

Figure 6. A curving, stuccoed brick fence was added to the right side of the front yard.

Figure 7. Living room (left) has a pair of 8-lite
casements. Dining room (right) has triple group of
casements.

Figure 8. Note the undersized attic vent – vent design varies on this house.

Figure 9. East side at the kitchen windows. Figure 10. East side from the kitchen rearward.

age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _______Park Court Lot 67 _________________________________________ Page _15____ of __17___

CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHS (Cont’d)
Figure 11. Typical double-hungs in back
rooms. Screens are metal, not wood frames,
but they blend sufficiently well.

Figure 12. New French doors at rear. Note door at ground level to basement is open.

Figure 13. West (left) side yard. Figure 14. Dining room window on east side.

age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _______Park Court Lot 67 _________________________________________ Page _16____ of __17___
16 CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHS (Cont’d)
Figure 15. Gutter return on east elevation. Figure 16. Smaller attic-story vent window. Sash and trim style match other windows.

Figure 17. The rear yard patio space looking toward
the door into the office space at the back of the
1999 garage.

Figure 18. Garage/Office (built 1999), opening onto
Cypress Alley.

age of * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date Continuation Update

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Tr inomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _______Park Court Lot 67 _________________________________________ Page _17____ of __17___
17 ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS: DECEMBER 12 and 13, 2021
Figure 19. 620 Park Court. An almost exact copy of the form of our subject property (Fig 1.) Windows on the dining room are slightly different. Walk, steps, and landscaping are very different, but the mass, form, and major architectural details match.

Figure 20. 663 Park Court. Similar, yet slightly different. Mass and form are a match, but the windows have been replaced in recent years. The door has no triangular pediment at the top of the recess.

Figure 21. 723 Park Court. Same form but details
changed – especially the windows. Again no triangle
over the modern door (Source: Google Street View).

Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materia Is or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Exhibit C
633 Park Court
10-year Work Plan
December 23, 2021
The following is a brief outline of some of the larger projects we intend to tackle for upkeep and repair as well as restora>on of our beau>ful li?le bungalow in the Park Court development which is now over 95 years old. Any old house needs almost constant maintenance, especially one made mostly of wood. But in addi>on to maintenance projects, we intend to tackle some major upgrade projects, such as the seismic improvements, to help assure that our house will last for another 100 years.

This voluntary work will include a permit applica>on.

Well implemented and hidden automa>on will improve electrical energy eﬃciency, increase the comfort of us residents, and also put emphasis on the beau>ful features of our historic property.

Water preserva>on
•Design and installa>on of a grey water irriga>on system.

While we can't know, today, what exactly technology will oﬀer 8-9 years down the line, we look forward with hope to the technological advancements we wish to see, and we plan to replace the already outdated equipment currently in the house with new, more eﬃcient equipment:
•New whole-house HVAC system. Requires electrical and plumbing work. •New tankless water heaters at least at two loca>ons:
oOne for the kitchen, and
oOne for the garage
•New furnace-less and tankless space heaters
oE.g. split AC system with heat-pump
Year 10
Work on more Hidden Assets:
•Excavate crawl space to meet code-required ver>cal clearances under wood ﬂoor structure •Upgrade agc insula>on and other insula>on to reduce need for AC / heater •Upgrade agc ven>la>on both in main house and garage unit to increase Sincerely,
Riccardo Marino
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 5/20/2022

Page 1 of 8 ends

RECORD WITHOUT FEE
PURSUANT TO GOV'T CODE SECTION 6103

Recording Requested by:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara, California

When Recorded, Mail to:

Office of the City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

Form per Gov't Code Section 27361.6 [SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE]

HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT

This Agreement, (herein, "Agreement"), is made and entered into this _ __ day of ___________, 2022, ("Effective Date"), by and between Riccardo Marino, owner of certain real property located at 633 Park Court (“OWNER”) and the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, Calif ornia 95050 ("CITY"). CITY and OWNER may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."

A. Recitals.
(1) California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. authorizes the CITY to enter into a contract with the OWNER of qualified Historical Property to provide for the use, maintenance, and restoration of such Historical Property so as to retain its characteristics as property of historical significance.

(2) OWNER possesses fee title in an d to that certain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, shown on the 2022 Santa Clara County Property Tax Rolls as Assessors' Parcel Number 269-52-009, and generally located at the street address 633 Park Court, in the City of Santa Clara ("Historic Property"). A legal description of the Historic Property is attached hereto as "Legal Description," marked as "Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference.

(3) The Historic Property is on the City of Santa Clara Archi tecturally or Historically Significant Properties list. OWNER submitted a Mills Act Proposal to City on January 12, 2022.

The Proposal included a Primary Record from the State of California’s Depa rtment of Parks and Recreation. A true and correct copy of the Proposal is attached to this Agreement as “Exhibit B”.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 5/20/2022

Page 2 of 8 ends

B. Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and OWNER, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, do hereby agree as follows:

(2) Renewal.
(a) Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, ("renewal date"), one (1) year shall automatically be added to the ter m of this Agreement unless notice of nonrenewal is mailed as provided herein.

(c) OWNER may make a written protest of a nonrenewal notice issued by CITY. CITY may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to OWNER o f nonrenewal. If either CITY or OWNER serve s notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining, from either original execution date or the last renewal date of the Agreement, whichever is applicable.

(3) Standards for Historical Property . During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements, and restrictions:

(a) OWNER shall preserve and maintain the characteristics of historical significance of the Histor ic Property. "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," marked as “Exhibit C” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference, contains a list of those minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use, and preservation of the Historic Property, which shall apply to such property throughout the term of this Agreement.

(b) OWNER shall, when necessary or as determined by the Director of Planning and Inspection, restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rul es and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and the Califo rnia Historical Building Code and in accordance with the attac hed schedule of potential home improvements, drafted by the OWNER and approved by the City Council, attached hereto as "The Description of the Preservation and Restoration Efforts," marked as “Exhibit D” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference.

Page 3 of 8 ends

a party appointed by CITY, to determine OWNER’ continued compli ance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNER acknowledge that the required inspections of the interior and exterior of the property were conducted prior to the effective date of this Agreement.

(4) Provision for Information.
(a) OWNER hereby agree to furnish CITY with any and all information requested by the CITY to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

(i) the OWNER breached any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement; or

(ii) the OWNER allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets standards for a qualified historic property.

(b) CITY may also cancel this Agreement if it determines that:

(i) the OWNER allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets building standards of the City Code and the codes it incorporates by reference, including , but not limited to , the Uniform Housing Code, the California Historical Building Code, the California Fire Code, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings or;

(ii) the OWNER has not complied with any other local, State, or federal laws and regulations.

(iii) the OWNER failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in subparagraph 3(b) of this Agreement.

(c) In the event of cancellation, OWNER shall pay those cancellation fees set forth in Cal ifornia Government Code Section 50280, et seq. As an alternative to cancellation, OWNERS may bring an action in court to enforce the Agreement.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 5/20/2022

Page 4 of 8 ends

(7) Mediation.
(a) Any controversies between OWNER and CITY regarding the construction or application of this Agre ement, and claim arising out of this contract or its breach, shall be submitted to mediation upon the written request of one party after the service of that request on the other party.

(b) If a dispute arises under this contract, either party may demand m ediation by filing a written demand with the other party.

(d) A hearing on the matter to be arbitrated shall take place before the mediator(s) in the city of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, at the time and place selected by the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall select the time and place promptly and shall give party written notice of the time and place at least fifteen (15) days before the date selected. At the hearing, any relevant evidence may be presented by either party, and the formal rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings shall no t govern. Evidence may be admitted or excluded in the sole discretion of the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall hear and determine the matter and shall execute and acknowledge the award in writing and cause a copy of the writing to be delivered to each of the parties.

(e) The submission of a dispute to the mediator(s) and the rendering of a decision by the mediator(s) shall be a condition precedent to any right of legal action on the dispute.

(f) Each party shall bear their own cost(s) of mediation.

(8) Binding Effect of Agreement.
(a) The OWNER hereby subjects the Historic Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. CITY and OWNER hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and re strictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass t o and be binding upon the OWNER successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed, or other instrument hereina fter executed, covering, encumbering, or conveying the Historic Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 5/20/2022

Page 5 of 8 ends

CITY: City of Santa Clara
Attn: City Clerk
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

OWNERS: Riccardo Marino
633 Park Court
Santa Clara, CA 95050

(b) Prior to entering a contract for sale of the Historic Property, OWNER shall give thirty (30) da ys notice to the CITY and it shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified above or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.

(10) No Partnership or Joint Enterprise Created . None of the terms, provis ions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns; nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.

(11) Hold Harmless and Indemnification . To the extent permitted by law, OWNER agree to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its City Council, commissions, officers, agents, and employees from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim arising there from for which OWNER shall become legally liable arising from OWNER ’ acts, errors, or omissions with respect to or in any way connected with this Agreement.

(13) Restrictive Covenants Binding . All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal repre sentatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner pursuant to this Agreement.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 5/20/2022

Page 6 of 8 ends

a. a Historic Resources Inventory form;

b. the description of the preservation or restoration efforts to be undertaken as referenced in paragraph 3 (b) as Exhibit "D";

c. a statement of justification for the Mills Act Historic Property designation and reassessment; and,

d. the Mills Act Historic Property Contract filing fee pursuant to paragraph 17.

(16) Recordation and Notice. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the CITY shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara.

(18) Ordinary Maintenance. Nothing in this contract shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any Historic Property covered by this contract that does not involve a change in design, material, or external appearance thereof, nor does this contra ct prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition, or removal of any such external architectural feature when the Director of Planning and Inspection determines that such action is required for the public safety due to an uns afe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California Historical Building Code and when such architectural feature can be replaced according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards.

(19) California Historic al Building Cod e. The California Historic al Building Code ("CHBC") provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of structures desi gnated as Historic Properties. The CITY's building permit procedure shall be utilized for any Historic Property which is subject to the provisions of this Agreement, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the CHBC. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prevent any fire, building, health, or safety official from enforcing Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 5/20/2022

Page 7 of 8 ends

laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and standards to protect the health, safety, welfare, and property of the OWNERS or occupants of the Historic Property or the public. (20) Conservation Easements.
(a) Conservation easements on the f acades of the Historical Property may be acquired by the CITY, or on the CITY's behalf, by a nonprofit group designated by the CITY through purchase, donation, or condemnation pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.

(21) Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitu tional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, such decision shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions of this Agreement. CITY and OWNER hereby declare that they would have adopted this Agreement, and each section, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

(23) Captions. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation.

(24) Statutes and Law Governing Contract . This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California.

(25) Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/633 Park Court Typed: 5/20/2022

Page 8 of 8 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER S have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara

RAJEEV BATRA
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771

“CITY”

Riccardo Marino
Owner of 633 Park Court

By: _____________________________
Riccardo Marino
633 Park Court
Santa Clara, CA 95050

“OWNER”

Exhibits:

A – Property Description
B – Primary Record
C – Standards for Rehabilitation
D – Restoration Schedule

Historical & Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes 06/02/2022

3. 4.
22-683 Consideration of Historic Resource Inventory Property Designation and a Historical Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) for 633 Park Court Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Historical and Landmarks Commission find that the Mills Act application and associated Ten-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan accomplish the intent of preserving and maintaining the historical significance of the historic property and, therefore, recommend Council approve the addition of the property to the HRI; approve the Mills Act Contract; and adopt a Ten-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan associated with the Historical Preservation Agreement for the property located at 633 Park Court.

Associate Planner Steve Le provided the staff presentation.

Homeowner Riccardo Marino spoke regarding the project and answered questions.

A motion was made by Commissioner Vargas-Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romano to close public hearing.

Aye: 6 - Commissioner Kirby, Chair Leung, Vice Chair Vargas-Smith, Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Romano, and Commissioner Stocks
Excused: 1 - Commissioner Swartzwelder
A motion was made by Commissioner Vargas-Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romano to approve staff recommendation with the addition of a plaque.

Aye: 6 - Commissioner Kirby, Chair Leung, Vice Chair Vargas-Smith, Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Romano, and Commissioner Stocks
Excused: 1 - Commissioner Swartzwelder
22-684 Continuance Hearing for a Significant Property Alteration Permit for a Second-Story Addition at 1540 Homestead Road
Recommendation: Staff recommends continuance of this item to the next Historical and Landmarks Commission meeting of July 7, 2022.

Associate Planner Steve Le provided the staff presentation.

Homeowner Anita Casanovas spoke regarding the project and answered questions.

A motion was made by Commissioner Celso, seconded by
Commissioner Romano to close public hearing.

City of Santa Clara Page4 Printed on 08/17/2022
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1185 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement for an Easement on the Memorex Junction Transmission Line Extension Project

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clara’s Electric Utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), is proposing to construct approximately 0.6 miles of new single circuit 60 kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line within the eastern area of the City of Santa Clara. One of the objectives of the Memorex Junction Transmission Line Extension Project (Project) is to provide service to the new Memorex Junction Substation to be constructed as a part of the 1200 Memorex Development and potential other datacenter or industrial developments within the vicinity.

The new 60 kV transmission line would be constructed along or crossing the following city streets:

Lafayette Street, Shulman Avenue, Memorex Drive, Ronald Street and Di Giulio Avenue.

The City Council has previously taken several actions on the Project:
· April 14, 2021: Approved a Funding Agreement with 1220 Santa Clara PropCo, LLC, relating to City predesign engineering activities for the Memorex Junction Substation Project and related budget amendment.
· November 9, 2021: Action on the adoption and certification of an Environmental Impact Report; adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program; and Architectural approval of a data center project located at 1200-1310 Memorex Drive. · March 22, 2022: Delegated authority to the Office of the City Manager to negotiate and execute the substation agreement for Silicon Valley Power with 1220 Santa Clara Propco, LLC for Memorex Junction Substation.
· July 12, 2022: Council took three actions:
o Adopted a Resolution approving the purchases of overhead electric easements at 2380 Lafayette Street [224-63-020], 1045 Shulman Avenue [224-63-006], and 2206 Lafayette Street [224-67-042]; and
o Adopted a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Certain Real Property Interests on 1040 Di Giulio Avenue, Santa Clara, California, from John P. Anderson; and City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1185 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
o Adopted a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Certain Real Property Interests on 2265 Lafayette Street, Santa Clara, California, from SEW, LLC. · September 12, 2022 - Adopted the Resolution approving the purchases of overhead electric easements at 2191 Ronald Street [224-63-023], 2122 Ronald Street [224-66-003], and 2265 Lafayette Street [224-03-080].

Other actions taken for this Project include a November 1, 2021, community meeting to present and take comments from the community on the transmission line route.

The Project requires the acquisition of eight (8) parcel easements to facilitate construction of new monopole steel structures and results in the acquisition of new easements for electrical facilities.

DISCUSSION
The City has negotiated the proposed purchase of an easement from the following property owner of a certain parcel necessary for the Project, upon the terms set forth below.

Address Grantors APN Purchase Price
1040 Di Giulio Avenue Jon P. Anderson 224-05-093 $52,000

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential impacts to the Project were analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact report for the Memorex Data Center Project, which was adopted by the City Council on November 9, 2021, (Resolution No. 21-9017).

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the easement purchase is $52,000 and the funding is available in the Memorex Junction Substation Project, budgeted in the Electric Utility Capital Fund. This cost will be covered per the executed substation agreement with 1220 Santa Clara Propco, LLC. This action has no fiscal impact to the General Fund as the Project is fully funded by developer contributions.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt the Resolution approving the purchase of an overhead electric easement at 1040 Di Giulio Avenue [224-05-093] and authorize the City Manager to execute the related Purchase and Sale Agreement and accept associated easement deed; and

2. Authorize the easement deed to be recorded in the Office of the County Clerk-Recorder of the City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1185 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
County of Santa Clara.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Agreement for Purchase and Sale - 1040 Di Giulio Avenue [224-05-093] City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Approving Purchase of Overhead Electric Easements Page 1 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING PURCHASE OF AN OVERHEAD ELECTRIC

EASEMENT

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara, a chartered city and municipal corporation acting by and through its municipally owned utility, Silicon Valley Power (“City” or “SVP”) is constructing approximately 0.6 miles of new single circuit 60 Kilovolt overhead transmission lines within the eastern area of the City of Santa Clara for the Memorex Junction Transmission Line Extension Project (“Project”). One of the objectives of the Project is to provide service to the new Memorex Junction Substation for the Memorex Data Center Project and other potential data centers or industrial developments within the vicinity; and WHEREAS, the Project will involve the placement of multiple new monopole steel structures and result in either the expansion of existing electric overhead and wire clearance easements or the acquisition of new easements; and
WHEREAS, the Project was analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Project was analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Memorex Data Center project, which was adopted by Council on November 9, 2021, by Resolution No. 21-9017; and
WHEREAS, consistent with City Council authority the City negotiated easements with owners of certain parcels required to construct the Project and the City has reached an agreement with a property owner to purchase an easement necessary for the Project, upon the terms set forth below.
///
///
///
Resolution/Approving Purchase of Overhead Electric Easements Page 2 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the purchase of the easement from the following property owner for the negotiated purchase price is approved.

Address Grantors APN Purchase Price
1040 Di Giulio Avenue Jon P. Anderson 224-05-093 $52,000

2. That the City Manager, or his duly authorized designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute an Agreement for Purchase and Sale Agreement (Utility Easement) with the foregoing Grantor, which is attached to the Report to Council accompanying this Resolution and presented to the City Council on October 4, 2022, in a form substantially the same as the Agreement for Purchase and Sale Agreements (Utility Easement), attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference.

3. The City Manager is authorized, on behalf of the City of Santa Clara, to accept the utility easement deeds and any real property interests to be conveyed to the City of Santa Clara in substantially the form contained in Attachment A.
///
///
///
///
///
///
Resolution/Approving Purchase of Overhead Electric Easements Page 3 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF ______ 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. RTC 22-1185

2. Agreement for Purchase and Sale - 1040 Di Giulio Avenue [224-05-093] SCLA-56598\2322245.1 1

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE
(UTILITY EASEMENT)
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of ___________ __, 20__ (the “Effective Date”) by and between CITY OF SANTA CLARA (“Grantee” or “City”) and Jon P. Anderson, as Trustee of the Jon P. Anderson Revocable Living Trust, dated September 11, 1984 (“Grantor) with regard to the purchase and sale of certain property interests, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, The City of Santa Clara’s Electric Utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), plans to construct approximately 0.6 miles of new 60 kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line along Shulman Avenue, Memorex Drive, Ronald Street, Di Giulio Avenue and Lafayette Street within the northwestern area of the City of Santa Clara. SVP’s primary objective of the Memorex Loop Project (“Project”) is to increase system capacity and reliability.

WHEREAS, the Project will involve the placement of multiple new monopole steel structures and/or replace existing wood pole structures and result in either the expansion of existing electric overhead and wire clearance easements or the acquisition of new easements.

WHEREAS, Grantee wishes to acquire from Grantor, and Grantor wishes to sell to Grantee certain property rights, as more particularly described in Exhibit A (the “Easement”) for the Project upon the terms and conditions set forth herein.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize that the sale of the Easement is subject to approval of the Santa Clara City Council and that this Agreement shall have no force or effect unless and until said City Council approval has been obtained, which approval shall be obtained before execution of the Agreement by Grantee.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties, the parties hereto agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1

PURCHASE

1.1. The E asement. Grantor is the fee owner of certain real property commonly known as 1040 Di Giulio Ave. APN : 224-05-093 located in the City of Santa Clara, California over which the Easement will cross.

1.2. S ale and Conveyance . Grantor shall sell to Grantee and Grantee shall purchase from Grantor, all of the terms and conditions set forth in Articles 2 and 3 hereof, the Easement.

ARTICLE 2
P

URCHASE PRICE

2.1. P urchase Price. The purchase price (“Purchase Price”) for the Easement shall be Fifty Two Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($52,000.00).

Attachment A
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 2

2.2. Payment of Purchase Price. The purchase price shall be payable all in cash upon close of Escrow (as defined below) in accordance with Section 4.2.

ARTICLE 3

CONDITIONS TO PURCHASE AND SALE

3.1. Conditions Precedent to Purchase and Sale. The obligation of Grantee to purchase and Grantor to sell the Easement is expressly conditioned upon the satisfaction, prior to closing, of each of the conditions set forth in this Section 3.1 (the “Conditions Precedent”).

3.1.1 Title. Grantee has obtained a preliminary title report dated July 1st, 2022, from First American Title Company (the “Title Report”). Grantee acknowledges and agrees that all exceptions are approved by Grantee (the “Approved Exceptions”).

3.1.2 Execution of Overhead Electric Easement Deed. Grantor shall be ready, willing and able to convey title to the Easement by Overhead Electric Easement Deed to Grantee in the form of Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Easement Deed”) subject only to the Approved Exceptions.

3.1.3 Deposit of Grant Deed. Grantor shall have deposited into Escrow (as defined below) the Overhead Electric Easement Deed as provided for in Section 4.1.1, conveying title to the Easement (subject to the Approved Exceptions) to the Grantee.

3.1.4 Title Insurance. The Title Company shall be prepared to issue an ALTA Standard Owner Policy of Title Insurance in the amount of the purchase price insuring title to the Easement vested in Grantee subject only to the Approved Exceptions (the “Title Policy”).

3.1.5 Certificate of Acceptance. Grantee has obtained a resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara authorizing recordation of the Overhead Electric Easement Deed and has deposited a properly executed Certificate of Acceptance into Escrow.

3.1.6 No Breach. There shall be no material breach of any of Grantor’s representations, warranties, or covenants set forth in Article 5.

3.1.7 Documentary Deposit. Grantor and Grantee shall have each deposited into Escrow all materials required to be deposited under Article 4.

3.2. Grantee’s Remedies.

3.2.1 Conditions Precedent. If any of the foregoing Conditions Precedent which inure to the benefit of Grantee are not satisfied, Grantee shall have the right either to waive the condition in question and proceed with the purchase of the Easement pursuant to all of the other terms of this Agreement, or, in the alternative, to terminate this Agreement and any money deposited into Escrow by Grantee shall be returned to Grantee, and thereafter neither party shall have any further rights, obligations or liabilities hereunder except to the extent that any right, obligation or liability set forth herein expressly survives termination of this Agreement.

3.2.2 Default. If Grantor fails to perform any of its obligations or is otherwise in default under this Agreement, Grantee shall have the right to give notice to Grantor specifically setting forth the nature of said failure and stating that Grantor shall have a period of ten (10) calendar days to cure such failure. If Grantor has not cured such failure within such period (or, SCLA-56598\2322245.1 3
if such failure is not capable of being cured within ten (10) calendar days, Grantor either has not commenced in good faith the curing of such failure within such period or does not diligently thereafter complete such cure prior to the Closing Date, as may be extended under the terms of this Agreement), Grantee’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be one of the following:
(a) Waiver. Waive such failure and proceed to the Closing pursuant to all of the other terms of this Agreement; or
(b) Terminate. Grantee may terminate this Agreement by notice to Grantor and Escrow Agent to that effect. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by Grantor of its right or ability to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire the Easement after a termination of this Agreement.

3.3. Grantor’s Remedies. If any of the foregoing Conditions Precedent which inure to the benefit of Grantor are not satisfied, Grantor shall have the right to either waive the condition in question and proceed with the sale of the Easement pursuant to all of the other terms of this Agreement, or, in the alternative, to terminate this Agreement and any amounts deposited into Escrow shall be returned to Grantee, and thereafter neither party shall have any further rights, obligations or liabilities hereunder except to the extent that any right, obligation or liability set forth herein expressly survives termination of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 4

CLOSING AND ESCROW

4.1. Deposits into Escrow. Grantee has established an escrow (the “Escrow”) with First American Title, 1737 North First Street, Suite 110, San Jose, CA 95112. Attn.: Luisa Sosa, telephone: (408) 487-5055 (the “Escrow Agent”). A copy of this Agreement, duly executed by both parties, shall be deposited therein within five (5) business days after the Effective Date.

Subject to Section 4.2.2 below, this Agreement shall serve as escrow instructions to Escrow Agent, as escrow holder, for consummation of the purchase and sale contemplated hereby.

Prior to or on the Closing Date, the Parties shall deposit the following into the Escrow:

4.1.1 Grantor. Grantor shall deposit the following into Escrow:
(a) The Overhead Electric Easement Deed, fully executed and suitable for recordation;
(b) If required by the Escrow Agent, a FIRPTA Affidavit stating Grantor’s U.S. taxpayer identification number and that the Grantor is a “United States person” as defined by Internal Revenue Code sections 1445(f)(3) and 7701(b); and (c) Such other documents and instruments as may be required by other provisions of this Agreement or may be reasonably required by Escrow Agent or otherwise to carry out the terms and intent of this Agreement.

4.1.2 Grantee. Grantee shall deposit the following into Escrow:
(a) Cash or immediately available funds in the amount of the Purchase Price together with such additional cash in the amount necessary to pay Grantee’s share of closing costs and prorations, as hereinafter set forth; SCLA-56598\2322245.1 4
(b) An executed Certificate of Acceptance; and
(c) Such other documents and instruments as may be required by any other provision of this Agreement or as may reasonably be required by Escrow Agent or otherwise to carry out the term and intent of this Agreement.

4.2. Close of Escrow.

4.2.1 Closing Date. Escrow shall close on or before the thirtieth (30th) day following execution of this Agreement by Grantee or upon such other date as is mutually agreed upon by Grantee and Grantor (the “Closing Date”).

4.2.2 Closing of Escrow. When the Conditions Precedent listed in Section 3.1 have been satisfied or waived by Grantee and Grantor and Escrow Agent has received all necessary cash and documents and is in a position to issue the Title Policy, as provided in Section 3.1.4, Escrow Agent shall immediately close Escrow as provided below (the “Closing”).

The parties to this Agreement shall cooperate with each other and the Escrow Agent in preparing and executing such further documents (including further escrow instructions) as may be reasonably necessary to close Escrow as contemplated by this Agreement; provided however, that in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any such further documents or escrow instructions, the terms of this Agreement shall control.

4.2.3 Procedure. Escrow Agent shall close Escrow as follows:

4.2.3.1 Record Deed. Date and record the Overhead Electric Easement Deed in the Official Records of Santa Clara County.

4.2.3.2 Deliver Copies of Deed. Deliver one (1) certified copy of the recorded Deed to Grantee.

4.2.3.3 Pay to Grantor. Pay to Grantor the funds in Escrow equal to the Purchase Price, reduced only by the Grantor’s share of closing costs and prorations, as hereinafter set forth in Section 4.2.4 below.

4.2.3.4 Deliver Title Policy. Deliver the Title Policy to Grantee.

4.2.3.5 Closing Statement. Prepare and deliver to Grantee and Grantor one signed copy of the Escrow Agent’s closing statement showing all receipts and disbursements of the Escrow.

4.2.4 Closing Costs and Prorations.

4.2.4.1 Closing Costs. Grantee and Grantor shall each pay its own attorney’s fees in connection with negotiating this Agreement and closing the Escrow. Grantee shall pay recording costs, if any, Escrow fees, the title insurance premium, and any documentary transfer taxes.

SCLA-56598\2322245.1 5
ARTICLE 5

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

5.1. Grantor’s Representations and Warranties. Grantor represents and warrants to Grantee that the following matters are true and correct in all material respects as of the execution of this Agreement and will also be true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing:

5.1.1 Organization Authority. Jon P. Anderson Revocable Living Trust, dated September 11, 1984 is a trust, duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California and has the full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and all documents now or hereinafter to be executed and delivered by it pursuant to this Agreement and to perform all obligations arising under this Agreement and such performance does not conflict with any obligations of the Grantor. The individuals executing this Agreement and the instruments referred to herein on behalf of Grantor, have the legal power, rights and actual authority to bind Grantor to the terms and conditions hereof and thereof;

5.1.2 No Violation of Agreement; Litigation. Neither the execution, delivery or performance of this Agreement by Grantor will result in the breach of any terms, conditions or provisions of, or conflict with or constitute a default under the terms of any indenture, deed to secure debt, mortgage, deed of trust, note, evidence of indebtedness or any other agreement or instrument by which Grantor or the Easement is bound. Grantor has no knowledge of any pending or threatened litigation, actions, applications, orders, protests, proceedings, or complaints against or affecting title to the Easement or Grantor’s interest therein;

5.1.3 Compliance with Laws. Grantor has received no written notice alleging violations of any federal, state or municipal laws or ordinances with regard to any portion of the Easement;

5.1.4 Existing Lease. There are no contracts or agreements with respect to the occupancy of the Easement which will be binding upon Grantee after Closing; and

5.1.5 Grantor Not a Foreign Person. Grantor is not a foreign person within the meaning of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

ARTICLE 6

GENERAL PROVISIONS

6.1. Approval of City Council. Grantor and Grantee recognize that as of the execution of this Agreement by Grantor, this Agreement is subject to approval of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara and that this Agreement shall have no force or effect unless and until said City Council’s approval has been obtained, but such approval shall be obtained before execution of this Agreement by Grantee.

6.2. Binding on Successors. The terms, covenants, and conditions herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

6.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement including all exhibits hereto contains all of the covenants, conditions, and agreements between the parties and shall supersede all prior correspondence, agreements, and understandings both verbal and written. No addition or SCLA-56598\2322245.1 6
modification of any term or provision shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by both Grantor and Grantee.

6.4. Brokers’ Fees. Grantor and Grantee each represent and warrant to the other that, there are no brokers’ fees or finders’ fees arising out of this transaction and each shall indemnify, defend, and hold the other harmless from any claim, loss, cost, damage or expense including, without limitation, attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs and court costs arising out of or incurred in connection with any claim by any other broker, finder or other person or entity for any brokerage commission, finder’s fee or other amount in connection with any acts or dealings with such indemnifying party with any such broker, finder or other person or entity.

6.5. Attorney’s Fees. In the event either party to this Agreement institutes an action to interpret or enforce the terms hereof, or to obtain money damages, the prevailing party, as determined by the court (whether at trial or upon appeal) shall be entitled to recover from the other, in addition to costs and judgment as awarded by the court, its attorney’s fees incurred therein. The prevailing party shall include, without limitation, a party who dismisses an action or proceeding for recovery hereunder in exchange for consideration substantially equal to the relief sought in the action or proceeding. In no event shall an attorney’s fee award exceed $5,000, whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions.

6.6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

6.7. Captions. All captions and headings in this Agreement are for the purposes of reference and convenience and shall not limit or expand the provisions of this Agreement.

6.8. Time. Time is of essence of every provision herein contained in this Agreement.

6.9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all counterparts shall constitute one agreement.

6.10. Survival. The terms, covenants and conditions of Articles 5, 6, and 7 shall remain true and correct as of the Closing Date, shall be deemed to be material and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the delivery of the Grant Deed, and transfer of title.

6.11. Notices. All notices, requests or other communications required or permitted to be given in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered (with prompt confirmation by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid), or by commercial courier service, or by registered or certified mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the party whom it is directed at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as may be designated by notice from such party in the manner provided herein:

To Grantor: Jon P. Anderson, Trustee
Attention: Jon P. Anderson
18951 Bear Creek Rd.

Los Gatos, CA 95033
Telephone: 408-640-1008
To Grantee :

With a copy to:

City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenu e
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Attn: City Manager
Telephone : 408-615 -2210
City of Santa Clara City Attorney 's Office
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Attn: City Attorney
Telephone : (408) 615-2230
Notices which are delivered by hand shall be deeme d received upon delivery; notices which are deposited in the United States Mail in accordance with the terms of this Section shall be deemed received three (3) days after the date of mailing and notices delivered by commercia l courier service shall be deemed received the date of actua l delivery. The foregoing addresses may be changed by notice to the other party as herein provid ed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed one (1) or more cop ies of this Agreement, on the date(s ) set forth below, effect ive as of the day and year first above written ("Effective Date").

GRANTOR
Jon P. Anderson , as Trustee
of the Jon P. Anderson Revocable
Living Trust , dated September 11 , 1984

GRANTEE
City of Santa Clara,
a municipal corporation
By:
~ '1r, \
¼l~Y~By __ _
Title : --~~t,U~~Yl€.-......~~-- ---
Date: - -,1,,__/ .......,8{_z.o~2::C-J,7 __ , _ _ _
SCLA-56598\2322245. I 7
Title:

Date: _ _ ____ ____ _ _

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 8

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION:

EXHIBIT "A"
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT ACROSS:

JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANTA CLARA , CALIFORNIA 95050
APN: 224-05-093
EASEMENT AREA: 1,500 SQ. FT.±
SVP REF : SC -
That portion of the parcel of land conveyed in that certain Trust Transfer Deed recorded October 11, 2018 as Document No. 24040668 , in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County (ORSCC), herein after referred to as the Grantor's Parcel, located in the City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:

COMMENCING at a monument located in the centerline of Di Giulio Avenue (as shown on

Page 2 ends

Di Giulio Avenue ; thence South 0°42'49" West 30.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way of said Di Giulio Avenue at the northwesterly corner of said Grantor's Parcel and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89°17'11" East 93.55 feet continuing along said southerly right-of-way to the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 450.00 feet; thence northerly 66.65 feet along said curved right-of-way through a central angle of 8°29'09"; thence South 78°08'23" West 78.05 feet; thence South 88°56'32" West 83.81 feet to the westerly line of said Grantor's Parcel ; thence North 0°42'39" East 14.66 feet along said westerly line to the POINT OF BEGINNING .

CONTAINING: 1,500 sq. ft., more or less.

JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
APN: 224-05-093
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050

SILICO N
VALLEY
POWER.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
SHEET: 1 of 2
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 9

!
EXHIBIT "A"
SVP REF: SC

SCAIE FEET
0 40' 80'
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT ACROSS:

JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
LEGEND
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050
APN: 224-05-093
EASEMENT AREA: 1,500 SQ. FT. ±
s 78°08'23" w
s aa
0 56'32" w 78 -05'

83.81'
JON P. ANDERSON

REVOCABLE LMNG
TRUST
APN= 224•05•093
V/OIVZ21 EASEMENT AREA = 1,500 SQ. FT.±
-- - --ROADWAY PLATTED CENTERLINE
---p ---POWERLINE REFERENCE LINE
-$- FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT
THIS DRAWING SHOULD BE USED ONLY AS A REPRESENTATION OF THE LOCATION OF THE EASEMENT BEING CONVEYED. THE EXACTLOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, LINES ANO APPURTENANCES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHIN THE BOUNDARlES OF THE RIGH'r OF WAY HEREIN GRANTED ~t"HHl(Al tom11ua INt

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SCALE: 1" = SO'
JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
APN: 224-05-093
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050
BY:AGD CHK: GHH APP: JJC
~ SILICON
y VALLEY
POWER.
(In' OF 5ANTA CLARA
SHEET: 2 of2
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 10

EXHIBIT B

Recording Reque~1ed by:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara, California
When Recorded , Mail to:

Office of the City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
!SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE]
EXEMl"T' FROM RJ!CORD!NO PEE
PER oov•r CODE §f 6103 ,ndl 7J•J
EX£Mf'I' FROM FEE
PER OOV'T CODE§ 27388. J (a)(2)(P )

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT DEED
1040 Di Giulio Avenue & APN 224-05-093
Santa Clarn, Califomia
For valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Jon P. Andel'son, as Trustee of the Jon I'. Anderson Revoca ble Living Trust, dated September 11, 1984 (herein "Grantor "), hereby grants to the CITY OF SA TA CLA RA, Califom ia, a chartered municipal corporation, (herein "Grantee "), an easement and right-of-way (herein "Easement ") in, on, over, along and across the real property owned by Granter in the City of Santa Clara, State of Califomia, de c ribed in Exhibit A at1ached hereto and incorporated h erein by this reference ("Easement Area ").
11tis Easement shall be used b y Grantee for the purpose of constmcting and reconstmcting , installing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, removing and/or replacing overhead electrical transmis ion, distribution and/or communication systems, and appurtenance thereto, including a reasonable right of ingress and egress over adjoining lands of Grantor. In exercising said right of ingress and egress, Grantee shall, wherever practical, use existing roads and lanes across lands of Gran tor, if such there be a nd if not, by such route or routes as shall result in the lea t practicable inconvenience to Granter and any occupants of Grantor's property.

TI1e overhead system will consist of poles, wire supports, wires and conductors suspended from pole to pole, transfonners and other equipment mounted on the poles, anchors, guy attaclunents, and other appurtenances.

Pottions of the Easement Area may be used by the Grantor for driveway(s), landscaping (excluding trees), and parking, as will not i.nte1fere with the Grantee 's use of the Easement. Any other use of the Easement Area by Grantor ·hall be subje t to Grantee's expr ss written consent and only after Grante 's revi w of plans and specificat ions and determination that such use will not interfere with its use of tl1e Easement. Grantee may trim any trees or remove any tree or structure w hich is in or adjacent to the Easement Area which, in its reasonable detennination , interferes with its use of the Easement. Grantee may trim any trees or remove any tree which is in or adjacent to the Easement Area which exceeds a height of20 Feet or poses a risk of falling onto the Grantee's facilities or equipment located within the Easement. (SIG ATURE(S) APPEAR O THE FOLLOWJNG PAGE]
Page l o f 2 SC
22 4-05 - 093
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 11

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , said gnmtors have heretmto set their hands this ___ day of 20 ---------~ --
APPROVED FOR FORM:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
By: Jon P. Anderson, as
Anderson Revocable
September 11, 1984
Jon P. Anderson
Trustee
Date
Trustee of the Jon P.

Living Trust, dated
"OWNER" APN 224-05-093 (2022-04)
ALI, LEGAL OWNERS OF PROPRRTY MUST EXRClJTR THIS DOCUMENT . IF GRA TOR 1$ A ORP ORATIO , TH E COMP l,E;TE; l-EGAI., AME AND CORPORAT E SEAL OF nm CORPORAl l O AND CORPORATE TITLES OF ·m e PERSONS SIGMNO FOR THE; (,"ORPORA TI ON $1-IAJ,I., APPEAJl ABOVE. wR.rr n , EVIOE; CE OF AUll; ORITY OF PER "ON OR PGRSONS EXECUTI O THIS DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF CORPORATION, PAATN •IlSHIP, OR JOI T VENTURE, OR ANY OlH ER ORGANIZATION OTHE R THAN A SOLE PROPRJETORSHIP SHAL L BE ATTACHED.

ATTACH THE ALL-PURPOSE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM FOR THE PERSO OR PERSONS EXECUTING THIS DOCUMENT◊ BEHALFOFTHECRANTOR.

Page 2 of 2 ends

22 4-05 - 093
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 12

CALIFORNIA NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or oth r offic r completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individua l who signed the document to which this
c rtificat is attach d, and not the truthfuln ss,
accuracy , or validity of that document.

State of California
County of _____ _
On _______ before me, ________ (name and title of officer), persona lly appeared ________ , who proved lo me on the basis of satisfactory evidence lo be the person(s ) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the with in instrument and acknowledged to me that she/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.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forego ing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and offic ial sea l.

Signature ______ _ (Seal)
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 13

DESCRIPTION:

EXHIBIT "A"
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT ACROSS:

JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050
APN : 224-05-093
EASEMENT AREA: 1,500 SQ. FT. ±
SVP REF: SC -
That portion of the parcel of land conveyed in that certain Trust Transfer Deed recorded October 11 , 2018 as Document No. 24040668, in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County (ORSCC), herein after referred to as the Grantor's Parcel, located in the City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:

COMMENCING at a monument located in the centerline of Di Giulio Avenue (as shown on

Page 2 ends

Di Giulio Avenue; thence South 0°42'49" West 30.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way of said Di Giulio Avenue at the northwesterly corner of said Grantor's Parcel and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89°17'11" East 93.55 feet continuing along said southerly right-of-way to the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 450.00 feet:
thence northerly 66.65 feet along said curved right-of-way through a central angle of 8°29'09"; thence South 78°08'23" West 78.05 feet; thence South 88°56'32" West 83.81 feet to the westerly line of said Grantor 's Parcel ; thence North 0°42'39" East 14.66 feet along said westerly line to the POINT OF BEGINNING .

CONTAINING: 1,500 sq. ft., more or less.

JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
APN: 224-05-093
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050
BY:AGD CHK: GHH APP: JJC
.... SILICO N
. VALLEY
POWER.

CITYO F SANTACLARA
SHEET: 1 of2
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 14

!
SCAl£ FEET
0 40' 80'
EXHIBIT "A"
SVP REF: SC
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT ACROSS:

JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050
APN: 224-05-093
EASEMENT AREA: 1,500 SQ. FT. ±
CLMON ~
-----~=-==-==-====-----/.-DI GIULIO -
STREE-=--------=: --
LEGEND
~ ------=1?-R=450,00' L=66.65'
0=8°29'09"
s 78°08'23" w

78.05'
JON P. ANDERSON

REVOCABLE LMNQ
TRUST
APN= 224•0!5•093
VIT/277721 EASEMENT AREA = 1,500 SQ, FT.±
--- - --- ROADWAY PLATTED CENTERLINE
---p --- POWERLINE REFERENCE LINE
-$- FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT
THIS DRAWING SHOUlD BE USED ONLY AS A REPRESENTATION OF THE LOCATION OF THE EASEMENT SEING CONVEYED. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, LINES AND APPURTENANCES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH1N THE BOUNDARIES Of THE RIGHT OF WAY HEREIN GRANTED ,.,,.

HHUl(Al tomuua INt

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
JON P. ANDERSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
APN: 224-05-093
1040 DI GIULIO STREET
SANT A CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050

A,SILICON
. VALLEY
POWER.

CITY OF SA.NTA CLARA
SHEET: 2 o/2
SCLA-56598\2322245.1 15

CERTIFICATE QF ACCEPTANCE
This is lo cert ify that the interest in real property conveyed by Overhead Electric Utility Deed dated the of _______ 20_ , from Jon P. Anderson , as Trustee of the Jon P. Anderson Revocable Living Trust , dated September 11 , 1984 (Grantor) to the City of Santa Clara , California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City), is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Counc il of the City pursuant lo author ity conferred by Resolution No. 5600 of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara adopted on the 28 day of May, 199 1, and the Resolution Approving Purchase of Overhead Electr ic Easement, Resolution No. _____ adopted on ________ , 20_.

The City , as Grantee , consents to recordation by its du ly authorized off icer, the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clara .

Re: APN 224-05-093
APPROVED AS TO FORM :

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
Dated : This __ day of ____ , 20_
Office of the City Manager
City of Santa Clara
ATTEST : ________ _
Office of the City Cle rk
City of Santa Cla ra
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-991 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Award of Contract to Ray’s Electric, Inc. and Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for the Uncontrolled Crosswalks Improvements Project

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
Included within the FY 2022/23 Adopted Capital Improvement Program Budget is the Uncontrolled Crosswalks Improvements Project (Project) supported by gas tax funding. The goal of the Project is to improve pedestrian safety at the following seven locations: 1. Benton Street at Sonoma Place (east), 2. Pruneridge Avenue at Redwood Avenue, 3. Homestead Road at University Street, 4.

Homestead Road at Viader Court, 5. Washington Street at Manchester Drive, 6. Washington Street at Linden Drive, and 7. Bellomy Street at Alviso Street. A location map is included as Attachment 1.

On November 13, 2018, City Council approved a design professional services agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) to complete traffic studies, determine if additional improvements were necessary at each of the seven locations, and prepare the engineering design and construction bid documents necessary for the Project.

Staff worked with the consultant to review the traffic studies and finalize the recommended improvements at the seven locations which includes:

1. Benton Street at Sonoma Place (east): New High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)

2. Pruneridge Avenue at Redwood Avenue: New Curb Radius Bulbout

3. Homestead Road at University Street: New Curb Radius Bulbout and additional striping and street lighting

4. Homestead Road at Viader Court: New Curb Radius Bulbout and additional striping

5. Washington Street at Manchester Drive: New HAWK

6. Washington Street at Linden Drive: New HAWK

7. Bellomy Street at Alviso Street: Enhanced signage and additional street lighting In late 2020, the City’s annual paving project implemented the recommendations for new curb radius bulbouts at Homestead Road at University Street and Homestead Road at Viader Court. This work was advanced as Homestead Road was receiving pavement treatments and to avoid future pavement re-work at these locations. Additionally, staff determined that the recommendation for Pruneridge Avenue at Redwood Avenue should be implemented separately as part of the possible future pedestrian improvements recommended within the Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-991 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
CSG then moved forward to complete the design to implement recommendations for enhanced signage and street lighting at Bellomy Street at Alviso Street, additional street lighting at Homestead Road at University Street, and for three HAWK signals at Benton Street at Sonoma Place (easterly intersection), Washington Street at Manchester Drive, and Washington Street at Linden Drive.

DISCUSSION
On July 12, 2022, a competitive Request for Bids (RFB) was published on the City’s bid notification system, BidSync, for construction of the Project. On August 10, 2022, bids for the Project were opened via video conference. The City received three bids from Ray’s Electric, Inc., Sposeto Engineering, Inc., and St. Francis Electric, LLC ranging from $1,883,055 to $1,957,000. The Bid Summary is included as Attachment 2.

The lowest bid, submitted by Ray’s Electric, Inc., in the amount of $1,883,055, is 3.7 percent below the Engineer’s Estimate of $1,955,150. The bid was reviewed by Department of Public Works (DPW) staff and the City Attorney’s Office for compliance with the terms and conditions of the bid documents and has been determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid. A Bid Protest was submitted by the third apparent lowest bidder, St. Francis Electric, LLC, regarding the bid submitted by Ray’s Electric, Inc. and Sposeto Engineering, Inc. The Bid Protest was resolved by the City Attorney’s Office in favor of Ray’s Electric and correspondence was transmitted to all bidders. Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to Ray’s Electric, Inc.

Award of the contract will enable construction of the Project to begin in June 2023 with substantial completion anticipated by late 2023. These dates are subject to change based on the latest issues related to the COVID-19 situation. The contract includes the applicable prevailing wage requirements.

In addition, staff is recommending an amendment to the agreement with CSG to reinstate the expired agreement, extend the termination date through December 2023, and increase the maximum compensation by $10,972 to provide additional construction support services to ensure the construction of improvements are in accordance with the design.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c), “Existing Facilities,” as the activity consists of the minor alteration of existing streets involving no or negligible expansion of the use beyond that presently existing, and specifically includes the minor alteration of existing pedestrian crossings.

FISCAL IMPACT
The approximate cost of the construction contract is $1,883,055, plus approximately 15 percent contingency, or $282,460 for any potential change orders for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,165,515. The not-to-exceed amount of the original agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. is $160,250. The proposed Amendment No. 1 adds $10,972 to the original CSG agreement, bringing the total not-to-exceed agreement amount to $171,222.

Funding for both the construction contract and Amendment No. 1 is available in the Uncontrolled Crosswalks Improvements project (CIP 1226) in the Streets and Highways Capital Fund in the FY 2022/23 Adopted Capital Improvements Program Budget.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-991 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Award the Public Works Contract for the Uncontrolled Crosswalks Improvements project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Ray’s Electric, Inc, in the amount of $1,883,055, and authorize the City Manager to execute any and all documents associated with, and necessary for the award, completion, and acceptance of this Project;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute change orders up to approximately 15 percent of the original contract price, or $282,460, for a total not to exceed amount of $2,165,515;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. to extend the term to December 31, 2023 and increase the maximum compensation to $171,222; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to make minor modifications to the CSG Consultants, Inc. Agreement if needed and to extend the term.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Location Map

2. Bid Summary

3. Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

4. Original Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™

BENTON STREET

EAST OF

SONOMA PLACE

PRUNERIDGE AVENUE

EAST OF

REDWOOD AVENUE

HOMESTEAD ROAD

EAST OF

VIADER COURT

HOMESTEAD ROAD
AT

UNIVERSITY STREET

BELLOMY STREET

WEST OF

ALVISO STREET

WASHINGTON STREET

NORTH OF

MANCHESTER DRIVE

WASHINGTON STREET

SOUTH OF

LINDEN DRIVE

LOCATION MAP OF UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALKS
J
B
n Po
Y Ele
lderwood Apartments Q
2 " ll
~
~
ra Apartments Q
ton Wey
<:t " l
I A'!)eno, ,l
Maywood
Park ..
~
..

Alhe~ono,- ~
t :,:

Maurtda~c,,e
~ .. '< m
< a.
- Q Moonllte Center
,!5
f !
~ ..
~ j
E
i
,:
~
~
~
C.

SI 5'
~ ~
i; ~
5' ~
.! @]
Santa Clara Central Park
Crshem Ln t,lil)'AH
@
Anna Dr
Target Q "' "' ~
0 ,-
! g
~ .,
5' !1
" a. Harris on St ;;;
Bentoo st
I: Artm Dr
]
~
5'
l'~,slOl•Dr
,i..ren or
f Central Park Ubrary q)
0 :!!
Homestead Rd
s
J
J
"tl
"' .,
E .,
.c ..,
I
~
i
!
n Mariposa
Y Shopping Center cJI
~
..-\
\ \ ~
~ ~ ..
~~""
1' ,., __________ ..,.,, ,neridge Golf Club f
;s
to r !J ~ ~
5'
Prunerldge Av@
G/a,j""•Cj,
DomwPj
EsteiJo Dr \. t..Mdonderry Or
...

Santa Clara EJ
U> -<I
\ <;, <> 'i. g ,;..-,st 'I, ~
~ Clifford st </l '/1 '?
If). a.

Cilllerin • SI
4 ... ".J
~,,'d "(,j
~ .,!
fl, .
-,~ .• )-~ Mission Santa f •~anta Clara A N ~-
i-•~
• Clara de As(s-- University
'i>'
t),alaPen.8 AIICI
..,,,, ,.
# ,F
<?
i.Namte4,.
fo0'>\<$' ,._6 9-6.
----------.. ~•-r-''
Santa Clara ft
Mission Cemetery Y
~J!fAlie
</l
4-.,lvhall St
~ ,,
Newhall St
____________ e.,oxw.,.ooe<t
Mission City q
Memorial Park
.. " t
5i'
Pruneridge Ave
CO R Y
Kenwood A11s
of'~--
-t,
z
;;::
~
0 ..
!!.I
-
'il!
\ '&
Peactrtr.eLn ~
Welnul Glave A,"la
W Hedding St
..,

FOR E ST -

P RU NER I DGE
~ ,, g.. remwood A-ue
I
\
&
!
"$. o -~
i ~ U'
~
~ i
Forest Ave r e r....,.-rurtAve

BASCO M
• FOR E ST
"' n:
0 t rJ' i;;
CHA
MC

Page 1 of 1 ends

Attachment 2
Bid Summary

SANTA CLARA UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALKS
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CE 18-19-06)
BID S
UMMARY Bid Opening Date: August 10, 2022
ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE: $ 1,955,150
Contractor Total Bid ($) Percentage above/below
Engineer’s Estimate
Ray’s Electric, Inc. $ 1,883,055.00 3.7% below
Sposeto Engineering, Inc. $ 1,944,410.00 0.5% below
St. Francis Electric, LLC. $ 1,957 ,000.00 0.1% above

Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/*insert Contractor’s name Page 1 Rev. 10/25/19
Ebix Insurance No. S200004081

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES

BETWEEN THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND
CSG CONSULTANTS, INC.

PREAMBLE
This agreement (“Amendment No. 1”) is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City) and CSG Consultants, Inc., a California corporation, (Contractor). City and Contractor may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.”

RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Agreement for Design Professional Services between the City of Santa Clara, California, and CSG Consultants, Inc. for the Engineering Design Services of Uncontrolled Crosswalk Improvements”, dated November 16, 2018 (Agreement); and B. The Parties entered into the Agreement for the purpose of having Contractor provide engineering design services, construction administration, and record drawings, and the Parties now wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Section 2 of the Agreement, entitled “TERM OF AGREEMENT” is amended to read as follows:
“Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on November 16, 2018 and terminate on December 31, 2023.”

2. Section 6 of the Agreement, entitled “COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT” is amended to read as follows:
“In consideration for Contractor’s complete performance of Services, City shall pay Contractor for all materials provided and Services rendered by Contractor in accordance with Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES.” The maximum compensation of this Agreement is one hundred seventy one thousand two hundred twenty two dollars and zero cents ($171,222.00), subject to budget Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/CSG Consultants, Inc. Page 2 Rev. 10/25/2019
appropriations, which includes all payments that may be authorized for Services and for expenses, supplies, materials and equipment required to perform the Services. All work performed or materials provided in excess of the maximum compensation shall be at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall not be entitled to any payment above the maximum compensation under any circumstance.

3. Section I of EXHIBIT B of the Agreement, entitled “GENERAL PAYMENT” is amended to read as follows:
“The total payment to the Consultant for Basic Services, as stated in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, shall not exceed $156,472, plus any authorized Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $200.00.

The amount billed to City for pre-approved Additional Services shall not exceed the sum of $14,550.00. In no event shall the amount billed to City by Consultant for services under this Agreement exceed $171,222.00.

Billing shall be on a monthly basis based on the services performed for each task. Consultant shall, during the term of this Agreement, invoice the City for hours and dollars of work completed under this Agreement. The invoice shall describe the Task invoiced, percent completed of the Task, time and materials expended by Task, and total amount during the invoice period. The invoice shall also show the total to be paid for the invoice period.”

4. Section II of EXHIBIT B of the Agreement, entitled “BASIC SERVICES” is amended to read as follows:

The total payment to Consultant for all work necessary for performing all Tasks, as stated in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, shall be in proportion to services rendered and on a time and materials basis.

The Consultant fee allocated to each Task, as shown below , shall be the Consultant’s full compensation for all the Consultant services required for the Project and by this Agreement, as directed by the City, and no additional compensation s hall be allowed . Consultant may reallocate remaining budget from completed Task to other Tasks. The total amount of all the Tasks is a not - to-exceed amount.

Task 9 is an Optional Task, as stated in Exhibit A and will require pre -approval in writing by CITY prior to performing any services under the task.

The amount of each Task and the total amount of all the Tasks are as itemized below:

Description Cost
Task 1.0: Project Management and Data Collection and
Crosswalk Evaluation $ 24,530.00
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/CSG Consultants, Inc. Page 3 Rev. 10/25/2019
Task 2.0: Preliminary Design(30% Level) $ 16,650.00
Task 3.0: Prepare 70% Documents $ 48,620.00
Task 4.0: Prepare 100% Documents $ 12,480.00
Task 5.0: Prepare Final Bid Documents $ 18,815.00
Task 6.0: Bidding Support Services $ 5,160.00
Task 7.0: Construction Administration $ 19,295.00
Task 8.0: Record Drawings and Project Close-Out $ 4,000.00 Task 9.0 Bulb-out Design and Topographic
Survey(Optional) $ 21,472.00
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES (not-to-exceed) $ 171,022.00
In no event shall the billed amount to City by Consultant for Basic Services under this Agreement exceed one hundred seventy-one thousand twenty-two dollars and zero cents ($171,022.00), subject to budget appropriations

5. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In case of a conflict in the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall control.

The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 1 as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

I I
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/CSG Consultants, Inc. Page 4 Rev. 10/25/2019

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation

Approved as to Form: Dated:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara

Rajeev Batra
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
“CITY”

CSG CONSULTANTS, INC
a California corporation

Dated:

By (Signature):

Name: Cyprus Kianpour
Title: President
Principal Place of
Business Address: 550 Pilgrim Drive, Foster City, CA 94404 Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: (650) 522-2500
Fax: (650) 522-2599
“CONTRACTOR”
S:\Attorney\AGREEMENTS\Amendments\Amendment No. 1 - Form.doc EBIX Insurance No. S200004081

AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND
CSG CONSULTANTS, INC.

FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES OF

UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS

PREAMBLE
This Agreement is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City) and CSG Consultants, Inc., a California corporation (Contractor or Consultant). City and Contractor may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."

RECITALS
A. City desires to secure the design professional services more fully described in this Agreement, at Exhibit A, entitled "Scope of Services"; B. "Design professional" includes licensed architects, licensed landscape architects, registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors; C. Contractor represents that it, and its subcontractors, if any, have the professional qualifications, expertise, necessary licenses and desire to provide certain goods and/or required services of the quality and type which meet objectives and requirements of City; and,
D. The Parties have specified herein the terms and conditions under which such services will be provided and paid for.

The Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS
The documents forming the entire Agreement between City and Contractor shall consist of these Terms and Conditions and the following Exhibits, which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference:

Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B - Schedule of Fees
Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D - Labor Compliance Addendum (if applicable)
Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18

Page 1 ends

This Agreement, including the Exhibits set forth above, contains all the agreements, representations and understandings of the Parties, and supersedes and replaces any previous agreements, representations and understandings, whether oral or written. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any of the Exhibits and the Terms and Conditions, the Terms and Conditions shall govern and control.

2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on _______ and terminate on December 31, 2020.

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES & PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
Contractor shall perform those Services specified in Exhibit A within the time stated in Exhibit A. Time is of the essence.

A All reports, costs estimates, plans and other documentation which may be submitted or furnished by Contractor shall be approved and signed by an appropriate qualified licensed professional in the State of California.

B. The title sheet for specifications and reports, and each sheet of plans, shall bear the professional seal, certificate number, registration classification, expiration date of certificate and signature of the design professional responsible for their preparation.

4. WARRANTY
Contractor expressly warrants that all materials and services covered by this Agreement shall be fit for the purpose intended, shall be free from defect and shall conform to the specifications, requirements and instructions upon which this Agreement is based. Contractor agrees to promptly replace or correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective Services at no further cost to City when defects are due to the negligence, errors or omissions of Contractor. If Contractor fails to promptly correct or replace materials or services, City may make corrections or replace materials or services and charge Contractor for the cost incurred by City.

5. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR-STANDARD OF CARE
Contractor represents and maintains that it has the expertise in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services, and its duties and obligations, expressed and implied, contained herein, and City expressly relies upon Contractor's representations regarding its skills and knowledge. Contractor shall perform such Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18
Page2
professional standards of a specialist in the same discipline in the State of California.

6. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
In consideration for Contractor's complete performance of Services, City shall pay Contractor for all materials provided and Services rendered by Contractor in accordance with Exhibit 8, entitled "SCHEDULE OF FEES." The maximum compensation of this Agreement is one hundred sixty thousand two hundred fifty dollars and zero cents ($160,250.00), subject to budget appropriations, which includes all payments that may be authorized for Services and for expenses, supplies, materials and equipment required to perform the Services.

All work performed or materials provided in excess of the maximum compensation shall be at Contractor's expense. Contractor shall not be entitled to any payment above the maximum compensation under any circumstance.

7. TERMINATION
A Termination for Convenience. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause or penalty, by giving not less than Thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Contractor.

B. Termination for Default. If Contractor fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Contractor.

C. Upon termination, each Party shall assist the other in arranging an orderly transfer and close-out of services. As soon as possible following the notice of termination, but no later than ten (10) days after the notice of termination, Contractor will deliver to City all City information or material that Contractor has in its possession.

8. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
City and Contractor bind themselves, their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written approval of City. Contractor shall not hire subcontractors without express written permission from City.

Contractor shall be as fully responsible to City for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, as Contractor is for the' acts and omissions of persons directly employed by it.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18

Page 3 ends

9. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement shall not be construed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action under this Agreement for any cause whatsoever.

10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Contractor and all person(s) employed by or contracted with Contractor to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement are independent contractors and do not act as agent(s) or employee(s) of City. Contractor has full rights to manage its employees in their performance of Services under this Agreement.

11. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIAL
All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, manufacturing procedures, data, drawings, descriptions, documents, discussions or other information developed or received by or for Contractor and all other written information submitted to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Contractor and shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used for any purposes other than the performance of the Services nor be disclosed to an entity not connected with performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to Contractor which is otherwise known to Contractor or becomes generally known to the related industry shall be deemed confidential.

12. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL
All material, which shall include, but not be limited to, data, sketches, tracings, drawings, plans, diagrams, quantities, estimates, specifications, proposals, tests, maps, calculations, photographs, reports, designs, technology, programming, works of authorship and other material developed, collected, prepared or caused to be prepared under this Agreement shall be the property of City but Contractor may retain and use copies thereof. City shall not be limited in any way or at any time in its use of said material. However, Contractor shall not be responsible for damages resulting from the use of said material for work other than Project, including, but not limited to, the release of this material to third parties.

13. RIGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONTRACTOR
City, through its authorized employees, representatives or agents shall have the right during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date of final payment for goods or services provided under this Agreement, to audit the books and records of Contractor for the purpose of verifying any and all charges made by Contractor in connection with Contractor compensation under this Agreement, including termination of Contractor. Contractor agrees to maintain sufficient books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles to establish the correctness of all charges submitted to City. Any expenses not so recorded shall be disallowed by City. Contractor shall bear the Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18
Page4
I
I I I !
)l
cost of the audit if the audit determines that there has been a substantial billing deviation in excess of five (5) percent adverse to the City.

Contractor shall submifto City any and all reports concerning its performance under this Agreement that may be requested by City in writing. Contractor agrees to assist City in meeting City's reporting requirements to the State and other agencies with respect to Contractor's Services hereunder.

14. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
A. To the extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, including all costs and attorney's fees in providing a defense to any such claim or other action, and whether sounding in law, contract, tort, or equity, to the extent arising out of, pertaining to, or related to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents in the performance, or non-performance, of Services under this Agreement.

8. To the extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any employment related claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, including all costs and attorney's fees in providing a defense to any such employment-related claim or other action, and whether sounding in law, contract, tort, or equity, brought by employees, contractors, subcontractors or other agents of Contractor, against City (either alone, or jointly with Contractor), regardless of venue/jurisdiction in which the claim is brought and the manner of relief sought, and shall expressly include passive or active negligence by City. However, the obligation to indemnify set forth in this paragraph shall not apply if such liability is ultimately adjudicated to have arisen through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of City; the obligation to defend is not similarly limited.

C. To the extent Contractor is obligated to provide health insurance coverage to its employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act ("Act") and/or any other similar federal or state law, Contractor warrants that it is meeting its obligations under the Act and will fully indemnify and hold harmless City for any penalties, fines, adverse rulings, or tax payments associated with Contractor's responsibilities under the Act.

15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
During the term of this Agreement, and for any time period set forth in Exhibit C, Contractor shall provide and maintain in full force and effect, at no cost to City, insurance policies as set forth in Exhibit C.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18

Page 5 ends

16. WAIVER
Contractor agrees that waiver by City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. Neither City's review, acceptance nor payments for any of the Services required under this Agreement shall be constructed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.

17. NOTICES
All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to City addressed as follows:

City of Santa Clara
Attention: Public Works Department - Craig Mobeck
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
and by e-mail at [email protected], and
[email protected]
And to Contractor addressed as follows:

CSG Consultants, Inc.
550 Pilgrim Drive
Foster City, CA 94404
and by e-mail at [email protected]
The workday the e-mail was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given.

An e-mail transmitted after 1 :00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the following business day.

18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including but not limited to "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" ("SCCC"). In particular, Contractor's attention is called to the regulations regarding Campaign Contributions (SCCC Chapter 2.130), Lobbying (SCCC Chapter 2.155), Minimum Wage (SCCC Chapter 3.20), Business Tax Certificate (SCCC section 3.40.060), and Food and Beverage Service Worker Retention (SCCC Chapter 9.60), as such Chapters or Sections may be amended from time to time or renumbered. Additionally Contractor has read and agrees to comply with City's Ethical Standards (http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=58299).

Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18

Page 6 ends

19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Contractor certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no City officer, employee or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of Contractor and that no person associated with Contractor has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Agreement. Contractor is familiar with the provisions of California Government Code section 87100 and following, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which would violate these code provisions. Contractor will advise City if a conflict arises.

20. FAIR EMPLOYMENT
Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex, color, religion, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, military and veteran status, or ethnic background, in violation of federal, state or local law.

21. NO USE OF CITY NAME OR EMBLEM
Contractor shall not use City's name, insignia, or emblem, or distribute any information related to services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without express written consent of City.

22. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. The venue of any suit filed by either Party shall be vested ir, the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or if appropriate, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California.

23. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
In case any one or more of the provisions in this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.

24. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment duly authorized and executed by the Parties to this Agreement.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18

Page 7 ends

25. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
"CITY"
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue ~
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
CSG CONSULTANTS, INC.
a California corporation
Dated: ------~~-----------
By (Signature): -----,~1----,o1:.,=::;::____ __________ _ Name: -~--+---+--------------
Ti tie: ----1----------------P r inc i pa I Place of
Business Address: 550 Pilgrim Drive, Foster City, CA 94404 Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: (650) 522-2500
Fax: (650) 522-2599
Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc.

Rev. 07-01-18
"CONTRACTOR"

Page 8 ends

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Services to be performed for the City by the Contractor under this Agreement are set forth below.

I. GENERAL
CONSUL TANT shall be expected to provide complete, professional, high-quality services and products; to provide consultation and work with CITY personnel and others who are involved with the work; and to provide the expertise, guidance, advice, and assistance in accomplishing the work.

CITY discourages changes to the Scope of Services and Schedule of Fees after contract execution. However, results from Task 1: DATA COLLECTION AND CROSSWALK EVALUATION may result in a change to the Scope of Work.

Changes to the Scope of Work and Schedule of Fees will be addressed in writing by an Additional Services Authorization to either add or delete Scope and Fee, based upon the findings of Task 1.

II. BACKGROUND
The purpose of the project is to perform a study of marked uncontrolled crosswalks, identify appropriate safety improvements at the crosswalks, and develop plans, specifications and construction estimates for the proposed improvements.

Ill. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
The requested engineering design services involve study of roadways and marked crosswalks, identify appropriate improvements and treatments for these uncontrolled crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety, and prepare construction documents (plans, specifications and estimates) for public works construction bidding. The crosswalk locations are listed below.

1. Crosswalk across Benton Street east of Sonoma Place

2. Crosswalk across Pruneridge Avenue east of Redwood Avenue

3. Crosswalk across Homestead Avenue at University Street west of Monastery Way.

4. Crosswalk across Homestead Road east of Vaider Court

5. Across Washington Street north of Manchester Drive

6. Across Washington Street south of Linden Drive

7. Bellomy Street west of Alviso Street
CONSULTANT shall perform services as described in the Basic Scope of Services.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of Services Rev. 07-01-18

Page 1 ends

IV. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY
CITY will provide the following information regarding the project as-available:
• Record drawings (as-available)
• CITY's Standard Details, Specifications, Benchmark, and Design Criteria. • Storm Drain (SD), Sanitary Sewer (SS), Electric, Water and Recycled Water Block Book Maps (as-available).
• Collision data (as needed)
V. BASIC SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Basic Scope of Services includes all professional services required to perform a study of the roadways and marked crosswalks, identify appropriate improvements and treatments for these uncontrolled crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety, and prepare construction documents (plans, specifications and estimates) for public works construction bidding. The recommended improvements may include but not limited to removal of crosswalks, installation of pedestrian refuge islands, RRFBs, flashing beacons, in-roadway warning lights, HAWK signals, traffic signal, all-way stop control, signing or striping improvements or a finding that no improvements are required.

The evaluation should include and recommend ADA improvements as required at the study locations.

TASK 1: DATA COLLECTION AND CROSSWALK EVALUATION
CONSUL TANT shall:

1.1 Attend a kick-off meeting with City staff to review the Project's goals, scope, costs and schedule.

1.2 CONSULTANT shall collect vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle volumes crossing through each crosswalk, samples of vehicle travel speed. CONSULTANT shall observe driver compliance with pedestrian right-of-way at the crosswalk study locations. CONSUL TANT shall analyze collision records for the relevant roadway segments and crosswalk study locations, analyze the data collected and make recommendations on improving crosswalk safety per National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and other applicable best practices of improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crosswalks.

1.3 CONSULTANT shall summarize the data collection, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in a Crosswalks Evaluation Memo.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of Services Rev. 07-01-18
Page2
Ill

1.4 CONSUL TANT shall coordinate, prepare meeting agenda/presentation materials/minutes, and attend upto three meetings with representatives from Central Park Elementary School, Washington Open Elementary School, Buscher Middle School and Wilson High School.

Deliverables:

A. Crosswalks Evaluation Memo
B. Meeting agendas, preparation materials, and meeting minutes for each project meeting.

C. Monthly progress reports and invoices (1 hard copy).

TASK 2: PRELIMINARY (30%) DESIGN

2.1 CONSULTANT shall collect and review relevant reports, record drawings, data, maps and other documents relevant to defining the limits and scope of design for the project. CONSUL TANT shall also take the lead on confirming the location and alignment of existing underground utilities with the appropriate utility companies and provide an allowance within their proposal for coordinating any relocation of utilities should it become necessary.

The City will provide utility maps for storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, and electric utility. Other utility information not mentioned will need to be coordinated with outside agencies.

2.2 CONSUL TANT shall perform any needed topographic surveys. Topographic surveys are required for all intersections from public right-of-way/property lines on one side of the street to public right-of-way lines on the other side of the street. Detailed topographic survey will be required at locations with crosswalks and locations where new curb ramps are installed to meet ADA and City standards.

2.3 CONSULTANT shall work with Silicon Valley Power (SVP) to identify and show locations of electric service for the new flashing beacons or other powered devices if needed.

2.4 Prepare the 30% Construction Documents consisting of the Plans, Specifications, Engineer's Cost Estimate.

2.5 The 30% Plans shall include, but not limited to, sketches showing new and existing items to be used or impacted by the Project; existing traffic striping, pavement markings, messages; and pedestrian warning system; existing improvements such as curb, gutters, sidewalks, curb ramps etc.; proposed civil construction required to upgrade existing curb ramps to ADA compliance or installation of new ADA curb ramps; flow line elevations along the new Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of Services Rev. 07-01-18

Page 3 ends

ADA curb ramps; and all existing utilities such as water mains/laterals, meters/valves and fire hydrants, electric lines/vaults, poles and pull boxes, and sanitary sewer(SS) and storm drain (SD) systems.

2.6 Develop quantities and Engineer's Cost Estimate based on current bidding trend and economy.

2.7 Meet with City staff to review City comments on 30% design, and gain concurrence on how the documents will be revised as appropriate to incorporate City comments into the 70% plans.

2.8 Follow the guidelines of the most current City's Design Criteria, Standard Details, and the City Standard Specifications (Divisions O & 1 ). The Plans shall be prepared on a 24"x36" D-size drawings utilizing the City standard· format and drawing reference number.

2.9 Prepare Project schedule.

2.10 Deliverables:

A. 30% documents
B. Project schedule
TASK 3: PREPARE 70% DOCUMENTS
CONSULTANT shall:

3.1 Prepare the 70% Construction Documents consisting of the Plans, Specifications, Engineer's Cost Estimate, and all other required documents.

3.2 The 70% Plans submittal shall include plan sheets showing property lines, existing utilities, proposed utilities, project improvements, and any other project features and requirements. 70% Technical Specifications and Engineer's Cost Estimate shall be included with this submittal.

3.3 Deliverables:

A. Response to 50% design review comments.

B. 70% Documents
C. Project Schedule
TASK 4: PREPARE 100% DOCUMENTS
CONSUL TANT shall:

4.1 Revise 70% Documents per City's review comments.

4.2 Prepare a written response to City's review comments.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of Services Rev. 07-01-18
Page4

4.3 Prepare 100% Documents. Comments received from the 70% submittal shall be incorporated. Unfinished work on Plans and Specifications shall be limited to the minor completion of details and to changes or corrections required by the City, and resulting from checking and quality assurance reviews.

4.4 Deliverables:

A Response to 70% PS&E design submittal comments.

B. 100% Documents
TASK 5: PREPARE FINAL BID DOCUMENTS
CONSUL TANT shall:

5.1 Revise 100% Documents per City's review comments.

5.2 Finalize Plans, Specifications, Engineer's Cost Estimate and quantity estimate.

5.3 Complete and submit bid-ready contract documents. The final submittal shall consist of final Plans and Specifications stamped, signed, and dated by the CONSULTANT responsible for their preparation and ready for City staff approval signatures. All outstanding comments from previous submittals shall be incorporated into this final submittal of Bid Documents.

5.4 Updated Project Construction Schedule, if impacted by review comments.

5.5 Deliverables:

A Stamped, signed, and dated Final Plans for City signature (two originals stamped and signed). The Final Plans shall be reproducible on AutoCAD.

B. Stamped, signed, and dated Final Specifications and supporting documents meeting the City requirements for bidding purposes (two originals)
C. Final Construction Engineer's Cost Estimate
D. Final Project Schedule
E. Electronic files of the Final Plans and Specifications, Engineer's Cost Estimate and Project Schedule shall be copied on CD(s) and submitted to City (in AutoCAD, MS Word/Excel/Project, and PDF formats).

F. List of potential bidders in Word format and shall include the company's name, email address, contact number, and address of business.

TASK 6: BIDDING SUPPORT SERVICES
CONSUL TANT shall:

6.1 Provide clarifications and assistance during the bidding phase to satisfactorily answer any questions from prospective bidders, if requested by City. CITY to Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of Services Rev. 07-01-18

Page 5 ends

reproduce and distribute Contract Documents, maintain a planholders list and log of bidders questions and responses.

6.2 Attend Pre-Bid Meeting, if required by Project. CONSUL TANT shall coordinate with the City to prepare agenda and meeting minutes.

6.3 The City will take the lead to prepare addenda to Construction Documents; however, the City may seek assistance from the CONSUL TANT to prepare the addenda for distribution.

6.4 The City will take the lead to evaluate bids and prepare recommendation letter to award the contract; however, the City may seek assistance from the CONSUL TANT.

6.5 Deliverables:

A. Written clarifications and response to prospective bidders.

B. Addenda to the Bid Documents, if needed.

C. Written recommendation for award of contract, if needed.

TASK 7: CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
CONSUL TANT shall:
7 .1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting upon request by City and respond to pre construction meeting questions.

7.2 Review and approve shop drawings and submittals. Assuming three rounds of reviews and comments.

7.3 Review Contractor's request for information (RFl's) and furnish additional drawings and/or specifications for supplementing, clarifying, and/or correcting purposes.

7.4 Attend meetings (assume 2) and site visits (assume 2) when necessary as determined and requested by City. Meetings and site visits shall be coordinated whenever possible.

7.5 Assist the City with the review of construction, and other activities, when requested.

7.6 Prepare, review, and recommend approval of design related change orders, as required.

7.7 Deliverables:

A. Shop drawing and submittal comments.

B. RFI responses.

C. Site visit memoranda, as required.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of Services Rev. 07-01-18

Page 6 ends

D. Drawings and specifications for supplementing, clarifying, and/or correcting the contract documents and for design related change orders.

E. Change orders, as required.

TASK 8: RECORD DRAWINGS AND PROJECT CLOSE-OUT
CONSUL TANT shall:

8.1 Attend the Final Walkthrough to provide input to final "punch list" and help determine if the work is ready for City acceptance. CONSULTANT shall provide City with a written recommendation.

8.2 At Final Completion of the Project, provide the City with one set of reproducible Record Drawings (24"x36") that reflects the changes to the work during construction based upon marked up prints, drawings, and other data furnished by the Contractor, City, and CONSULTANTs. If CONSULTANT adds additional sheets to the plans, these shall be properly numbered, properly referenced on other affected drawings, and included in the drawing sheet index.

8.3 Provide a CD with a complete set of the Record Drawings (24"x36") and all X ref files "bound," including other associated fonts, plot style files on AutoCAD 2009 or later AutoCAD version, including electronic copies in PDF format.

CONSULTANT may, at its own expense, prepare and retain a copy of each drawing for its permanent file.

8.4 Deliverables:

A. Final Punch List input and written recommendations for substantial and/or final completion.

8. Record Drawings (24"x36") on a CD using AutoCAD 2009 or later AutoCAD version, and one set electronic copy in PDF format.

C. CD containing PDF copies of all submittals received during construction phase.

TASK 9: ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND BULB-OUT DESIGN (OPTIONAL TASK)
If authorized by the CITY in writing, CONSUL TANT shall:

9.1 Perform bulb-out design and storm drain modification to shorten the distance at the crosswalk location upon the City request.

9.2 Perform additional topographic survey required for grading and drainage of the bulb-out.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of Services Rev. 07-01-18

Page 7 ends

Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit A-Scope of SeNices Rev. 07-01-18

Page 8 ends

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Contractor will bill City on a monthly basis for SeNices provided by Contractor during the preceding month on an invoice and in a format approved by City and subject to verification and approval by City. City will pay Contractor within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of an approved invoice.

I. GENERAL PAYMENT
The total payment to the Consultant for Basic SeNices, as stated in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, shall not exceed $145,500, plus any authorized Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $200.00.

The amount billed to City for pre-approved Additional SeNices shall not exceed the sum of $14,550.00. In no event shall the amount billed to City by Consultant for seNices under this Agreement exceed $160,250.00.

II. BASIC SERVICES
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
The total payment to Consultant for all work necessary for performing all Tasks, as stated in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, shall be in proportion to services rendered and on a time and materials basis.

The Consultant fee allocated to each Task, as shown below, shall be the Consultant's full compensation for all the Consultant services required for the .

Project and by this Agreement, as directed by the City, and no additional compensation shall be allowed. Consultant may reallocate remaining budget from completed Task to other Tasks. The total amount of all the Tasks is a not to-exceed amount.

Task 9 is an Optional Task, as stated in Exhibit A and will require pre-approval in writing by CITY prior to performing any seNices under the task.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit B-Schedule of Fees Rev. 07-01-18

Page 1 ends

The amount of each Task and the total amount of all the Tasks are as itemized below:

Description Cost
Task 1.0: Project Management and Data Collection and $ 24,530.00 Crosswalk Evaluation Task 2.0: Preliminary Design(30% Level) $ 16,650.00
Task 3.0: Prepare 70% Documents $ 48,620.00
Task 4.0: Prepare 100% Documents $ 12,480.00
Task 5.0: Prepare Final Bid Documents $ 5,245.00
Task 6.0: Bidding Support Services $ 5,160.00
Task 7.0: Construction Administration $ 7,865.00
Task 8.0: Record Drawings and Project Close-Out $ 3,510.00 Task 9.0 Bulb-out Design and Topographic $ 21,440.00 Survey(Optional) TOTAL BASIC SERVICES (not-to..;exceed) $ 145,500.00
In no event shall the billed amount to City by Consultant for Basic Services under this Agreement exceed one hundred forty five thousand five hundred dollars and zero cents ($145,500.00), subject to budget appropriations.

Ill. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $200.00 without prior written approval by the City. The amount allocated for Reimbursable Expenses shall be the Consultant's full compensation for all Reimbursable Expenses required for the Project and by this Agreement, as directed by the City, and no additional compensation shall be allowed.

Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services. The following is a sample of items that are included as part of the Basic Services and are not considered Reimbursable Expenses:

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit B-Schedule of Fees Rev. 07-01-18

Page 2 ends

■ Basic Office Expenses such as overhead, paper, pens, pencils, ink cartridges ■ Insurance Expenses, Applicable Taxes, Computer Time
■ Travel Expenses (local and long distance)
■ Faxes
■ Local and Long Distance Telephone Expenses (land lines and cellular phones) ■ US Mail
■ Paper Cost
■ Copying Cost
■ Plotting Cost
Reimbursable Cost may include:
■ Outside Reproduction Cost for Plans and Reports as specified in Section Ill, BASIC SCOPE OF SERVICES, of Exhibit A.
■ Presentation Materials, when requested by City
■ Overnight Delivery Services, when requested by City
■ Courier Services, when requested by City
All reimbursable costs, other than those listed above, shall be approved in advance by City.

IV. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Additional Services consists of work not included in the Scope of Services outlined within this Agreement. Pre-approved Additional Services shall be billed to City at the fixed hourly rates shown below in Section V, RATE SCHEDULE, or at an agreed negotiated price. Monthly billing for Additional Services shall be consistent with the term set forth in this Agreement. Payment for any Additional Services is allowed only if written authorization is given by the City Engineer in advance of the work to be performed. Additional Services shall not exceed $14,550.00, subject to budget appropriations.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit B-Schedule of Fees Rev. 07-01-18

Page 3 ends

V. RATE SCHEDULE
Personnel Charges
Charges for personnel engaged in professional and/or technical work are based on the actual workhours directly chargeable to the Project. Current rates by classification are listed below:

Firm/Classification
CSG Consultants, Inc. - Design Consultant, Project Management Staff Role
Hatem Ahmed Principal-In-Charge
Michael Fisher Project Manager
Sophie Truong Principal Engineer
Nourdin Khayata Resident Engineer
Stephen Tovmassian Senior Engineer
Tommy Cho Senior Engineer
Amir Abdollahi !Assistant Engineer
Erick Bi Engineering Designer
W-Trans -Traffic Engineering/Signal Design
Staff Role
Dalene Whitlock Principal
Mark Spencer Principal
Steve Fitzimmons Principal
Kevin Carstens and !Assistant Engineers
!Allison Jaromin
Hannah Yung-Boxdell ~dministrative
Quiet River Land Services - Surveyors
Staff Role
Kevin McGuire Project Manager
Melanie Schwartz Senior Survey Technician
ifwo-Person Field Crew
~dministration Staff
Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit 8-Schedule of Fees Rev. 07-01-18
Hourly Rate
$230
$210
$210
$230
$185
$185
$140
$130
Hourly Rate
$275
$245
$210
$115
$95
Hourly Rate
$175
$135
$275
$67
Page4

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting the Consultant's indemnification of the City, and prior to commencing any of the Services required under this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide and maintain in full force and effect during the period of performance of the Agreement and for twenty-four (24) months following acceptance by the City, at its sole cost and expense, the following insurance policies from insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of California. These policies shall be primary insurance as to the City of Santa Clara so that any other coverage held by the City shall not contribute to any loss under Consultant's insurance. The minimum coverages, provisions and endorsements are as follows:

A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

1. Commercial General Liability Insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01. Policy limits are subject to review, but shall in no event be less than, the following:
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence
$2,000,000 General Aggregate
$2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate
$1,000,000 Personal Injury

2. Exact structure and layering of the coverage shall be left to the discretion of Consultant; however, any excess or umbrella policies used to meet the required limits shall be at least as broad as the underlying coverage and shall otherwise follow form.

3. The following provisions shall apply to the Commercial Liability policy as well as any umbrella policy maintained by the Consultant to comply with the insurance requirements of this Agreement:
a. Coverage shall be on a "pay on behalf' basis with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits;
b. There shall be no cross liability exclusion which precludes coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another; and c. Coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements Rev. 07-01-18

Page 1 ends

B. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE
Business automobile liability insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as ISO form CA 00 01 with policy limits a minimum limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident using, or providing coverage at least as broad as, Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01. Liability coverage shall apply to all owned (if any), non-owned and hired autos.

In the event that the Work being performed under this Agreement involves transporting of hazardous or regulated substances, hazardous or regulated wastes and/or hazardous or regulated materials, Consultant and/or its subcontractors involved in such activities shall provide coverage with a limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident covering transportation of such materials by the addition to the Business Auto Coverage Policy of Environmental Impairment Endorsement MCS90 or Insurance Services Office endorsement form CA 99 48, which amends the pollution exclusion in the standard Business Automobile Policy to cover pollutants that are in or upon, being transported or towed by, being loaded onto, or being unloaded from a covered auto.

C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

1. Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy as required by statute and employer's liability with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) policy limit Bodily Injury by disease, one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident/Bodily Injury and one million dollars ($1,000,000) each employee Bodily Injury by disease.

2. The indemnification and hold harmless obligations of Consultant included in this Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damage, compensation or benefit payable by or for Contractor or any subcontractor under any Workers' Compensation Act(s), Disability Benefits Act(s) or other employee benefits act(s).

3. This policy must include a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents.

D. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. Covered services as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim or two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate. Any coverage containing a deductible or self-retention must first be approved in writing by the City Attorney's Office.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements Rev. 07-01-18
Page2
E. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
All of the following clauses and/or endorsements, or similar provisions, must be part of each commercial general liability policy, and each umbrella or excess policy.

1. Additional Insureds. City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents are hereby added as additional insureds in respect to liability arising out of Consultant's work for City, using Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 20 10 11 85, or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent.

2. Primary and non-contributing. Each insurance policy provided by Consultant shall contain language or be endorsed to contain wording making it primary insurance as respects to, and not requiring contribution from, any other insurance which the indemnities may possess, including any self-insurance or self-insured retention they may have. Any other insurance indemnities may possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with Consultant's insurance.

3. Cancellation.
a. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided due to non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of non-renewal.
b. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided . for any cause save and except non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of non renewal.

4. Other Endorsements. Other endorsements may be required for policies other than the commercial general liability policy if specified in the description of required insurance set forth in Sections A through E of this Exhibit C, above.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements Rev. 07-01-18

Page 3 ends

F. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE RELATED PROVISIONS
Consultant and City agree as follows:

1. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the Services, who is brought onto or involved in the performance of the Services by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant, except as with respect to limits. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. Consultant agrees that upon request by City, all agreements with, and insurance compliance documents provided by, such subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.

2. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.

3. The City reserves the right to withhold payments from the Consultant in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement.

G. EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE
Prior to commencement of any Services under this Agreement, Consultant, and each and every subcontractor (of every tier) shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide and maintain not less than the minimum insurance coverage with the endorsements and deductibles indicated in this Agreement. Such insurance coverage shall be maintained with insurers, and under forms of policies, satisfactory to City and as described in this Agreement. Consultant shall file with the City all certificates and endorsements for the required insurance policies for City's approval as to adequacy of the insurance protection.

H. EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Consultant or its insurance broker shall provide the required proof of insurance compliance, consisting of Insurance Services Office (ISO) endorsement forms or their equivalent and the ACORD form 25-S certificate of insurance (or its equivalent), evidencing all required coverage shall be delivered to City, or its representative as set forth below, at or prior to execution of this Agreement.

Upon City's request, Consultant shall submit to City copies of the actual insurance policies or renewals or replacements. Unless otherwise required by the terms of this Agreement, all certificates, endorsements, coverage verifications Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements Rev. 07-01-18

Page 4 ends

and other items required to be delivered to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be mailed to:

EBIX Inc.

City of Santa Clara - Public Works Department
P.O. Box 100085 - S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John's Creek, GA 30097
Telephone number: 951-766-2280
Fax number: 770-325-0409
Email address: [email protected]
I. QUALIFYING INSURERS
All of the insurance companies providing insurance for Consultant shall have, and provide written proof of, an A. M. Best rating of at least A minus 6 (A- VI) or shall be an insurance company of equal financial stability that is approved by the City or its insurance compliance representatives.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements Rev. 07-01-18

Page 5 ends

EXHIBIT D
LABORCOMPL~NCEADDENDUM
This Agreement is subject to the requirements of California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. requiring the payment of prevailing wages, the training of apprentices, and compliance with other applicable requirements.

A. Prevailing Wage Requirements

1. Contractor shall be obligated to pay not less than the General Prevailing Wage Rate, which can be found at www.dir.ca.gov and are on file with the City Clerk's office, which shall be available to any interested party upon request. Contractor is also required to have a copy of the applicable wage determination posted and/or available at each job site.

2. Specifically, contractors are reminded of the need for compliance with Labor Code Section 177 4-1775 (the payment of prevailing wages and documentation of such), Section 1776 (the keeping and submission of accurate certified payrolls) and 1777.5 in the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Further, overtime must be paid for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week pursuant to Labor Code Section 1811-1813.

3. Special prevailing wage rates generally apply to work performed on weekends, holidays and for certain shift work. Depending on the location of the project and the amount of travel incurred by workers on the project, certain travel and subsistence payments may also be required.

Contractors and subcontractors are on notice that information about such special rates, holidays, premium pay, shift work and travel and subsistence requirements can be found at www.dir.ca.gov .

4. Only bona fide apprentices actively enrolled in a California Division of Apprenticeship Standards approved program may be employed on the project as an apprentice and receive the applicable apprenticeship prevailing wage rates. Apprentices who are not properly supervised and employed in the appropriate ratio shall be paid the full journeyman wages for the classification of work performed.

5. As a condition to receiving progress payments, final payment and payment of retention on any and all projects on which the payment of prevailing wages is required, Contractor agrees to present to City, along with its request for payment, all applicable and necessary certified payrolls (for itself and all applicable subcontractors) for the time period covering such payment request. The term "certified payroll" shall include all required documentation to comply with the mandates set forth in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq, as well as any additional documentation requested by the City or its designee including, but not limited to: certified Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit D-Labor Compliance Rev. 07-01-18

Page 1 ends

payroll, fringe benefit statements and backup documentation such as monthly benefit statements, employee timecards, copies of wage statements and cancelled checks, proof of training contributions (CAC2 if applicable), and apprenticeship forms such as DAS-140 and DAS-142.

6. In addition to submitting the certified payrolls and related documentation to City, Contractor and all subcontractors shall be required to submit certified payroll and related documents electronically to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Failure to submit payrolls to the DIR when mandated by the project parameters shall also result in the withholding of progress, retention and/or final payment.

7. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1 (a)].

8. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project, unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Contractors MUST be a registered "public works contractor" with the DIR AT THE TIME OF BID. Where the prime contract is less than $15,000 for maintenance work or less than $25,000 for construction alternation, demolition or repair work, registration is not required.

9. All contractors/subcontractors and related construction services subject to prevailing wage, including but not limited to: trucking, surveying and inspection work must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations as a "public works contractor". Those you fail to register and maintain their status as a public works contractor shall not be permitted to perform work on the project.

10. Should any contractor or subcontractors not be a registered public works contractor and perform work on the project, Contractor agrees to fully indemnify the City for any fines assessed by the California Department of Industrial Relations against the City for such violation, including all staff costs and attorney's fee relating to such fine.

11. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

B. Audit Rights
All records or documents required to be kept pursuant to this Agreement to verify compliance with this Addendum shall be made available for audit at no cost to City, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, or a designated representative of any of these officers. Copies of such records or documents shall be provided to City for audit at City Hall when it is Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit D-Labor Compliance Rev. 07-01-18

Page 2 ends

practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at Contractor's address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement.

C. Enforcement

1. City shall withhold any portion of a payment; including the entire payment amount, until certified payroll forms and related documentation are properly submitted, reviewed and found to be in full compliance. In the event that certified payroll forms do not comply with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., City may continue to hold sufficient funds to cover estimated wages and penalties under the Agreement.

2. Based on State funding sources, this project may be subject to special labor compliance requirements of Proposition 84.

3. The City is not obligated to make any payment due to Contractor until Contractor has performed all of its obligations under these provisions. This provision means that City can withhold all or part of a payment to Contractor until all required documentation is submitted. Any payment by the City despite Contractor's failure to fully perform its obligations under these provisions shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained in this Agreement or a waiver of the right to withhold payment for any subsequent breach of this Addendum.

City or the California Department of Industrial Relations may impose penalties upon contractors and subcontractors for failure to comply with prevailing wage requirements.

These penalties are up to $200 per day per worker for each wage violation identified; $100 per day per worker for failure to provide the required paperwork and documentation requested within a 10-day window; and $25 per day per worker for any overtime violation.

Agreement with CSG Consultants, lnc./Exhibit D-Labor Compliance Rev. 07-01-18

Page 3 ends

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-166 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Delegate Authority to the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Amendments to Agreements for Design Professional Services for Silicon Valley Power’s System Capacity Expansion Planning Including Plan Implementation and General Consulting Services

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
In Silicon Valley Power (SVP) quarterly updates to City Council, staff has reported that electrical demand in the City is expected to increase significantly over the next decade. On September 28, 2021 (Council Item 21-871), the City Council accepted SVP’s 3-year Growth Plan Strategy Report (System Growth Plan). According to this System Growth Plan, SVP peak load projections are 879 MW in 2024 and 1125 MW in 2031. Compared to a 2021 peak of 598 MW, this is an increase of nearly 100% in ten years. The System Growth Plan identified ten system expansion projects required to be completed by 2024 to meet this increased load demand safely and reliably. Meeting this electrical demand from future growth requires additional engineering support in three areas: (1) System Expansion Planning, (2) General Consulting, and (3) Plan Implementation.

On October 13, 2020, Council approved (Council Item 20-854) agreements with (1) five firms (1898 & Co., TRC Solutions, Inc., Electrical Consultants, Inc., AECOM Technical Services, Inc., and Stantec Consulting Services Inc.) in the amount of $3,000,000 per agreement for plan implementation; and (2) five firms (Advisian Worley Group, TRC Solutions, Inc., Leidos Engineering, LLC, Flynn Resource Consultants, Inc. and EN Engineering LLC.) in the amount of $2,000,000 per agreement for general consulting services. The total maximum compensation of these ten agreements is authorized not to exceed $25 million over a five-year period. On May 13, 2022, Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with AECOM Technical Services Inc. for program management services associated with the System Growth Plan increasing maximum compensation from $3 million to $11 million to perform program management services for SVP’s System Expansion Plan increasing the aggregate authorization for these ten agreements to $33 million.

When a specific project is identified, staff issues a call for proposals that invites these prequalified consultants to submit qualifications and the award is based on factors such as project specific qualifications and experience, availability of staff, project approach, proposed scope of services, project schedule and design completion dates.

DISCUSSION
The System Growth Plan more than doubles the current capital improvement project backlog and managing and delivering these projects from detailed design through construction requires the City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-166 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
technical knowledge these firms have. For example, the System Growth Plan includes a recommendation for a full rebuild and replacement of Scott Receiving Station (SRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). SRS and KRS will require a complete demolition and redesign to convert the outdoor air-insulated equipment to outdoor gas-insulated equipment to increase capacity and reliability in order to provide electric services to businesses and residences. These receiving station projects each have an estimated construction cost of $65 million each. After the call for proposal process, TRC Solutions, Inc. (TRC) was selected as the most qualified firm to support engineering design and construction support for the rebuild of SRS and KRS. The total cost of work is estimated at $5.2 million. The current maximum compensation authorized for TRC is $3 million and some of those funds have been allocated to other capital projects. As SVP is continuing to issue call for proposals for projects associated with the System Growth Plan, additional amendments to this agreement or other agreements will be needed.

To meet the demand for growth in capacity over the next 10 years, SVP has a capital plan exceeding $250 million. As a guideline, 20% of capital project costs are associated with engineering services such as design and construction management. To address these engineering costs, staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute additional amendments to the agreements with an additional aggregate compensation of $17 million to allow staff the flexibility of funding agreements as projects are awarded.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action being considered is for program and project management services and does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed approvals will have a significant effect on the environment. When capital projects included in the growth strategy move forward, appropriate CEQA will be completed as required prior to construction.

FISCAL IMPACT
To provide the necessary engineering services for SVP’s significant capital program, this action would authorize the City Manager to approve contract amendments for ten firms up to a revised additional aggregate maximum compensation of $17 million, subject to the appropriation of funds.

The capital project funding for each amendment would be identified at the time the amendment is brought forward. For instance, the increased maximum compensation for the TRC agreement described above is available in the Electric Utility Capital Fund for the KRS Rebuild and Replacement (CIP# 2453) and SRS Rebuild and Replacement (CIP#2456) projects.

Funds required for these agreements in future years are subject to budget appropriations and will be incorporated into the budget development process for those years.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-166 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute amendments to Agreements for Design Professional Services for Silicon Valley Power’s System Capacity Expansion Planning with an additional aggregate maximum compensation of $17 million, subject to the appropriation of funds for the following:

A. For general consulting services with:
1). Advisian Worley Group
2). TRC Solutions, Inc.
3). Leidos Engineering, LLC
4). Flynn Resource Consultants, Inc.
5). EN Engineering LLC
B. For plan implementation services with:
1). 1898 & Co.
2). TRC Solutions, Inc.
3). Electrical Consultants, Inc.
4). AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
5). Stantec Consulting Services Inc.; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to:

A. Execute amendments to extend the term of the Agreements if required to complete projects initiated during their term;
B. Negotiate and execute amendments to add or delete services consistent with the scope of the agreements and allow future rate adjustments subject to request and justification by contractor, approval by the City, and the appropriation of funds; and C. Take such actions as necessary or advisable to implement the agreements as amended.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-989 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Waive First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.35 (“Trees and Shrubs”) of Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” to Modify the Process for Violation Appeals

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure, and Promote Sustainability and Environmental Protection

BACKGROUND
Chapter 12.35 entitled “Trees and Shrubs” of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” (“SCCC”) regulates trees in the City. Chapter 12.35 was updated in 2021 (Ordinance No. 2036) to bolster the protection of existing trees and support planting new trees to preserve the City’s urban forest.

When Chapter 12.35 was drafted it delegated the City Manager the authority to require an administrative hearing for any violations of the chapter and required all violation appeals be heard by the City Council. However, such requirements are not consistent with the standard rules governing appeals of city code violations. Typically, when a code violation takes place and an administrative citation is issued, the person receiving the citation decides whether to request an administrative hearing before an administrative law officer. Such appeals are not ordinarily heard by the Council.

The Department of Public Works staff has coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office to update Chapter 12.35 to conform to the City’s existing appeal procedures.

DISCUSSION
This proposed amendment to Chapter 12.35 includes eliminating the requirement that appeals based on Chapter 12.35 be heard by the City Council. Instead, such appeals will be heard by an administrative law officer in accordance with SCCC 1.10. In addition, the proposed amendment would clarify that the burden is on the person receiving a citation to request an appeal.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonable foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this ordinance update.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
22-989 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and City Manager’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Waive First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.35 “Trees and Shrubs” of Title 12 “Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places” of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” to Modify the Process for Violation Appeals.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance
City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Ordinance/Amendment to Chapter 12.35 Trees & Shrubs Page 1 of 3 Rev: 09/2019
ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA ,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12.35 (“TREES AND
SHRUBS”) OF TITLE 12 ( “STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND
PUBLIC PLACES ”) OF “THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA”

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Section 12.35.150 (“Appeals”) of Chapter 12.35 (“Trees and Shrubs”) of Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places ”) of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” (“SCCC”) stipulates that all appeals to a violation based on Chapter 12.35 shall be heard by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the language governing appeals in SCCC Section 12.35.150 is inconsistent with the standard rules set forth in Chapters 1. 05.070 (“Prosecutorial disc retion for enforcement – Continuing violations – Range of penalties – Enforcement cost recovery”) and 1.10 (“Administrative Penalties – Citations”) of the SCCC; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have violations of Chapter 12.35 follow the rules set forth in Chapter 1.05.070 by which a violation may be enforced as a criminal, civil, or administrative action; and
WHEREAS, In the event a violation of Chapter 12. 35 is enforced as an administrative action, the City desires appeals for such violations follow the typical appeal procedures set forth in SCCC Chapter 1.10.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: That Section 12.35.140 (“Penalty for violation”) of Chapter 12.35 (entitled “Trees and Shrubs ”) of Title 12 (entitled “Streets, Sidewalks and Pu blic Places”) of the Ordinance/Amendment to Chapter 12.35 Trees & Shrubs Page 2 of 3 Rev: 09/2019
SCCC is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“12.35.140 Penalty for violation.
(a) Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any of the provisions of this chapter or any permit issued to it, the City may assess a monetary penalty in a sum not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(b) In the event that the violation results in any substantial injury, damage, or removal of a city tree or protected tree as determined by the City Manager, an additional penalty shall be assessed in the amount of the monetary value of the tree, which is determined based on location, species and tree size. The appropriate penalty shall apply separately to each tree affected by the improper action.
(c) In any civil action brought to seek such civil penalties, and/or to obtain injunctive relief for violation of any provision of this chap ter, in which the City prevails, th e court shall determine and im pose reasonable expenses , including the costs of employee time and attorneys’ fees incurred by the City in the investigation and prosecution of the action. (d) The remedies provided for in this section are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil or criminal.”
SECTION 2: That Section 12.35.150 (“Appeals”) of Chapter 12.35 (entitled “Trees and Shrubs”) of Title 12 (entitled “Streets, Sidewal ks and Public P laces”) of the SCCC is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“12.35.150 Enforcement.

Pursuant to SCCC 1.05.070 , the C ity, in its prosecutorial discretion, may enforce violation(s) of the provisions of this Chapter as a criminal, civil, and/or administrative action.

Administrative citations issued under this Chapter shall follow the process set forth in Ordinance/Amendment to Chapter 12.35 Trees & Shrubs Page 3 of 3 Rev: 09/2019
SCCC 1.10.”
SECTION 3: Savings clause. The changes provided for in this ordinance shall not affect any offense or act committ ed or done or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any right established or accruing before the effective date o f this ordinance; nor shall it affec t any prosecution, suit or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this ordinance. All fee schedules shall remain in force until superseded by the fee schedules adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 4: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption; however, prior to its final adopti on it shall be published in accordance wi th the requirements of Section 808 and 812 of “The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California.” PASSED FO R THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this ______ day of ________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ___________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference: None
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1010 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution Extending AB 361 Implementation to Allow City Legislative Bodies to Hold Public Meetings Solely by Teleconference or Otherwise Electronically During the Governor’s Proclaimed COVID State of Emergency

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended the Brown Act teleconferencing requirements so that legislative bodies could hold public meetings solely by teleconference, or otherwise electronically, without listing the teleconference locations and without any physical location, as long legislative bodies followed a set of requirements for noticing the meeting agenda and public participation, among other things. Subsequently on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which sunset the Brown Act provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 on September 30, 2021.

On September 16, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law which allows local agencies to use teleconferencing without complying with specific Brown Act restrictions in certain state emergencies until January 1, 2024, at which point they are to be repealed, and the standard Brown Act teleconference requirements become effective again. The bill was an urgency measure, and it went into effect immediately.

On October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 7, 2022, July 5, 2022, July 12, 2022, August 16, 2022, and September 13, 2022 the City Council approved Resolution Nos. 21-9013, 21-9023, 21- 9038, 22-9042, 22-9051, 22-9058, 22-9067, 22-9087, 22-9096, 22-9115, 22-9124, 22-9135, and 22- 9142 respectively, to allow City Legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically pursuant to AB 361.

DISCUSSION
AB 361 amended Government Code Section 54943 to allow a local agency to use teleconferencing for public meetings without requiring the teleconference location to be accessible to the public or a quorum of the members of the legislative body of the agency to participate from locations within the boundaries of the agency’s jurisdiction during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency in certain circumstances.

In order for a local agency to utilize AB 361’s exemption to the Brown Act, there must be certain emergency conditions present. These include:

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1010 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
· There being a state-proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
· The Council is meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; or
· The Council is meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that in-person meetings would pose health and safety risks to attendees.

In order for the City’s legislative bodies to continue meeting remotely with the exemptions to the Brown Act provided for under AB 361, the Council is required to take certain actions, most of which the City is already implementing:
· The City must continue providing notice of meetings and continue to post agendas as the Brown Act requires to the agency’s website,
· The City must continue allowing for public access to the meeting, while allowing for a public comment period to directly address the legislative body pursuant to Brown Act’s other teleconferencing provisions,
· The City must continue giving notice for how the public can access the meeting and provide public comment, including a call-in or internet-based service option (no physical location required),
· The City must continue providing the public with the opportunity to comment in real time (with the option of additionally allowing comments to be submitted in advance, if the agency desires),
· The City must stop the meeting until public access is restored in the event of a service disruption, and
· No later than 30 days after the first teleconferencing meeting and every 30 days thereafter, the Council will have to reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency to determine if remote meeting procedures need to remain in place.

The legislative body must make certain findings by majority vote every 30 days to continue using the AB 361 Brown Act teleconferencing requirements. Because the City Council approved Resolution No. 22-9142 will expire on October 13, 2022. The City Council must adopt a new resolution in order to allows for its other legislative bodies to continue meeting remotely through November 3, 2022.

Failure to approve this resolution would result in City Council, boards, and commissions meetings being unable to meet fully virtual without exposing the locations of each member’s location on the posted agendas.

Beginning on March 11, 2020 and continuing every 60 days thereafter, the City Council has continued its proclamation of local emergency based on substantial evidence that the public interest and necessity require the continuance of the proclamation of local emergency related to COVID-19.

On September 21, 2021, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer recommended that public bodies continue to meet remotely to the extent possible due to the continued threat of COVID-19 to the community, the unique characteristics of public governmental meetings, and the continued increased safety protection that social distancing provides as one means by which to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. On November 2, 2021, emergency use of the Pfizer COVID vaccine was authorized for children ages 5-11. On that same day, Santa Clara county moved back into the substantial (orange) COVID-19 transmission tier. On November 22, 2021, Santa Clara county moved City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1010 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
to the moderate (yellow) COVID-19 transmission tier. On November 25, 2021, scientists identified the latest COVID-19 variant, Omicron, which has prompted concern among scientists and public health officials because of an unusually high number of mutations that have the potential to make the virus more transmissible and less susceptible to existing vaccines. On December 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health reinstituted its statewide mask mandate, requiring all individuals, regardless of their vaccination status, to wear face coverings in indoor public settings from December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022 due to a 47% increase in the statewide seven- day average case rate and 14% increase in hospitalizations since Thanksgiving. In light of the rapid surge in cases due to the Omicron variant, on December 28, 2021, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer issued a health order requiring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination for workers in certain higher- risk settings. The new order builds on recent changes in the State Health Officer’s vaccination requirements by mandating up-to-date vaccination by workers in certain healthcare and long-term care settings. As of February 3, 2021, new daily Covid-19 cases are on the decline since the surge from the Omicron variant. However, California Covid-19 deaths continue to rise and hospitalizations remain elevated. On February 27, 2022, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer rescinded the health order requiring the use of face covering indoors effective March 2, 2022. However, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer continues to recommend that all persons continue to wear face coverings when indoors. The California Department of Public Health continues to require masking in higher-risk settings such as public transit, healthcare facilities, shelters, jails, and long-term care facilities. As of March 26, 2022, the Omicron subvariant BA.2 is now the dominant variant in the US accounting for nearly 55% of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. On March 29, 2022, the FDA authorized a second booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccines for people 50 years of age and older and some immunocompromised people. As of April 27, COVID-19 levels in wastewater concentrations in the greater Bay Area from Sacramento to Yolo, San Francisco and Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, were similar to what they were during the Delta surge in the summer of 2021, indicating another wave of the pandemic, although not resulting in an increase in hospitalizations. On April 28, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through July 18, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties. On May 10, 2022, Santa Clara County’s Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody warned that COVID case counts and hospitalizations are on the increase, with a weekly average of 552 cases and 80 to 100 people currently hospitalized, and urged everyone to consider wearing masks in high-risk settings, keep a stockpile of tests, and exercise caution when socializing indoors. On May 13, 2022, Bay Area health officers from the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and the City of Berkeley urged residents to wear face masks in indoor public settings as COVID-19 infections driven by highly contagious virus variants multiply throughout the region. As of May 31, 2022, new coronavirus cases in California increased 13.2% from the prior week and California ranked 10th among the states where coronavirus was spreading the fastest on a per person basis. As of June 13, 2022, new COVID-19 cases in California rose 32.3% from the prior week with 128,893 new cases, with California ranking fourth among the states where COVID-19 was spreading the fastest on a per-person basis, and Santa Clara County with the highest worst weekly outbreaks on a per-person basis. On June 15, 2022, an advisory panel to the FDA voted unanimously to recommend the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for children ages five and younger. On June 18, 2022, the CDC and federal regulators authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages six months through four years old and the Moderna vaccine for children ages six months through five years old starting June 21, 2022. As of July 5, 2022, the new omicron subvariant known as BA.5 now comprises a majority of U.S. COVID- 19 cases, according to data released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The BA.5, along with a related subvariant known as BA.4, has mutations that have shown an City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1010 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
increased ability to evade the protection from vaccines and previous infection. As July 6, 20222, all nine local counties are back in the CDC's high-risk category for COVID-19 community levels, and the highly-transmissible BA.5 subvariant of the virus that causes COVID-19 is quickly taking over. On July 28, 2022, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through October 1, 2022, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties. On August 4, 2022, the CDC continued to classify Santa Clara County in the high community level for coronavirus, in its weekly update. On August 11, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention streamlined its guidance for COVID exposure to recommending that everyone, regardless of vaccination or past infection, wear a high-quality mask for 10 days and get tested on day five after exposure to the virus. As of August 24, 2022, as California schools reopen for the fall semester with loosened COVID-19 protocols and low student vaccination rates among younger children, health experts are watching to see how schools do in the coming weeks as some experts expect another rise in cases when winter arrives. As of September 20, 2022, a new more transmissible COVID strain, BF.7, short for BA.5.2.1.7, is outpacing nearly all other variants of interest that scientists are tracking in the U.S. this fall. As of September 22, 2022, although daily death rates from COVID-19 have ticked down slightly from August, updated federal data shows that the U.S. is still losing on average 350 Americans to COVID-19 every day, and 225,000 people in the U.S. have been lost to the virus since the start of 2022. These associated emergency conditions are on-going and there is a need to continue teleconferencing for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of emergency. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person, and City officials continue to impose or recommend public health safety measures.

It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution to make requisite findings to allow the City’s legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically so long as the state of emergency and social distancing measures continue. The Council will have to take action on a monthly basis to reassess and reaffirm such findings to continue meeting remotely.

The proposed Resolution is attached.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact other than administrative time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and City Clerk’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1010 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution finding the existence of the need to extend AB 361 implementation to allow the City’s legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically pursuant to AB 361.

Reviewed by: Nadine Nader, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 1 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17

RESOLUTION NO. _

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE NEED TO EXTEND AB 361

IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW CITY LEGISLATIVE BODIES TO

HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS SOLELY BY TELECONFERENCE OR
OTHERWISE ELECTRONICALLY PURSUANT TO AB 361

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the City’s City Council, Council Committees, City Decision-Making Bodies (including Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board, Sports and Open Space Authority, Housing Authority, Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency, Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation), City Boards, Committees and Commissions, Taskforces, and Other City Advisory Entities; WHEREAS, all meetings of City of Santa Clara’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq., hereinafter referred to as the “Brown Act”), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; WHEREAS, the Brown Act allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings by teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to attend and to address the local legislative body, as long as the following requirements are met: (1) each teleconference location from which a member is participating is noticed on the agenda; (2) each teleconference location is accessible to the public; (3) members of the public must be able to address the body at each teleconference location; (4) at least one member of the legislative body must be physically present at the location specified in the meeting agenda; and (5) during teleconference meetings, at least a quorum of the members of the local body must participate from locations within the local body’s territorial jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 ----
Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 2 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

which suspended the Brown Act teleconferencing requirements so that legislative bodies can hold public meetings solely by teleconference, or otherwise electronically, without listing the teleconference locations and without any physical location, as long as the agenda that is posted 72 hours in advance indicates that the members of the legislative body will be participating by teleconference, provides the teleconference or webinar access information by which the public may participate electronically, and lists the procedure for individuals with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations;
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which sunsets the Brown Act provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 on September 30, 2021; WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed urgency ordinance AB 361 which allows a local agency to use teleconferencing for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency pursuant to California Government Code Section 8625 et seq, if the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members of its legislative bodies to meet safely in person or state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; WHEREAS, in light of the continued state of emergency related to COVID-19, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer continues to recommend that public bodies meet remotely to the extent possible, specifically including use of newly enacted AB 361 to maintain remote meetings under the Ralph M. Brown Act and similar laws, as outlined in their “Recommendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities” issued on September 21, 2021;
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 7, 2022, July 5, 2022, July 12, 2022, August 16, 2022, and September 13, 2022 the City Council approved Resolutions Nos. 21-9013, 21-9023, 21-9038, 22-9042, 22-9051, 22-9058, 22-9067, 22-9087, 22-9096, 22- Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 3 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

9115, 22-9124, 22-9135, and 22-9142 respectively, to allow City Legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically pursuant to AB 361; WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, federal, state and local health officials authorized emergency use of the Pfizer COVID vaccine for children ages 5-11, and may consider emergency authorization of the COVID vaccine for children under age 5 within the next few months;
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, Santa Clara County moved into the moderate (orange) COVID-19 transmission tier;
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2021, scientists identified the latest COVID-19 variant, Omicron, which has prompted concern among scientists and public health officials because of an unusually high number of mutations that have the potential to make the virus more transmissible and less susceptible to existing vaccines; WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health reinstituted its statewide mask mandate, requiring all individuals, regardless of their vaccination status, to wear face coverings in indoor public settings from December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022 due to a 47% increase in the statewide seven-day average case rate and 14% increase in hospitalizations since Thanksgiving;
WHEREAS, in light of the rapid surge in cases due to the Omicron variant, on December 28, 2021, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer issued a health order requiring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination for workers in certain higher-risk settings. The new order builds on recent changes in the State Health Officer’s vaccination requirements by mandating up-to-date vaccination by workers in certain healthcare and long-term care settings; WHEREAS, as of February 3, 2021, new daily Covid-19 cases are on the decline since the surge from the Omicron variant. However, California Covid-19 deaths continue to rise and hospitalizations remain elevated;
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2022, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer rescinded the Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 4 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

health order requiring the use of face covering indoors effective March 2, 2022. However, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer continues to recommend that all persons continue to wear face coverings when indoors. The California Department of Public Health continues to require masking in higher-risk settings such as public transit, healthcare facilities, shelters, jails, and long-term care facilities. While Santa Clara County has met the required masking metrics (80% of the population vaccinated, COVID-19 hospitalizations in the jurisdiction are low and stable, seven consecutive days with the seven-day rolling average of new cases at 550 or below) to transition to a strong recommendation for indoor masking, the county remains in the “medium” level of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new COVID-19 community level framework;
WHEREAS, as of March 26, 2022, the Omicron subvariant BA.2 is now the dominant variant in the US accounting for nearly 55% of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S.; WHEREAS, on March 29, 2022, the FDA authorized a second booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccines for people 50 years of age and older and some immunocompromised people; WHEREAS, as of April 27, COVID-19 levels in wastewater concentrations in the greater Bay Area from Sacramento to Yolo, San Francisco and Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, were similar to what they were during the Delta surge in the summer of 2021, indicating another wave of the pandemic, although not resulting in an increase in hospitalizations; WHEREAS, on April 28, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through July 18, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties; WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, Santa Clara County’s Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody warned that COVID case counts and hospitalizations are on the increase, with a weekly average of 552 cases and 80 to 100 people currently hospitalized, and urged everyone to consider wearing masks in high-risk settings, keep a stockpile of tests, and exercise caution when socializing indoors;
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2022, Bay Area health officers from the counties of Alameda, Contra Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 5 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and the City of Berkeley urged residents to wear face masks in indoor public settings as COVID-19 infections driven by highly contagious virus variants multiply throughout the region;
WHEREAS, as of May 31, 2022, new coronavirus cases in California increased 13.2% from the prior week and California ranked 10th among the states where coronavirus was spreading the fastest on a per person basis; WHEREAS, on June 3, 2022, due to the continued increase in positive COVID-19 cases in the City employee workforce and local community, the City extended the mandatory mask mandate for all City employees, regardless of vaccination status, through July 1, 2022;
WHEREAS, as of June 13, 2022, new COVID-19 cases in California rose 32.3% from the prior week with 128,893 new cases, with California ranking fourth among the states where COVID-19 was spreading the fastest on a per-person basis, and Santa Clara County with the highest worst weekly outbreaks on a per-person basis;
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, an advisory panel to the FDA voted unanimously to recommend the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for children ages five and younger; WHEREAS, on June 18, 2022, the CDC and federal regulators authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages six months through four years old and the Moderna vaccine for children ages six months through five years old starting June 21, 2022; WHEREAS, as of July 5, 2022, the new omicron subvariant known as BA.5 now comprises a majority of U.S. COVID-19 cases, according to data released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The BA.5, along with a related subvariant known as BA.4, has mutations that have shown an increased ability to evade the protection from vaccines and previous infection;
WHEREAS, as of July 6, 2022, all nine local counties are back in the CDC's high-risk category for COVID-19 community levels, and the highly-transmissible BA.5 subvariant of the virus that Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 6 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

causes COVID-19 is quickly taking over;
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2022, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through October 1, 2022, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties;
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2022, the CDC continued to classify Santa Clara County in the high community level for coronavirus, in its weekly update; WHEREAS, on August 11, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention streamlined its guidance for COVID exposure to recommending that everyone, regardless of vaccination or past infection, wear a high-quality mask for 10 days and get tested on day five after exposure to the virus;
WHEREAS, as of August 24, 2022, as California schools reopen for the fall semester with loosened COVID-19 protocols and low student vaccination rates among younger children, health experts are watching to see how schools do in the coming weeks as some experts expect another rise in cases when winter arrives;
WHEREAS, as of September 20, 2022, a new more transmissible COVID strain, BF.7, short for BA.5.2.1.7, is outpacing nearly all other variants of interest that scientists are tracking in the U.S. this fall;
WHEREAS, as of September 22, 2022, although daily death rates from COVID-19 have ticked down slightly from August, updated federal data shows that the U.S. is still losing on average 350 Americans to COVID-19 every day, and 225,000 people in the U.S. have been lost to the virus since the start of 2022;
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) requires that the City Council review the need and make findings for continuing the teleconferencing without complying with the agenda posting and public comment requirements at least once every thirty (30) days until Governor terminates the state of emergency; and,
Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 7 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

WHEREAS, the associated emergency conditions are on-going and there is a need to teleconference for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of emergency and if approved, will be in effect for 30 days and will expire on November 3, 2022 unless staff returns to City Council on or before November 3, 2022 to request to continue the need for teleconferencing.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the state of emergency conditions related to COVID-19, as set forth in Resolution No. 22-9142 adopted on September 13, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, are on-going.

2. That the City Council finds that there is a need to teleconference for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of emergency.

3. That the City Council finds that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members of the City’s City Council, Council Committees, City Decision-Making Bodies (including Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority, Housing Authority, Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency, Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation), City Boards, Committees and Commissions, Taskforces, and Other City Advisory Entities to meet safely in person.

4. That City officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing in City facilities.

5. That members of the City Council, Council Committees, City Decision-Making Bodies, City Boards (including Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board, Sports and Open Space Authority, Housing Authority, Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency, Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 8 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation), Committees and Commissions, Taskforces, and Other City Advisory Entities are authorized to use teleconferencing, or other electronic means, to hold its public meetings without noticing the teleconferenced locations on the agenda, without making teleconferenced or physical locations accessible to the public, without posting agendas at teleconferenced locations, without requiring members of the legislative bodies to be physically present at the meeting, and without requiring a quorum of the members of the legislative body to participate from locations with the City’s jurisdiction, as long as the agenda that is posted at least 72 hours in advance indicates that members of the legislative body may be participating electronically, provides the teleconference or webinar access information by which the public may participate electronically, and lists the procedure for individuals with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations, in compliance with AB 361, Government Code Section 54953(e).

6. That the Assistant City Clerk is hereby directed to report to the City Council within thirty

(30) days on the need to further continue teleconferencing for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of emergency.

7. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE __ DAY OF _________ , 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 9 of 6 Rev: 11/22/17

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference: None
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1108 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Update on a Written Petition to Consider Traffic Calming Measures on Cabrillo Avenue

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The City Clerk’s Office received a Written Petition on June 17, 2022 from Cecilia Aguiar, (Attachment 1) requesting to place an agenda item on a future council meeting to consider the following as stated in the request: “Cul-Del-sac (Dead End), Speed humps or similar traffic calming measures need to be instituted at the Cabrillo Ave and Lawrence Expressway along the 3583-3445 blocks of Cabrillo Avenue (between Lawrence Expressway and Nobili Avenue).” On July 12, 2022, the City Council discussed the written petition as item 13 on the agenda. In conformance with Council Policy and Procedure 30 - Adding an Item on the Agenda
, City Council voted to place this item on a future Council meeting date for further discussion.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council on staff’s review of the traffic calming request, including background information about the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (Overview, Procedures, Level 2/Level 3 Criteria, and Additional Criteria for Speed Humps).

Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Overview: On April 27, 1999, City Council approved the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP). The NTCP was established to address and resolve local neighborhood traffic concerns in a systematic manner. The NTCP guidelines (Attachment 2) are utilized by staff when analyzing traffic calming requests submitted by residents.

Traffic calming requests and concerns can vary significantly and the NTCP offers three levels of traffic calming measures (i.e. improvements), which are dependent on the results of studies, data collection and analysis.
· Level 1
: Education, public involvement, enforcement efforts, signing, striping, parking controls, and use of the City’s speed radar trailer.
· Level 2
: Alterations of the neighborhood street which can include chokers, chicanes, gateways, and rumble strips to deter or prohibit a specific action. · Level 3
: Measures similar to Level 2 that may alter neighborhood streets, but these measures may also affect overall neighborhood access and require coordination for emergency response. Examples of Level 3 measures include speed humps, traffic circles, median barriers, forced turn channelization, and diagonal diverters.

NTCP Procedures : The NTCP provides specific procedures by which traffic calming requests should be addressed by staff. These steps are designed to ensure that staff is able to coordinate with residents to fully understand the issues prior to bringing recommendations forth for Council action.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-1108 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
Additionally, the process requires that community support is obtained for any proposed traffic calming measures so residents have the opportunity to voice any concerns they might have. The required steps for the NTCP are provided as Attachment 3 and below is a high-level summary:
· Residents submit a written request to staff for traffic calming in Santa Clara. · Staff and residents consider the implementation of Level 1 treatments. · If unsatisfactory in resolving concerns, Level 2 and Level 3 treatments may be considered if certain criteria are met.
· Neighborhood meetings will be scheduled, and a neighborhood representative will be selected.
· Level 2 or 3 measures require all residents of the affected neighborhood to be contacted and a petition must contain the signatures of property owners representing at least 70 percent of the properties that directly face the block under consideration. There must also be 100 percent concurrence from residents within 100 feet of the proposed Level 2 or Level 3 device. · If neighborhood concurrence cannot be obtained, Level 2 and Level 3 devices will not be used, and staff will continue to investigate the use of Level 1 treatments in mitigating the traffic concern.
· If the street is eligible for a Level 2 or Level 3 device, the topic will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. All residents will be notified of the proposal and will be given the opportunity to address Council. If the recommendation is denied, the Level 2 or Level 3 device will not be used, and the City will continue to investigate the use of Level 1 treatments in mitigating the traffic concern. If the recommendation is approved, the Level 2 or Level 3 device will be scheduled for installation.
· If it is determined that the street is not eligible for the requested Level 2 or Level 3 device, the representative will be notified in writing the reason why the street is not eligible. The designated neighborhood representative will be given 15 days to appeal the decision in writing to the City. Only then will the appeal be scheduled to be heard before the City Council. · If the appeal is denied, the Level 2 or Level 3 device will not be used, and the City will continue to investigate the use of Level 1 treatments in mitigating the traffic concern. If the appeal is approved, the device will be scheduled for installation.

NTCP Level 2/Level 3 Criteria: In addition to NTCP procedures, there are other specific criteria for installation of Level 2 and 3 measures or devices. The full list is provided as Attachment 4 and below is a summary of key criteria:
· The street shall be a two-lane local residential street where the primary function is to provide access to abutting residences. At least 75 percent of street section must be developed residentially, where schools and parks qualify as residential units. · The speed limit shall be 25 miles per hour or less.
· Traffic volumes shall be greater than 1,000 and less than 3,500 vehicles per day. · 85 percent of vehicles measured during the data gathering period are traveling greater than 33 miles per hour.
· Installation on a primary emergency response route and/or transit route will NOT be permitted. · Installation will NOT be permitted where substantial diversions of traffic to other local streets may occur, i.e. move the displaced traffic onto adjacent residential streets.

NTCP Additional Criteria for Speed Humps: Additionally, there are further criteria regarding the installation of speed humps. These are included as Attachment 5 and key criteria are listed below:

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-1108 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
· The effected street segment should be at least 600 feet in length minimum. · Speed humps should be located approximately 200 feet from an intersection or a stop sign. · Spacing between speed humps should be as even as possible in order to produce a relatively uniform speed along the entire street. Speed humps within a series should be placed from 200 to 600 feet apart.
· Emergency response routes, for the most part, are not eligible for installation of speed humps.

DISCUSSION
Staff has initiated a traffic engineering study of Cabrillo Avenue and this study includes data collection, analysis, and recommendations. The data will include (1) the number and speed of the vehicles using Cabrillo Avenue (Lawrence Expressway and Nobili Avenue) and using Briarwood Drive (Berry Way to Santa Barbara Avenue), (2) existing conditions of Cabrillo Avenue and Briarwood Drive such as number of travel lanes, posted speed limit, and existing land uses, and (3) existing emergency vehicle response and transit routes. The data collection phase is anticipated to be completed in October 2022.

The data will be analyzed and evaluated using the criteria for traffic calming and stop signs. The analysis will be used to identify any issues and develop potential recommendations to address such issues. Staff anticipates completion of the study by early 2023 and will coordinate results with the community. If the community provides feedback that they would like improvements other than what is supported by the study results and the Council approved NTCP, then staff anticipates returning to Council for further review, discussion, and direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with considering the request to be placed on a future agenda except for staff time.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Fire Department, Police Department, and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and File the Update on a Written Petition to Consider Traffic Calming Measures on Cabrillo Avenue.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-1108 Agenda Date: 10/4/2022
Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Written Petition submitted by Cecilia Aguiar

2. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Guidelines

3. Procedure for the Evaluation of Requests

4. Criteria for Installation of Level 2 and 3 Devices

5. Additional Criteria - Installation of Speed Humps
City of Santa Clara Printed on 9/29/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
City of
Santa Clara

CITY COUNCIL WRITTEN PETITION
I •
~ '. l" ii I: . 7
Please provide the information requested below. When complete, please submit to the City Clerk's Office, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050.
.

Date:__.,6'-'-/ -'-'/ 0...:....,-1--/ ;/.'"""-'-'Oi:..wrl:i..='---1 I, CE l L I I\ A G U I A Q , am hereby requesting to be placed on the Santa Clara City Council Agenda for the following purpose:

Cul-Del-sac (Dead End), Speed humps or similar traffic calming measures need to be Instituted at the Cabrillo Ave and Lawrence Expressway.Along the 3583 to 3445 blocks of Cabrillo Avenue (between Lawrence Expressway and Noblll Avenue):

The excessive speeds of motorlsls, including Santa Clare School District buses, Commercial Heavy Weight Vehicles dally endanger Iha lives of the residents their families, (many of which with small children) as well as the resident's pets.

In addition, there have been multiple recent Incidents of speeding that have resulted In costly damage to resident's parked cars.

Noise is a dally problem caused by speeding vehicles, often exacerbated by the vibration of speeding vehicles thal set oH the car alarms of resident's vehicles that have been parked on the street. Our street Is no longer safe and It Is the duty of the City to provide necessary and effeclive traffic calming measures before a tragedy occurs. I understand that it Is Important that I attend the meeting in the event there are any quesllons the Council wish to ask me.

I understand that it is important that I attend the meeting in the event there are any questions the Council wishes to ask me.

Signed:
. .

NAME: C£C. l L\ f\
Street
Santa Clara 95051
City Zip Code
Optional
*NOTE: This is a public document. If your telephone number is unlisted or if you do not want it to be public, please provide an alternate number where you can be reached.

S:\CityClerk\FORMS AND INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE\Wrilten Petition Form - 2016.doo ' Hello Neighbor,
I am initiating an effort with the City to curb the following Traffic related issues on our street.

Cabrillo Ave.

Problem:

Since Cabrillo Ave connects to lawrence expressway we have experienced:
• Dangerously excessive speeding in a 25 Miles School zone. • Traffic related noise
• High incidents of Accidents for the parked cars on the streets • Extremely high vehicle traffic, Including Commercial Trucks, Buses - making our street unsafe for Kids, Pets and respected Seniors.

Goal:
• Make our street, Cabrillo Ave, safe for everyone. Cabrillo Avenue is not Lawrence expressway!
What's needed:

We all need to come together to initiate a petition for Traffic Calming measures to the City of Santa Clara.

Please email your signed petition : [email protected]

NEIGHBORHOOD

TRAFFIC CALMING

PROGRAM
Approved by City Council 4-27-99
City of Santa Clara
Department of Public Works
April 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
Introduction ... .................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 Has Your Neighborhood Experienced Any of the Following Problems? .............................. . 3 Here are Some of the Solutions for the Problems Identified ......................................... 4- 8 Traffic Management Strategies ............................................................................ 9-10 Table I - Level 1 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Options ............................................. 11 Table 2 - Level 2 and Level 3 Neighborhood Tr'1:ffic Calming Options ............................ _ ... 12 Impacts of Traffic Calming Measures ...................................................................... 13 Figure 1 - Police and Fire Emergency Response Routes ................................................ 14 Table 3 - Police and Fire Emergency Response Routes ........................................ ; .. 15 - 16 Procedure for the Evaluation of Requests ............................................................ 17-18 Sample Petition Form for Installation of Level 2 Traffic Calming Device ............................. 19 Criteria for the Installation of Level 2 and Level 3 Devices ............................................. 20 Additional Criteria - Installation of Speed Humps ........................................................ 21 Priority Scoring System for Installation of Level 2 Devices ............................................ 22 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 22 Level 1 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Options (Descriptions) .................................. 23 - 31 Level 2 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Options (Descriptions) ................................. .3 2 - 3 7 Level 3 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Options (Descriptions) .................................. 38 - 45 Traffic Information ........................................................................................... 46 Speed Limit .......................................................................................... 47 Crosswalks ............................................................................................. 48 Bike Lanes ............................................................................................ 49 "Children at Play" Signs .................................................................. ; ........ .50 Stop Signs ............................................................................................ 51 Traffic Signals ....................................................................................... 52

INTRODUCTION
The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) was established by the City of Santa Clara to address and resolve local neighborhood traffic concerns and quality of life issues. The NTCP expands the City's current approach to mitigate the neighborhood concerns in a systematic and efficient manner. The program provides outlines of the broad range of possible solutions to the problem(s). The program is based upon the techniques that are being utilized by surrounding cities in the South Bay. In developing the program, City staff reviewed the traffic calming programs of these cities and evaluated their full impacts as well as the relevant experience of each city.

The process begins with the resident reviewing the NTCP guidelines, identifying the problem, and then forwarding the concern to the·Traffic Engin~ering Division staff:

CITY OF SANT A CLARA
Attn: City Traffic Engineer
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone Number: (408) 261-5200
Fax Number: (408) 985-7936
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
Approved 4-27-99

Page 1 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentOctober 4, 2022

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 4, 2022