HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA,• CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA AGENDA BILL NO 3 (r Dept. Hd.
DATE: February 11, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: City Manager C. Mgr.
------------------- — ---------------- -- ------------------------------ ----------------
SUa=: AB 2365 - CKonnyu)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
Assemblyman Konnyu has co- authored AB 2365 which changes from a misdemeanor
to a felony the unauthorized possession of a firearm by any person found
mentally ill or disordered. Assemblyman Konnyu has requested support from
the City of Saratoga for this proposed legislation.
Recommendation
Determine whether AB 2365 merits support and, if so; direct staff to inform
the appropriate legislative members.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachnents
1. Letter dated 1/19/82 from Assemblyman Konnyu
2. Editorial from San Jose Mercury dated 11/18/81
3. AB 2365
Council Action
3/3: Mallory /Watson moved to support. Passed 5 -0.
Honorable Linda Callon
Mayor, City of Saratoga
12598 Fredericksburg Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Callon:
As one of the thought leaders of our community, I am sure you
will be especially interested in knowing about AB 2365, a
measure which I have just recently introduced for consideration.
This bill would change from a misdemeanor to felony status the
possession of a firearm by a person found mentally ill or dis-
ordered. The attached news article from the San Jose Mercury
further discusses the need for this measure.
I will appreciate whatever support you can lend to this measure
either personally or through your associations. The Gun Owners
of America are in early support of this bill.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. I would appre-
ciate the support of the City of Saratoga.
Sincerely,
ERNEST L. KONNYU
Assemblyman, 22nd District
E L K : h b
Encls.
COMMITTEES:
Vice Chairman,
_�u�t
Human Services
Ass
Consumer Protection
and Toxic Materials
C,.
Housing and Community
Development
Revenue
SS
SASTATE
Tattf.� ut�t ��jegt taturie
oint LegaslativexAtudit
CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445 -8305
ERNEST L. KONNYU
DISTRICT OFFICE
7337 BOLLINGER ROAD
ASSEMBLYMAN, TWENTY- SECOND DISTRICT
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
(408) 446 -4114
January 19, 1982
Honorable Linda Callon
Mayor, City of Saratoga
12598 Fredericksburg Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Callon:
As one of the thought leaders of our community, I am sure you
will be especially interested in knowing about AB 2365, a
measure which I have just recently introduced for consideration.
This bill would change from a misdemeanor to felony status the
possession of a firearm by a person found mentally ill or dis-
ordered. The attached news article from the San Jose Mercury
further discusses the need for this measure.
I will appreciate whatever support you can lend to this measure
either personally or through your associations. The Gun Owners
of America are in early support of this bill.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. I would appre-
ciate the support of the City of Saratoga.
Sincerely,
ERNEST L. KONNYU
Assemblyman, 22nd District
E L K : h b
Encls.
��n dose �tera�org
P ANTHONY RIDDER
P- s"lent 11tul PutltlttN•t
ROBERT D INGLE ROB ELDER ROBERT J. COCHNAR JOHN K. BAKER JERRY CEPPOS
Vlrc PI kknt B.btut Ikputy F%eNtivc Edit. Managmig Edltur Awrute Editor
1 I XmUtive Edlar
DEAN BARTEE GENE FALK JOHN HAMMETT
Vice Ptt %ident Direett of op -rations Vice Prmident
Srke d IdirYettne Employ"• /Canmu nil Relalle"t
Editorials Wednesday, November 18, 1981 106
Guns and insanity don"t � mix
LMO Hatton Jr., San Jose's 1956
"dream killer;" Is the federal govern-
ment's problem now, but that doe-sn't
relieve the California Legislature of the.duty
of tidying up after him..
Hatton jumped bail here more than three
months ago on a misdemeanor weapon$
charge and turned up in mid -October —
armed — in the US.. Treasury building in
Washington, D.C. Hatton is now in
Washington's St. Elizabeths Hospital where
psychiatrists have until Dec. 22 to determine
whether he is mentally competent to stand
trial in a District of Columbia court.
California can't extradite him for skipping
bail on the gun charge pending against him
here because misdemeanors are not extradit-
'able offenses.
Fortunately, Assemblyman Ernie '.Konnyu,
R- Saratoga, is preparing remedial legislation
and promises to introduce it Jan. 4, when the
Legislature reconvenes in regular session.
Konnyu would make it a felony, rather than a
midsdemeanor, for former mental patients to
keep or carry guns or other deadly weapons.
Moreover, Konnyu's bill applies this stricture
to anybody acquitted of a violent crime by
reason of insanity.
That makes good, if belated, sense.. It won't
bring Elmo Hatton Jr. back to California, but
it should prevent similar situations from aris-
ing in the future.
Hatton killed a woman and seriously
wounded a man in a seemingly motiveless
shooting spree near Almaden Reservoir in
1956. He said it all seemed "like a dream" and
Superior Judge William F. James found the
21- year -old former office boy not guilty by
reason of insanity.
Hatton spent almost 20 years in state men-
tal hospitals and halfway houses before an-
other Superior Court judge, Bruce F. Allen,
formally ended his parole in 1976. Last July 22
Hatton was arrested in Santa Clara for alleg-
edly brandishing a pellet gun at two juveniles.
They called police who found Hatton in a
.nearby' phone booth and relieved h" of his
pellet glen. A search of Hatton's. knapsack
turned up a .30- caliber rifle and 80 rounds of
ammurlltion,
The "dream killer" bailed out of jail for
$150 cash.— and never showed up for his Aug.
12 preliminary hearing. Had he stuck around,
the maximum penalty he faced would have
been six months in jail or. a $500 fine or both.
His offense is.only a misdemeanor under Sec-
tion 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In -this instance, the law is quirky, ironic and
dangerous. Hatton, the innocent-by- reason -of-
insanity killer, can bail out of jail for $150 and
can't be extradited because he's only accused
of a misdemeanor. Yet if Hatton had been
convicted of murder and later paroled, he
would now be accused of a felony. His bail
would have been considerably more than $150,
and if he jumped it, the state of California
could insist on getting him back to stand trial.
In all this, the law misses a critical point:
Ordinary citizens deserve protection from in-
dividuals, sane or insane, who have a history
of violence.
The Hatton case underscores the need for
legislative reform in this area. The former
mental patient is not only a certifiable killer,
he is a confirmed and continuing gun fancier
who authorities say has threatened the lives of
two presidents, Richard Nixon and Jimmy
Carter. .
The Legislature should pass Konnyu's bill
and Gov. Jerry Brown should sign it into law
as quickly as possible.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE - 1981 -82 REGULAR SESSION
• ASSEMBLY BILL
0
No. 2365
Introduced by Assemblymen Konnyu, Naylor, Dennis
Brown, Harris, Ivers, and La Follette
January 11, 1982
An act to amend Section 8103 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, relating to firearms.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2365, as introduced, Konnyu. Firearms: possession:
mental illness.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for persons found
• mentally ill or disordered, unless a certificate has been issued
stating that the person can possess firearms without
endangering others, or found not guilty by reason of insanity
of specified offenses, to possess or have under their custody or
control any firearm.
This bill would make the violation a felony, and would
specify that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity in
other jurisdictions as specified are included.
Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Sections
2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code require the
state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for
certain costs mandated by the state. Other provisions require
the Department of Finance to review statutes disclaiming
•these costs and provide, in certain cases, for making claims to
the State Board of Control for reimbursement.
However, this bill would provide that no appropriation is
made and no reimbursement is required by this act for a
specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
• State - mandated local program: yes.
99 40
AB 2365 —2—
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.- •
1
SECTION 1. Section 8103 of the Welfare and
2
Institutions Code is amended to read:
3
8103. (a) (1) No person who has been adjudicated
4
by a court to be a danger to others as a result of a mental
5
disorder or mental illness, after October 1, 1955, shall
•
6
have in his possession or under his custody or control any
7
firearm unless there has been issued to such person a
8
certificate as hereafter described in this section and such
9
person has not, subsequent to the issuance of such
10
certificate, again been adjudicated by a court to be a
11
danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental
12
illness.
13
(2) A certificate meeting the requirements of this
14
section must be a written statement that is either part of
15
a broader certificate of competency or a separate
16
document and that is issued, on application of the person
17
who was so adjudicated, either at the time of release from
18
treatment under such adjudication or at a later date, by
•
19
the medical director of any California state hospital,
20
stating that in the opinion of the person issuing the
21
certificate based either on his own knowledge or on the
22
opinions of members of his staff or on records of the
23
institution, the applicant is a person who may possess a
24
firearm without endangering others. If a person applies
25
to a medical director of a California state hospital for such
26
a certificate and the applicant has not been treated in
27
that hospital, or if the medical director believes that a
28
current mental examination is necessary to enable him to
29
determine whether or not such a certificate shall be
30
issued, the medical director shall cause such person to be
31
examined by a member of the staff of the hospital and
•
32
may otherwise investigate the case. The medical director
33
may charge a reasonable fee for such examination and
34
investigation.
35
(3) Refusal of a medical director to issue a certificate
36
of competency or separate document as described in the
37
preceding provisions of this section is reviewable by
38
mandamus in the superior court of the county of which
•
99 70
r 'F
3— AB 2365
• 1 the applicant is a resident or the county in which the
2 hospital of which the medical director is head. Upon a
3 showing to the satisfaction of the court of abuse of
4 discretion by the medical director the court shall issue its
5 writ directing the medical director to issue its certificate
6 or document.
• 7 (b) No person who has been found, pursuant to
8 Section 1026 of the Penal Code or the law of any other
9 state or the United States, not guilty by reason of insanity
10 of murder, mayhem, a violation of Section 207 or 209 of
11 the Penal Code in which the victim suffers intentionally
12 inflicted great bodily injury, robbery in which the victim
13 suffers great bodily injury, a violation of Section 447a of
14 the Penal Code involving a trailer coach, as defined in
15 Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or any dwelling house,
16 a violation of subdivision 2 or 3 of Section 261 of the Penal
17 Code, a violation of Section 459 of the Penal Code in the
18 first degree, assault with intent to commit murder, a
19 violation of Section 220 of the Penal Code in which the
20 victim suffers great bodily injury, a violation of Section
21 12303.1, 12303.2, 12303.3, 12308, 12309, or 12310 of the
22 Penal Code, or of a felony involving death, great bodily
23 injury, or an act which poses a serious threat of bodily
24 harm to another person, or a violation of the law of any
• 25 other state or the United States which includes all the
26 elements of any of the above felonies as defined under
27 California law, shall have in his possession or under his
28 custody or control any firearm.
29 (c) Every person who possesses or has under his
30 custody or control any firearm in violation of this section
31 is guilty of a misdemeaner felony.
32 SEC. 2. No appropriation is made and no
•33 reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section
34 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution or
35 Section 2231 or 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
36 because the only costs which may be incurred by a local
37 agency or school district will be incurred because this act
38 creates a new crime or infraction, changes the definition
39 of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty for a crime
• 40 or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction.
99 100
CITY OF SARATOGA
t�
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: February 11, 1982
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SECT: Ordinance Pao. Restricting Vehicle Repairs in Residential Districts
Issue Sunmary
The Code Enforcement Officer has recommended consideration be given to adoption
of an ordinance regulating the activity of repairing automobiles, trailers,
and other vehicles in residential areas. Unregulated repair of vehicles can
be unsightly, create noxious odors and fumes, and result in disturbing noises.
Vehicles under repair on public rights of way can create hazardous conditions
for the public. From time to time, the City receives complaints from residents
about these nuisances and hazards. Present ordinances and state laws do not
adequately cover these activities and conditions.
Reconmendation
Introduce the ordinance and schedule a public hearing to allow residents the
opportunity to express views on the need for this ordinance.
Fiscal Impacts
There would be added cost for the enforcement of this ordinance.
it is not possible to estimate such cost realistically.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Report from :Manager dated February 11, 1982.
2. Draft ordinance.
3. Correspondence received on ordinance.
Council Action
2/17: Jensen/Mallory moved to set for public hearing 3/17. Passed 4 -0.
At this time,
3/17: Conducted public hearing. Jensen /Mallory moved to continue to 4/7. Passed 5 -0.
4/7: Mallory/Watson moved to adopt resolution 38.106. Passed 5 -0.
1
s
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2/11/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 2/17/82
SUBJECT: Ordinance Restricting Vehicle Repairs in Residential Districts
The attached ordinance would regulate and restrict the repair of
motor vehicles in residential areas of the City.
- Repairs may be performed only on vehicles registered to
the property owner.
- Except for emergency repairs performed within forty -eight
hours from time of breakdown., no repairs are permitted on
public streets.
- On private property, including driveways, repair activity
and the storage of parts, equipment and vehicles would be
limited to five consecutive days.if exposed to public view.
.There is no time limit on repair activity not in the public
view.
Repair activities must conform to the City's noise ordinance
(which provides:no noise greater than 70 dBA at a distance
25 feet from the source is permitted between 8:00 a.m, and
8 p.m., and no noise greater than 6 dBA above the surrounding
noise level outside the property between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
- Creation of discernable smoke or noxious fumes as a con-
sequence of repair activity is prohibited.
Vehicle Repair Ordinance
February 11, 1982
Page two
Violation of any of the above regulations, if nro erly discovered,
would be an infraction offense carrying a pena ty o 50 for the
first conviction, $100 for the second, and $250 for the third.
While the City occasionally receives complaints from residents
regarding activities that would be regulated by this ordinance, it
is difficult to determine the degree to which any problems or
nuisances may now exist in the community. The need for such an
ordinance has not been measured or determined.
Enforcement of the ordinance would depend upon the City receiving
complaints from the public on alleged violations. The enforcement
authority would have to observe the violation or receive a signed
written complaint from a witness to the violation before any citation
can be issued for the violation. However, the City has no authority
to force compliance with the ordinance without proper adjudication by
a court. Thus, enforcement would not be 100% effective, but would
be responsive to violations which result in complaints.
J. W ne De netz
City Manage
ck
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RESTRICTING
VEHICLE UPAIRS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1: Section 10 -30 is hereby added to the Saratoga City
Code, to read as follows:
Section 10 -30. Repairs of vehicles, etc., in residential districts.
No person shall engage in the repair of any motor vehicle,
trailer, camper unit or boat in any residential zoning district
within the City of Saratoga except in accord with the following
regulations:
(1) The vehicle, trailer, camper unit or boat must be
currently registered to a person resident at the site at
which it is being repaired at the time it is being repaired,
and
(2) Except for emergency repairs performed within forty -
eight hours from the time of a breakdown, no such repair
shall be permitted on any public street, public trail, or
other public right of way, and
(3) Such repairs that are performed on private property
within public vie-,17 aha.11 be c m le d within five (5) con-
secutive days.�re i sno�ltimif'of time when the repair
activity, and the storage of all repair equipment supplies,
vehicles and parts,are completely screened from the public
view.
(4) No such repair shall be permitted if it creates a
volume of noise in excess of the levels established in the
Noise Control Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code presently
appearing at Article V of Chapter 8.
i
(5) No such repair shall be permitted f it creates any
smoke or noxious fumes or odors which are discernable to
occupants of adjoining real property or to members of the
general public using an adjoining public street or public
right of way.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall
be guilty of an infraction. Each such person shall be guilty of a
separate offense for each and every day during a portion of which any
violation of this section is committed, continued or permitted by
such person shall be punishable accordingly. The violation of ahy,
part of this section shall constitute a separate violation. Any
person convicted of an infraction under this section shall be punish-
able for a first conviction by a fine of not more than Fifty 1)pllars;
($50.00), for a second conviction within a period of one (1) year
from the first conviction, by a fine of not more than One 1 =undred
Dollars ($100.00), and for a third or any subsequent conviction within
• period of one (1) year from the second or succeeding conviction, by
• fine of not more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00). The bail
for each violation of this section shall be in the amount of the fine
as set forth hereinabove, plus the penalty assessment imposed by the
Court.
In addition to the penalties provided by this section, any condi-
tion caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions
of this code, shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be summarily
abated by the City in a civil action, and each day such condition
continues shall be a new and separate offense.
Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance is for any reason held by a Court of competent juris-
diction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.' The City Council of the City
of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
-2-
sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage
and adoption.
The above and foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced and
after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and
adopted this day of , 198Z, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-3-
MAYO R
SUNLAND PARK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
18276 Purdue Drive 3-1'7
Saratoga, California 95070
9 Mar011 UV[-D
MAR 9 1982 ;
Mayor Linda Callon, Vice Mayor Marty Clevenger, & ...._►
Councilpersons Cheriel Jensen, John Mallory, & Dale Wats
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Callon, Vice Mayor Clevenger, & Councilpersons Jensen,
Mallory, & Watson:
This is regarding the proposed ordinance on Repair of Motor
Vehicles being considered by the City Council at its next meeting.
The Sunland Park Homeowners' Association Steering Committee
reviewed this proposed ordinance at its March 8, 1982, meeting,
and voted unanimously to support your adoption of this ordinance.
We have had several severe problems of people repairing motor
vehicles for extended periods of time in front of their homes.
These cases became, or are now, very disturbing and unsightly
nuisances to many neighbors.
We feel strongly that there should be an ordinance to control
this abuse to the neighborhoods in the few instances where it
occurs. The amount of time that may be necessary to observe reported
cases and make associated citations should be very small. In fact,
as people become aware of the existance of this ordinance, there
should be a steady decline of such problems. Also, it certainly
would be appropriate, and fiscally responsible, to collect fines
to cover all expenses related to enforcing this ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
William G. z, P ident,
Sunland Park Homeowners' Assn.
cc: Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 2/10/82
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJ=: SB -1093, Petris (Mandatory Density Bonus for Parkland Dedication)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
1. SB -1093 would require a City requiring dedication of parkland as a
condition of approval for Tentative Map to allow an increase in
density on the remaining portions of a development equivalent to the
number of units that would have been allowed on the park site had it
not been dedicated.
Recommendation
1. Oppose SB -1093
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memo 2/3/82
2. League Bulletin 1/22/82
3. S.B. 1093
Council Action
2117: Mallory /Jensen moved to oppose and send appropriate letters. Passed 4 -0 (Callon absent.)
o� SA.I��?►
MW
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2/3/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 2/17/82
SUBJECT: SB -1093, Petris (Mandatory Density Bonus for Parkland
Dedication)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SB -1093 would amend the "Quimby Act" to require any city requiring
dedication of parkland as a condition to approval for a tentative
map to allow an increased density on the remaining portions of a
development equivalent to the number of dwelling units that would
have been allowed on the parksite had it not been required to be
dedicated (Legislative Bulletin, League of California Cities,
January 22, 1982).
If the above mentioned bill should be signed into law, a City who
requires the dedication of.parkland for tentative map development
would be required to increase the density on the remaining portions.
It should be noted that the City of Saratoga does not require the
dedication of parkland but rather the dedication of in lieu fees.
Under the current law, a City through the "Quimby Act" is allowed .
to accept either land or fees in the approval process of a tentative
map. The purpose of the "Quimby Act" is to off set the impact of
a new development on the adjacent parks in the area by requiring
monies or new parklands. The City of Saratoga generally accepts the
in -lieu fees versus the parklands. These monies are then use to
develop:parks that the City currently ownes.
The League of California Cities points out some very interesting
reasons for objecting the Bill to include: '
1. The lot sizes, the house sizes and the density of a
particular area will vary depending on whether or not
there is a parkside on the original parcel that was sub-
divided.
2. The houses right next to each other could be built according
to different densities and different sizes.
3. A property owner who dedicates land for parkspace is
exempt from the in -lieu fees which other developers are
required to pay if they do not have sufficient area to
develop a park.
y R
t.
CITY of SAR,ATOO GA
REPORT TO MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
AND
-7
DATE: 2/3/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 2/17/.82
SUBJECT: SB -109 3, Petris (Mandatory Density Bonus fore Parkland
Dedication)
S3 --1093 would amend the "Quimby Act" to require any city requiring
ucdicatibn of parkland as a condition to approval for a tentative
<a:) to .allow an increased density on the remaining portions of a
�; v3lopment equivalent to the number of dwelling'.units that would
:.aye been allowed on the parksite had it not'been required to be
r`or"icated.(L4gislative Bulletin, League of California Cities,
,- 7- Anuary 22, 1982) .
if the above mentioned bill shbold be signed into law, -a, City who
recui. -es the dedication of parkland for tentative map development
would be required to increase the density on the remaining portions,
i.t should be noted that the -City of Saratoga does not require the
cedication of parkland but rather the dedi.catio'n of in lieu fees.
Un.`.ier the current law, a City through. the "Quimby Act" is allowed
to accept - .either land or fees in the approval process of a tentative
.raj . The ptirppse of the "Quimby ;�Ct" is to off set the impact of
a new development on the adjacent parks in the area by requiring
?:lonies or landgarklands. The City of Saratoga -generally accepts the
impAe4au fees veteus the .parklands. These mQn1es are then use to
cievelopepa:rks that the City current ** ownea.
`2i4e League of California .Cities pibi,nts out some very interesting
reasons for objecting the Bill to include:.
1. The lot sizes, the mouse sizes rind the-densty of a
particular area wil;ll,vary depending on whether .or riot.
there is a. park,side on the original parcel that was sub-
divided;
2. The houses right, next to each othee would by built aocording
to different densi,ttes. and different sizes.
3, A.Aproperty owner w1jo dedicates land for parkspaoe is
exempt from the in -lieu fees which other clevelopers are
regtzlr_ed to pay if they do not leave suLfieient area to
develop a park.
SB -1093, Petris
February 3, 1982
Page 2
Staff is recommending that the City Council go on record by
Minute Resolution or letter opposing SB -1093 for reasons stated
by the League of California Cities and that this is just another
action of which the State is getting involved with local government
in determining land use regulations.
SB -1093 was approved by the Senate Committee on Local Government
and now goes directly to the floor, bypassing the Senate Finance
Committee.
Staff has attached the League comments as well as a copy of the
Senate Bill 1093.
t44uao�' 11
S.1 Robinson, Jr
ire ctor of Planni . g & Policy Analysis
RSR /mgr
Attachments
�sEr
r } ■EM■■
MEOW
■Ert
California Cities Work Together
League of California Cities
1400 K Street • Sacramento 95814 • (916) 444 -5790 P
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 600 • Washington, D.C. 2011626 -3108
,14 Ai FO
p�ryN /NC
. J ,98 pC� x 982
Cy
January 22, 1982 'NZ y%
To: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks in Non- Manager Cities
(Internal Distribution Please: Council Members and All
Department Heads)
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Tort Liability. Elimination of Joint and Several Liability. SB 500
(Beverly) - SB 1336 (Davis)
2. Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing for Multi- Family Rental Housing.
AB 665 (Hughes)
3. State Budget Reductions. SB 1326 (Alquist) - AB 2360 (Vasconcellos)
4. Mandatory Density Bonus For Parkland Dedication. SB 1093 (Petris)
5. Garbage Collection Franchises. Expansion of Grandfather Clause For
Existing Businesses. SB 1253 (Dills)
6. Conversion of Existing Community Apartment Projects to Condominium
Status. SB 1108 (Speraw)
7. Enterprise Zones. AB 416 (Nolan)
8. Changed Status of Bills Previously Reported.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
9. Peace Officer Licensing. P.O.S.T. Invites Comments For January 28,
1982 Meeting in San Diego.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
_f�+
I ?) t1 C •-%?)
5 tw v2
1. SUPPORT Tort Liability. Elimination of Joint and Several Liability.
SB 500 (Beverly) - SB 1336 (Davis). Under the present so- called
joint and several liability rule a city which is found to be responsible for as
little as 1 or 2% of a plaintiff's injury can be made responsible for 100% of
the damages if the other defendants do not have adequate funds to pay for the
loss. Two pieces of legislation seek to address this concern by limiting the
recovery against the city to that percentage of the injury that the city was re-
sponsible for. SB 500 (Beverly) would modify this rule in all cases as to the
portion of the damages above and beyond the medical expenses and other actual
out -of- pocket costs. Under this bill those so- called pain and suffering or non-
economic losses could only be recovered from a defendant for that percentage of
the injury which that defendant was held responsible for so long as the defen-
dant was not responsible for more than 40% of the total injuries.
SB 500 was approved this week by the Senate Committee on Judiciary and is now
pending on the Senate floor. Committee members voting in favor of the legislation
were: Senators Beverly, Davis, Doolittle, Marks and Roberti. Senators Perris,
Rains, and Sieroty voted against the measure. Senator Presley was riot presciC-.
at the time the bill was considered.
Just introduced.-is SB 1336 (Davis) which only applies to government agencies
and completely eliminates the joint and several liability rule. The main reason
for introducing this bill in addition to SB 500 is that there is a feeling thaL
many legislators, while dot wanting to completely eliminate the rule for pri-
vate entities, may feel that government agencies should no longer be viewed as
"a deep pocket" and should be protected against unreasonable claims for damages.
Strong letters of support for both SB 500 and SB 1336 should be sent to all
members of the Senate. These letters should point out examples of cases that
cities have been involved in where the city either believed it was not liable
and settled the case because of fear of a significant judgment against it or
where the city actually had to pay a large amount of damages where the city re-
sponsibility for the incident was relatively minor. In addition, letters cf
appreciation should be sent to those members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
who voted for SB 500 and also urging their support for SB 1336 which will be
heard by that same Committee in February or March.
2. SUPPORT Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing For Multi- Family Rental Housing.
AB 665 (Hughes) authorizes cities and counties to undertake mort-
gage revenue bond financing for multi - family rental housing up to a statewide
limit of $900 million annually. Twenty percent of the units to be financed must
be for occupancy on a priority basis by lower income households at affordable
rents. Up to 10% of .a bond issue may be used to develop commercial property for
.lease on the same or adjacent site to the multiple family rental housing develop-
ment. AB 665 will be up for final consideration by the Assembly and Senate in
the very near future in the form of a joint Conference Committee report, adding
an urgency provision to the bill (to make the legislation effective immediately
rather than taking effect on January 1, 1983). With the addition of the urgency
provision, the bill will require a two - thirds majority. Interested cities s'ioild
contact their Assembly and Senate members at once.
3. State Budget Reductions. SB 1326 (Alquist) - AB 2360 (Vasconcellos). Explanation
of Vehicle License Fee Reduction. In last week's Legislative Bulletin (January
15), it was indicated that cities would be reduced by $250 million in the VLF
or $14.11 per capita. By way of further explanation, if no legislative cut-
back were enacted with respect to the vehicle license fee for 1982 -83, cities
would then receive statewide about $370 million or $20.88 /capita. The Governor
proposes a reduction in the VLF fund for cities of $250 million or $14.11 /capita,
leaving $110 million to be distributed to cities on the basis of population
($6.77 /capita).
Following the League Board of Directors meeting this week, a complete analysis
of the proposed budget and the League's response and counter proposal will be
distributed to all cities.
4. OPPOSE Mandatory Density Bonus For Parkland Dedication. SB 1093 (Petris).
SB 1093 amends the "Quimby Act" to require that any city or county
requiring dedication of parkland as a condition to approval of a tentative sub-
division map must allow increased density on the remaining portion of a develop-
ment equivalent to the number of dwelling units that would have been allowed on
the parksite had it not been required to be dedicated. The argument used in
favor of the bill is that this just ensures the property owner will be allowed
to build the same number of units as he thought he would have been able to build
by looking at the zoning. This, obviously, ignores the fact that when cities
- 2 - 1/22/82
set their densities for residential development in their general plans or in
community plans they usually indicate the amount of parkland which will be re-
quired in the area. The number of housing units that could be built thus al-
ready reflects the fact that some of the land will be used for parksites rath,-ij
than residential development. There is seldom merit to the claim that a park-
land dedication reduces the density below that originally contemplated in the
zoning and general plan.
SB 1093 was approved by the Senate Committee on Local Government and now goes
directly to the floor, bypassing the Senate Finance Committee. The bill would
have to go to the Senate Finance Committee if it were a state - mandated program.
The bill is not recognized as a state mandate because no local government has to
enact a Quimby Act ordinance. However, jurisdictions which already have a
Quimby Act ordinance would either have to abandon use of the Quimby Act if they
didn't want to make the density bonus, or would have to amend their Quimby Act
ordinance to take into account the density bonus and then make any other changes
in their land use regulations necessary to accommodate the additional densities.
In addition to these points, letters of opposition should point out that, under
the bill, the lot sizes, house sizes and densities in a particular neighborhood
will vary depending upon whether or not there is a parksite on the original parcel
that was subdivided. Houses right next to each other could be built according
to different densities and different size lots. In addition, a property owner
who dedicates land for park space is exempt from the in lieu fees which other
developers are required to pay. Letters of opposition should be sent to all mem-
bers of the Senate.
5. REVIEW Garbage Collection Franchises. Expansion of Grandfather Clause For
.AND Existing Businesses. SB 1253 (Dills). Under existing law enacted
COMMENT in 1976, AB 1938 (Knox), whenever a city proposes to establish an
exclusive franchise for garbage collection, any existing companies
providing service in the area which have received a permit, franchise or contract
from the city (or from the county if the land was just annexed to the city) are
entitled to remain in business for an additional five years (or the period of
the franchise or contract whichever is less) notwithstanding the fact that the
city has now proposed exclusive franchise operations in the area.
SB 1253 extends the same five year continued operations grandfather clause for
existing operators to those which simply had a business license from a city or
county and did not have a franchise, contract or permit.
Cities contemplating the issuance of an exclusive franchise for garbage collection
for commercial or residential property for any or all parts of the city, or which
have an existing franchise and may include areas about to be annexed, should
review this legislation to determine its impact. Letters should be sent to
the League's Sacramento office specifying what problems, if any, this legislation
would cause for garbage collection activities. SB 1253 has been approved by the
Senate Committee on Local Government. It is an urgency measure now pending on
the Senate floor but could be acted upon next month in the Assembly.
6. COMMENTS Conversion of Existing Community Apartment Projects to Condominium
Status. SB 1108 (Speraw) was amended by the author in the Senate
INVITED Committee on Local Government on January 20 to allow conversion
of community apartment projects (a form of ownership where tenancy
in common is held in the land and structures,.oSection 11004 of the Business and
Professions Code) without having to go through Subdivision Map Act procedures.
The author stated his intent was to allow existing community apartment projects
in Long Beach, which are owned primarily by seniors, to change the form of their
- 3 - 1/22/82
grant deed from a community apartment to a condominium without going through
the full process under the Map Act. The community apartment type of ownership
apparently is more difficult to finance or refinance than the condominium type.
SB 1108 was passed out of the Local Government Committee and must be approved
by the Senate before the January 29 deadline for 1981 bills to continue in the
legislative process.
7. INFORMATION Enterprise Zones. AB 416 (Nolan). Several bills were introduced
early in 1981 in anticipation of enactment of federal enterprise
zone legislation. AB 416 was the only enterprise zone bill passed out by the
Assembly Committee on Economic Development and Planning and it failed passage
in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. The Ways. and Means Committee did agree
to recommend a rule waiver to Assembly Rules in order that a bill on the same
subject could be introduced by Assemblyman Nolan later in this session. The ob-
jective of the author is to have enabling and supplementing legislation in place
to facilitate implementation of the federal legislation when and if enacted. The
President is scheduled to announce the particulars of the Administration enter -
rise zone proposal the week of January 25.
AB 416 authorizes any city or county (and the State Department of Economic and
Business Development where required by federal criteria) to designate a distressed
area within its jurisdiction an enterprise zone. The objective of the proposed
state and federal legislation would be to generate economic renewal and employ-
ment in designated enterprise zones using a combination of tax incentives and de-
regulation measures. Indications are that the Administration proposal anticipates
designation of twenty -five zones nationally in the first year of the program on
some sort of competition basis.
8. Changed Status of Bills Previously Reported. (a) Overhead Charges For County
Contracts With Cities. AB 1743 (Vicencia) gained approval for reconsideration
and will be voted upon by the Senate Committee on Local Government within the
next several weeks. (b) Sales of Fireworks. SB 999 (Campbell). The bill
which prohibits cities from banning fireworks sales, is still on the Senate
Unfinished Business File, awaiting either its final vote before .going to the
Governor or reference to a Senate policy committee. It is important.that in-
terested cities keep up an active lobbying campaign with their legislators and
the media. (c) Accelerated Payments of State Withholding Payments by Employees.
AB 6X (Robinson) has,been adopted and signed by the Governor, thereby increasing
state revenues in the current year to help balance the 1981 -82 budget. AB 6X
applies to nearly all employers, including local government and schools.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
9. COMMENTS Peace Officer Licensing, P.O.S.T. Invites Comments For January 28,
1982 Meeting in San Diego. In a widely circulated bulletin issued
INVITED December 22, 1981, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training offered these comments and invited city comment:
"During October of 1980, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST), along with the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
and the California Peace Officers Association (CPOA), sponsored a Symposium on
Professional Issues in Law Enforcement. The participants numbered over 100 and
included police executives, managers, rank - and -file officers, trainers, and vari-
ous other interested parties. At the conclusion of this three -day conference,
the issues which were of most interest to law enforcement were reduced to writing,
with a recommendation that several task forces be formed to address these sub-
jects in.greater detail. The issue of peace officer licensing was one area
- 4 - 1/22/82
selected to be addressed by a task force.
"In the year that has passed since the Symposium, the Licensing Task Force, made
up of representatives of CPOA, PORAC, and POST has met frequently to discuss
pertinent issues surrounding the licensing of peace officers, and to develop
an initial draft of proposed legislation. The idea of licensing was reviewed
in concept and approved by the Commission at its July 1981 meeting with the under-
standing that more work would have to be done before final legislation is con-
sidered.
"At its October 1981 meeting, the Commission directed its Legislative Review Com-
mittee to study the entire matter of peace officer licensing in more depth, and
report back at the January 1982 Commission meeting. It is anticipated that a
general discussion on the issue will follow the Legislative Committee's report.
This discussion will center on the concept of peace officer licensing, and was
not to include consideration of any proposed legislation.
"The issue of peace officer licensing is one that has been around for many years.
The last attempt at enacting licensing legislation was in 1978 with the intro-
duction of SB 1927. To date these efforts for a comprehensive licensing bill
have not been successful, for a variety of reasons. However, elements of licensing
(e.g., requiring POST to cancel certificates in felony conviction cases, and to
establish minimum standards for vision, hearing, emotional stability and physical
stability), have separately and piecemeal cleared the Legislature and been signed
into law.
"Because of the controversial nature of this subject, the Commission has moved
very carefully while exploring the issues surrounding peace officer licensing.
This is the reason the matter has been scheduled for public discussion at the
January 1982 meeting. The Commission prides itself on being attuned to the
needs and desires of the field and, in keeping with this, will reserve final action
on the licensing issue until after your comments have been heard."
Telephone Hot Line: For bill status call (916) 444 -5790 and ask for the
Telephone Hot Line.
- 5 - 1/22/82
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 12, 1981
0 SENATE BILL No. 1093
RECEIVED
Introduced by Senator Petfif 8 - 1 1982
• RLA"Id6 POLICY ANALYSIS
March 31, 1981
An act to amend Section 529-1 4 the Cede of Gird
Pr-eeedtt -e7 ~wig to eenstruetieft pr-ajeets. 66477 of the
Government Code, relating to subdivisions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1093, as amended, Petris. Genstruetieft prejeets!
Subdivisions: dedications for parks or
• recreation.
Emisting lam preN,ides that f apply to the
eourt b�, netieed tnetien f" an order- requiring the plainti€€ to
ash a written as seetrrity for eests and
damages that be ineurred 43,y the defendant ifr any aetien
• ift whieh the eettrt has gr -anted aft mien sought by a
plaintiff€ to enjein a eenstrueti prejeet whieh hfas reeved
all legally wed heenses and perffiit.
his bill wetrld extend the abeN,e pre-vision to ale
t_- ttetieft 4 „ „t..uetieft pig as speei ied.
����� ��
The existing law authorizes a local agency, by ordinance, to
require dedication of land, or payment of fees in lieu thereof,
or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as
•a condition to the approval ofa final subdivision or parcel map
provided certain general conditions exist.
This bill would, in addition, require that the ordinance
provide for an increase in the overall density of the
subdivision equal to the number of residential units that
would have been allowed on the portion of land dediLcated to
• the local agency.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State - mandated local program: no.
98 40
SB 1093
—2—
The people of the State of California do enact as follows: •
1
SEGTION 4-. Section 5294 of the GE)de a€ Girl
2
SECTION 1. Section 66477 of the Government Code
3
is amended to read.-
4
66477. The legislative body of a city or county may, by
5
ordinance, require the dedication of land, the payment of
•
6
fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or
7
recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a
8
final map or parcel map, provided that:
9
(a) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30
10
days prior to the filing of the tentative map of the
11
subdivision or parcel map.
12
(b) The ordinance includes definite standards for
13
determining the proportion of a subdivision, to be
14
dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu
15
thereof.
16
(c) The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be
17
used only for the purpose of providing park or
18
recreational facilities to serve the subdivision.
•
19
(d) The legislative body has adopted a general plan
20
containing a recreational element, and the park and
21
recreational facilities are in accordance with definite
22
principles and standards contained therein.
•
23
(e) The amount and location of land to be dedicated
24
or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship
25
to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the
26
future inhabitants of the subdivision.
27
(f) The city or county shall develop a schedule
28
specifying how and when it will use the land or fees or
29
both to develop park or recreational facilities. Any fees
30
collected under the ordinance shall be committed within
31
five years after the payment of such fees or the issuance
•
32
of building permits on one -half of the lots created by the
33
subdivision, whichever occurs later. If such fees are not
34
committed, they shall be distributed and paid to the then
35
record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion
36
that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots
37
within the subdivision.
•
38
(g) Only the payment of fees may be required in
98 52
-3— SB 1093
• 1 subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less.
2 (h) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and
3 not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from
4 the requirements of this section; provided however, that
5 a condition may be placed on the approval of such parcel
•6 map that if a building permit is requested for
7 construction of a residential structure or structures on
8 one or more of the parcels within four years the fee may
9 be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel
10 as a condition to the issuance of such permit.
11 (i) The ordinance provides for an increase in the
12 overall density of the subdivision equal to the number of
13 residential units that would have been allowed on the
14 dedicated portion of the subdivision.
15 Land or fees required under this section shall be
16 conveyed or paid directly to the local public agency
17 which provides park and recreational services on a
18 communitywide level and to the area within which the
•19 proposed development will be located, if such agency
20 elects to accept the land or fee. The local agency
21 accepting such land or funds shall develop the land or use
22 the funds in the manner provided herein.
23 In the event park and recreational services and
•24 facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city
25 or a county, the amount and location of land to be
26 dedicated or fees to be paid shall be jointly determined
27 by the city or county having jurisdiction and such public
28 agency.
29 The provisions of this section do not apply to industrial
30 subdivisions; nor do they apply to condominium projects
31 or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of
•32 airspace in an existing apartment building which is more
33 than five years old when no new dwelling units are
34 added, nor do they apply to parcel maps for a subdivision
35 containing less than five parcels for a shopping center
36 containing more than 300,000 square feet of gross leasable
37 area and no residential development or uses.
38 Park and recreation purposes shall include land and
•39 facilities for the activity of "recreational community
40 gardening," which activity consists of the cultivation by
98 55
SB
1093 —4—
•
1
persons other than, or in addition to, the owner of such
2
land, of plant material not for sale.
3
Pr-eeeditr-e is amended to Leah-
4
5291. sin the eatr t has an
5
injuttetion ` plijittt , ocher than the stake; a
6
eatinty, a ffittttieipal earperatior eTr ether pt�ie ageney,
7
to enjein a �....�.,,_....etie.., pfejeet 4 aity 4ftge of the
•
8
9
prejeet, ineluding htrt net hffi4ed to the
if ,ate
stages the has subffiAted an appliefttien fef-
10
tentative ffiftp appy-e-val er affiettdffie to
11
the eeffiffittRity pmt e - has taken speei€ie aetien f elettive
12
to ehanging the appheahle genera} pmt e - �eeiog
13
_dinaf ees, tie de€ei to the eeerl �
14
rretieed otetion fer an girder rec iog the plainti€€ to
15
fttrftish a "'r-it as seetiffit}� for eests attd an-y
16
datftages that ffifty he ineur-fed by the defendant h-y the
17
eenelusien of the aetien er preeeeding. as the restdt of a
18
dew ift the eettstruetieft of the pr-ejeet. Pre tnetien shah
19
he trade en the gy-eunds that there is tie reasenahie
20
possibility that the platntif€ a went agatst
•
21
the ffievittg defeat and that the pjaintif€ wj4 net
22
sufier- utt4te eeenet rie hardship by fihog the
'
23
24
if the eaurt, after hearing, deter ffii es that the grounds
•
25
fer the tnetion hak-e been established-, the eettrt shah
26
order that the plaiftti f€ file the io an attetint
27
speeified io the eettr-t's —der as seetrrity for eests artd
28
damages of the ae endan Pie liability of the plaintiff
29
Pursuant to this seetien few the eests and damages of the
30
defendant shah fret emeeed fi-ve hundr -ed thettsand
31
debars ($5500,00A).
32
At aetiett art the undertakiffg previded by this seetion
33
shah be hrettght ifr the sarne manner as fer an
34
etade ptirstrant to Seetien 529-.
35
As used in this selection- a eanstruet - prey
36
htrt is net restrieted to, the str eti
37
design, r
38
39
ffiftintenattee-, te er deffialitien of ,
highwaY, fead, par-leiitg faeihty, hridge,
•
40
pier er deed ex er ethef de - l
98 60
-5— S 1093
• 1 e - ethef ' to feat of may- The
2 Offiee of Wafiftifig twA Resear-eh 4iftR f eview
3 epefatiee e €n a tie r�er rrt
4 the by, jaftttaf:y 4; 1985.
•
0
0
•
•
0
98 60
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: 2/11/82 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: City Manager C. Mgr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------'---------------
SUBJEC'I': RESOLUTION REVISING SALARY CHANGES, PERSONNEL POLICY AND FRINGE BENEFITS FOR
THE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND
RESOLUTION-AUTHORIZING-APPROPRIATION- OF FUND RESERVES FOR THIS PURPOSE
Issue Summary
The annual review and adjustments of salaries and benefits for department head and "middle
management" positions, as established by City policy, was delayed from August 1981 to
January 1982. The City Council, under City policy and in accord with State law, has
authorized changes and modifications in salaries and benefits. These adjustments
now must be ratified by resolution of the City Council.
Recommendation
Adopt the resolution amending salaries and benefits for management positions and making
appropriations therefor from the General Fund reserve set aside for this purpose.
Fiscal Impacts
The adjustments authorized require an appropriation of $19,797 for the current fiscal
year from reserves set aside for this purpose. This appropriation represents an increase
of 8.9% over the annual costs of salaries and benefits previously authorized for the
positions affected.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution to revise salaries and benefits
2. Resolution to appropriate monies from the Fund Reserve set aside for this purpose.
Council Action
2117: Mallory /Watson moved adoption of Resolution 85 -9.55. Passed 3 -1 (Jensen opposed,
Callon absent).
Mallory /Watson moved adoption of Resolution 1058. Passed 3 -1 (Jensen opposed,
Callon absent).
"s
l4 t
gy�•4ayy`��!? -b hstic„'t'.pa,n'i? a:. s-a i...�„�'r rs.. x's
RESOLUTION 85 -9.
_ ._:-.._. _... _ ....
A RESOLUTION AMLNDING RESOLUTION NUMBERS
35 -9.51, 35 -9.43, and 85 -9, AS AMENDED,
REVISING SALARY CHANGES, PERSONNEL POLICY
AND FRINGE BENEFITS FAR THE MANAGEMENT
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
The City Council of tine City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section 1: Section 1 of Resolution 85 -9.51 is amended as follows:
Compensation Schedule
The compensation schedule Drovides for the rates of compensation
to be paid the different management positions in the City of
Saratoga:
a. Department Fleads
of ctive September 1, 1981, the following Department Head
positions are assigned to the following monthly pay rates.
Community Development Director $3,514
Maintenance Services Director 2,999
Finance Director 2,917
•... ..
Planning Director 2,802
_
Administrative Services Director/
Deputy City Manager 2,775
b. Middle Management
rt_
E ective September 1, 1981, the following middle management
positions are assigned to the following monthly pay rates.
Assistant Director Maintenance Services $2,959
" :Y„ - •.
Senior Insnector 2,596
Associate Planner 2,517
Community Center Director/
Management Assistant 2,105
Section 2: Section 3 of Resolution No. 85 -9.51 is amended as follows:
Section 1.8: Car Allowance
fectivh January 1, 1982, a City contribution of $125 Der month
for each Department Head and $75 per month for each middle
manager is hereby authorized as a car allowance. This benefit
is to take the place of mileage reimbursement.
Section 3: Section 2 of Resolutuion Rio. 85 -9.43 is amended as
follows:
Section 1.8: Fringe Benefits
A City contribution o 5 per month toward the monthly
premium for a medical and hospital plan, life and accidental
death and dismemberment insurance, and dependent coverage, dental
program, and other City- sanctioned insurance Dlans available
through payroll deduction for each management employee is auth-
orized. If the total cost of the above - mentioned premiums is
less than the $215 per month, the balance may be added to the
individual's monthly salary.
"s
l4 t
gy�•4ayy`��!? -b hstic„'t'.pa,n'i? a:. s-a i...�„�'r rs.. x's
�.. =�.
c vi r x
Section 4: Terms
This Resolution embodies all modifications to salaries and
employee benefits and other terms and conditions of employment
for the period of Januar7 1, 1982 - September 1,, 1982, unless
further amended by Resolution of the City Council of Saratoga.
Section 5: Applicability
This sections amends Resolution No. 85 -9.51 and 85 -9 of the City
of Saratoga. This resolution is an expression of existing policy
of the City of Saratoga and is subject to modification and
change by the City Council from time to time. Nothing., herein
contained shall be construed as creating or establishing any of
the provisions hereof as terms of any contract of employment
extending beyond any period other than such period as during
which this resolution is in full force and effect. That is to
say, any employee of the City of Saratoga during the effective
period of this resolution shall have such employment rights and
duties as are set forth therein only during such period of time
as this resolution remains in effect, and not afterward.
t
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the
day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1982, by the following vote.
MAYOR
I /" I*
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF FUND RESERVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ADJUSTING MANAGEMENT SALARIES AND BENEFITS DUPING THE 1981 -82 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, City policies call for the annual review of management salaries
and benefits; and
WHEREAS, during January, 1982, the City Council has reviewed the City Manager's
report and recommendations for adjustments to salaries and benefits; and
WHEREAS, upon deliberation, the City Council has determined that certain
adjustments in salaries and benefits are warranted, as specified by Resolution
No. ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the amount of $19,797.00 be and hereby
is appropriated from the Reserves of the General Fund set aside for this purpose
in the current budget, and the Finance Director is hereby authorized to distribute
this appropriation to the various budget accounts as necessary.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1982, by the following vote: f
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
CITY OF SARATOGA
/'
AGENDA BILL NO. oZ
DATE: February 11, 1982
DEpARTM=: City Manager
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgr.
SUBJBCr. Ordinance Establishing a Service Charge for Response to False
Police Alarms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Stunnary
Rising concern over the incidence of burglary and similar crimes in our society,
combined with technological advances and growing affluence have resulted in a
rapid increase in the number of home burglar and intrusion alarm systems.
These systems are not foolproof and often result in producing a false alarm
if not properly installed, maintained or operated. Police response to false
alarms has become a serious problem and a growing cost for Saratoga. Some
systems, by their nature, can result in nuisances for the public to bear or
could result in jamming Sheriff's communication equipment under certain circum-
stances. The proposed ordinance would regulate these systems to reduce or
eliminate problems associated with these systems and establish a service charge
for the partial recovery of the cost of responding to avoidable false alarms.
Recommended Action
Proceed to adopt the proposed draft ordinance attached. Consider the amount
of service charge to be established and direct staff to prepare the necessary
resolution.
Fiscal Impacts
The cost of responding to avoidable false alarms in the current fiscal year is
estimated at over $49,000. The City of Saratoga will be charged this amount
under our contract for Sheriff's services. The service charges as proposed
would allow for the partial recovery of these costs. The amount of recovery
depends upon the frequency of repeat offenders, the rate of service charge
set, and the added cost of assessment and collection. More than 50% recovery
is expected at the rate of $35 per second and each subsequent offense.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Report from City Manager, February 11, 1982
2. Proposed Ordinance.
Council Action
2117: Jensen /Mallory moved to read by title only and introduce. Passed 4 -0. (Callon absent).
Jensen /Mallory moved to amend by charging a fee for all alarms. Passed 3 -1 (Watson
opposed, Callon absent.)
3/3: Clevenger /Mallory moved to read by title, waiving further reading. Passed 5 -0.
Mallory /Clevenger moved to adopt Ord. 38.105. Passed 3 -2 (Callon, Watson opposed).
: 1 E .Nil O R- 1i D t l ail.
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
097ff o:T O&UMEWOO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
SUBJECT: An Ordinance to Establish a Service Charge for
Response to False Police Alarms
DATE: February 11, 1982
The proposed ordinance is modeled after similar ordinances already
adopted by Santa Clara County and neighboring cities. The ordinance
regulates the operation of police alarm systems and establishes a
service charge for a false alarm.
As the ordinance is drafted, the service charge for false police alarms
would be assessed upon the second occurrence of a false alarm within atone
year period. The amount of the service charge is set by the Council under
a separate resolution; the amount of $35.00 is recommended. An appeal pro-
cedure is provided for those who are dissatisfied with the imposition of
the service charge. In addition, the ordinance would require that:
- owners of alarm systems notify the Sheriff's Office of the companies
servicing the systems;
- for outside audible alarm systems, visibly post information on who
should be contacted for 24 hour service; and
- to connect alarm systems with pre - recorded messages by automatic
dialers to primary telephone trunks of the Sheriff's Office.
There is definite need for regulation of alarm systems in the manner pro-
posed, and the establishment of a service charge for false police alarms.
Records show that the number of unsubstantiated police alarms in Saratoga
increased by 8% from 1980 to 1981. A total of 1,593 such alarms were,
received in 1981, requiring a total commitment of 521 hours of sheriff's
response time. The rate of increase in 1982 has jumped to 18% over the
first six months. Based on this experience, we project a total of•600
hours of response time will be expended this year, for which the City of
Saratoga will be charged over $49,000.
We believe the number of alarm systems being installed will continue to
rise and, along with that growth, the frequency and cost of responding to
false alarms will increase. Most false alarms are preventable with proper
installation, operation and maintenance. The cost of responding to false
2 -11 -s2
Memo
alarms, therefore, is avoidable and should not be borne by the general
public.
The need for regulating the operation of alarm systems in the manner
proposed is also established. Alarms emitting audible tones, by their
very nature, are disturbing to the public. False audible alarms can
occur when the owners are not at home. Providing information to the
public on who should be called to quiet the alarm in such instances is
basic. Likewise, providing information to the Sheriff regarding service
companies and prohibiting automatic dialers with pre - recorded messages is
essential. Sonic booms, earthquakes and other occurrences on a wide scale
can trigger numerous alarms which, if so equipped, would completely tie
up needed communication capacity. Other methods for sounding alarms that
avoid this problem are available and should be used.
The service fee, as proposed, would not result in full cost recovery
because first offenders would not be charged. The fee, however, would
recover a substantial portion of the cost since most false alarms are repeat
offenders. The imposition of a service charge may also tend to reduce the
occurrence of false alarms and thereby reduce the cost of response.
There will be an added expense to the City for mailing notices and assess-
ments to false alarm offenders, however, this cost should be relatively
minor in relation to the recovery of police costs through the service charges.
WD /df
. •
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 38.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING A NEW
ARTICLE II TO CHAPTER 10 OF THE SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE,
REGULATING THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND
MISUSE OF POLICE ALARM SYSTEMS AND DEVICES,
AND IMPOSING A SERVICE CHARGE FOR THE MISUSE THEREOF.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA does ordain as
follows:
Section 1: Article II is hereby added to Chapter 10 of
the Saratoga City Code, to read as follows: I.
ARTICLE TI'. REGULATION OF POLICE ALARM (BURGLAR ALARM)_
SYSTEMS AND DEVICES.
Sec. 10.31. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to
set forth regulations governing police alarm systems and devices
used within the City of Saratoga, and to establish service charges
to be-assessed in the event of repeated false alarms.
i l
Sec. 10.32. Definitions. For the purpose of this
article, certain words and phrases shall be construed herein
as set forth in this section, unless it is apparent from the
context that a different meaning is intended.
A. False Alarm. False alarm means a police alarm system
activated through inadvertence, negligence, or malfunction of any
segment of the alarm system, to which personnel of the police
service serving the.City of Saratoga must respond, in circumstances
where no police emergency as herein defined exists.
B. Notice. Notice means written notice, given by
personal service to the addressee, or given by the United States
mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the person to be notified
at his last known address. Service of such notice shall be
effective upon the completion of personal service, or upon the
placing of said notice into the custody of the United States
Postal Service.
C. Premises. Premises shall be those buildings, struc-
tures, vehicles or other facilities to be protected by a police
alarm system, and shall not include smaller or discrete subdi-
visions within such buildings, structures or facilities.
D. Police Alarm System. Police alarm system means any
mechanical or electrical device which is designated or used for
the detection or warning of unauthorized entry into a building,
structure, or facility, or for alerting others of the commission
of an unlawful act within a building, structure, or facility,
or both, and which emits a sound or transmits a signal or message
when actuated. Alarm Systems include but are not limited to
direct -dial telephone devices, audible alarms, and proprietor
alarms. Devices which are not designated or used to register
alarms perceptible from outside of the protected building,
structure, or facility are excluded from this definition, as
are auxiliary devices installed to protect the telephone system
from damage or disruption by the use of an alarm system.
-1-
•
E. Police Emergency. Police emergency means the un-
authorized violent breaking, and /or entering, damaging or
burglary of a building, structure, vehicle, or other facility,
or the commission of a violent act likely to produce immediate
bodily harm, or an attempt or serious threat of any of the
acts described herein.
F. Owner. Owner means the person actually responsible
for the operations and maintenance of the premises in which the
police alarm system is installed or located. owner includes
but is not limited to lessees, tenants, or other agents of the
legal owner. of said premises, provided that such agents had
actual control of and responsibility for the operations of
the premises at the time of any false alarm. s
Sec. 10 -.33. Reporting Service Information. Each person
owning or operating an alarm system within the city limits of
the City of Saratoga shall file an information card with the
Office of the Sheriff, Santa Clara County, containing that
person's name, address, and telephone number, as well as the
name, address and telephone number of a person or persons who
can render service to the alarm within one hour after being
called at any hour of the day or night.
Sec. 10.34. Outside Audible Alarm Requirements'. Every
person maintaining an outside audible alarm shall post a notice •
containing the names and telephone numbers of the persons to
be notified in order to render repairs and service or secure
the premises during any hour of the day or night in the event
that the alarm is actuated. Such notice shall be posted near
the alarm in such a position as to be legible from the ground
level adjacent to the building where the alarm is located.
The wording "police alarm - call Santa Clara County Sheriff's
Department" shall be placed on the gong covers or immediately
below such alarm device.. It shall be unlawful to install or
use a police alarm system which upon activation emits a sound
similar to sirens in use on public emergency vehicles or for
public disaster warning purposes. All local exterior bell,
gongs, or other noise making devices or pulsating lights shall
have a timing device that will•silence or turn off such devices
or lights within 5 minutes following initial activation.
Sec. 10.35. Automatic Telephone Connections to Communi-
cations Center Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person
to use, cause to be used, or engage in the business of providing,
any telephone device or attachment which automatically selects
a public primary telephone trunk line of the Santa Clara County
communications center, and then emits a prerecorded message,
for the purpose of reporting any police emercency, fire, or
other emergency.
Sec. 10.36. Exemptions. The provisions of this article,
with the exception of Section 10.35, shall not apply to alarm
systems affixed to motor vehicles.
Sec. 10.37. Investigation of False Alarms. One of
the law enforcement officers responding to each emergency alarm
as defined herein shall attempt to ascertain by investigation
whether said alarm was activated with reasonable cause therefor
or was a "false alarm" within the meaning of Section 10.32 above. _
In the ev�??t���hat his investigation indicates to the investigating •
officer su.— -he alarm was a false alarm, said officer shall
forward a report of his investigation to the Code Enforce:i�ont
Officer of the City of Saratoga or such other person as may be
designated by the City Manager, stating his conclusions and
factual basis for such conclusions.
-2-
Delete, per motion
amend the ordinance
introduction pass
(2/.17/82).
F t` r-2 QeTe €lied �n Sest�en lA 37 abene, th- coax - €ei�ee
t0 premises- on- wtrieh— the - alarm - system- �ra�tea. --
on farm -bias made °- ,
and- -t-h-at ste s- shoula b rake^ b * _--•,a,,t
passed
0
3-1 p i3e -owner -= k - _ - - fu- t-tj-re--
€a- Isle- a -}$rm± .tea ^^~'^° -16 ll sta,te that in the yei;t
-ef a second false alarm aEEtirr r g-eR- the- pFerfrises -ir.- ame
caleadaf Year aG - fi a-, a ° °r ' a charge Shall--- be a os ed
Sec. 10.38. False Alarm Service Charae. There is
hereby imposed a service charge upon every owner o€ every
building, structure or other premises on or in which a police
alarm system is located, who reports, causes to be, or permits
to be reported, any.false alarm as defined in this chapter.
Said service charge shall be in an amount fixed by resolution
of the City Council, which is determined to reasonably reflect
the costs to the City of responding to each such false alarm.
Said charges shall bear interest at the legal rate from the
date thirty (30) days following confirmation by the City Council.
( Sec. 10..39. Assessment of Service Charge. The Code
Enforcement Officer shall enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Upon receipt by said enforcement officer of a report of a false .
alarm originating from premises to which was sent a notice as
described in Section 10.38 above, he shall cause a notice of
assessment of the above - described service charge to be sent
to the owner, which notice shall describe the date and time
of the alleged false alarm, and whether police personnel
responded thereto. Said notice shall further require payment
of said service charge within thirty (30) days following receipt,
and shall indicate the existence and terms of the hearing pro-
visions contained in this chapter.
Sec. 10.40. Payment and Hearinq. On or before thirty (30)
days following issuance of the notice and assessment described in
Section 10.40, the recipient of such notice shall cause to be
remitted to the Office of the City Clerk the full amount of
such service charge. Any person dissatisfied with the assess-
ment may attach to such payment a written request for a hearing
regarding the investigation, determination, and assessment of
said service charge.
Sec. 10.4. Hearing. Procedure. Upon receipt of a
request for a hearing, the City Clerk shall forward such request
to the Office of the City Manager. The City Manager shall
schedule such a hearing to be held on a date not more than
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the request, and shall cause
notice of the hearing date, place and time to be mailed to
the person requesting said hearing. The City Council shall
hold the hearing with respect thereto, and, upon consideration
of such evidence as it deems relevant, shall set aside or confirm
said assessment, in whole or in part. In the event that any
portion of said assessment is set aside, a corresponding sum
of money shall be refunded to the person by whom it was paid
to the City.
Sec. 10. 42 Collection of Charges. In the event of
the failure of any.person to pay the charces assessed pursuant
to the provisions of this ordinance, the City may institute an
action in any court of competent jurisdiction to collect any
-3-
C
•
•
charges which may be due and payable in the same manner as any
other debts owing to the City may be collected, in addition
to the remedies and penalties imposed by Sections 1.7 and 1.8
of this Code.
Seca 10.43 Reimbursement for Wilful Conduct. In the
event that any owner or other person shall be convicted of
intentionally reporting a false emergency alarm, as prescribed
by Penal Code §148.4, the enforcement officer designated by
the City Manager is hereby authorized to forward to the office
of the District Attorney, Probation Department, or court having
jurisdiction, a record of any proceeding conducted pursuant
to this article, including a statement of any delinquent service
charges assessed, for the purpose of obtaining restitution of
said amounts to City as an element of any criminal penalty
thereby imposed.
Section 2. Constitutionality. If any section, sub-
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of
the City of Saratoga hereby.declares that, it would have passed
this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause
and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be
held invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its
passage and adoption.
This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
of 1980, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
r
�=' ZSu�K." �,ao�.r,.r�.�c,.�,tl..r�r;�„:�. -gib •,, `';
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT
OF SERVICE CHARGE TO BE IMPOSED FOR RESPONSE TO FALSE POLICE ALARMS
WHEREAS, the number of reported false police alarms has been rising and now
represents a substantial financial burden upon the City, costing an estimated
$49,000 in 1981 -82; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue providing the service of
immediate police response to police alarms but finds that in order to do so
recovery of costs for false alarms must be initiated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also deems it an unfair burden upon the general public
to pay for the cost of responding to avoidable false alarms; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has introduced an ordinance to establish a service
charge for the recovery of costs associated with the response to false police
alarms, which ordinance provides that the amount of the service charge be set
by resolution of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the amount of the service, charge provided
in Section of Ordinance No. shall be 3- per incident.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of 1982,
by the following vote:
AYES:
ING3aC'�
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 1-66
DATE:
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis
Initial:
Dept. Hd. ,
C. At
C. Mg .
SUBJECT: Revision of Ordinance NS 3.44 Re: Open House (Real Estate) signs
----------- ����ni -_pi�i --------------------------
----------------------
Issue Summary The City Council approved NS 3.44 re: offsite real estate
advertising signs in November of 1980. The Ordinance became effective
December 19, 1980.. The Ordinance is before the City Council because of
the one -year sunset clause. There have been no complaints regarding the
Ordinance. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on
Tuesday, November 17 regarding the Ordinance. Staff will make a verbal
presentation regarding the Planning Commission's decision.
Reconmendation 1.
by title only.
2.
Fiscal T
.Lmj2acts None
Exhibits /Attachments
Council Action
Conduct a public hearing and introduce the Ordinance
Conduct a second reading at the December 2, 1981 meeting.
- Proposed Ordinance
- Ordinance NS 3A4
- Planning Commission Staff Report
- Letter from Good Government Group'
-Memo re: Finding /Discussion of Options
- Negative Declaration updated, 11/1/81
- Letter from Miles Rankin
11/18: Introduced for first reading by title only. Sunset clause of two years added.
12/2: Mallory /Jensen moved to waive further reading. Passed 5 -0.
Mallory /Clevenger moved to adopt. Passed 5 -0.
ORDINANCE NS-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ADENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR OPEN HOUSE
SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
L
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain
as follows:
Section 1: Subsection (d) of Section 10.2 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) All signs, outdoor advertising structures,
and displays shall be located on the same site as the use
they identify or advertise, except subdivision directional
signs as prescribed in Section 10.8, public interest signs
as provided in Section 10.10, and open house signs as
provided in Section 10.11.
Section 2: Section 10.11 is hereby added to Ordinance
NS -3 of the City of Saratoga, to read as follows:
Section 10.11. Open House Signs in Residential
Zoning Districts.
Non - illuminated, off -site, protable signs
directing prospective customers to the location of an
open house which is for sale, are permitted in any
residential zoning district, but limited to no more than
two double -faced signs per intersection. No signs shall
be located in bike lanes, sidewalks, median strips or
streets, nor shall such signs be located within 70' -0" of
the right -of -way line of a designated scenic highway. No
sign shall have more than one (1) square foot of area, nor
shall be elevated more than four (4) feet off of the ground,
and each open house sign shall contain no individual or
company advertising. Owner identity shall be affixed to
.the edge of each sign and shall not exceed k" by 2 ".
Signs shall be fixed to a single pole of wood or metal
material. Whenever any such sign is to be placed on
private property, permission must first be obtained from
the owner of such property. Each sign shall be removed
each day after closing of the open house for that day.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases
be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its passage and adoption, and shall
remain in full force and effect for a period of two (2) years
thereafter at which time it shall become null and void.
The above and foregoing Ordinance, after a public hearing
held thereon before the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
on the 77thday of November, 1981 and was thereafter.regularly intro-
duced and a public hearing held thereon on the 18th day of November,
1981 before the City Council and thereafter was passed and adopted
by said City Council on the day of 19_, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ORDINANCE NS -3.44
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR OPEN HOUSE
SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain
as follows:
Section 1: Subsection (d) of Section 10.2.is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) All signs, outdoor advertising structures,
and displays shall be located on the same site as the use
they identify or advertise, except subdivision directional
signs as prescribed in Section 10.8, public interest signs
as provided in Sectiqn 10.10, and open house signs as
provided in Section 10.11.
Section 2: Section 10.11 is hereby added to Ordinance
NS -3 of the City of Saratoga, to read as follows:
Section 10.11. Open House Signs in Residential
Zoning Districts.
Non - illuminated, off -site, protable signs
directing prospective customers to the location of an
open house which is for sale, are permitted in any
residential zoning district, but limited to no more than
two double - faced signs per intersection. No signs shall
be located in bike lanes, sidewalks, median strips or
streets, nor shall such signs be located within 70' -0" of
the right -of -way line of a designated scenic highway. No
sign shall have more than one (1) square foot of area, nor
shall be elevated more than four (4) feet off of the ground,
and each open house sign shall contain no individual or
company advertising. Owner identity shall be affixed to
.the edge of each sign and shall not exceed k" by 2 ".
Signs shall be fixed to a single pole of wood or metal
material. Whenever any such sign is to be placed on
private property, permission must first be obtained from
,the owner of such property. Each sign shall be removed
each day after closing of the open house for that day.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases
be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its passage and adoption, and shall
.,40
12
remain in full force and effect for a period of one (1) year
thereafter at which time it shall become null and void.
The above and foregoing Ordinance, after.a public hearing
held thereon before the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
on the 25th day of June, 1980, and was thereafter regularly intro-
duced and a public hearing held thereon on the 20th day of August,
1980 before. the City Council and thereafter was passed and adopted
by said City Council on the 19th day of November 19 80, by the
following vote:
AYES: councilmembers Mallory and Watson and Mayor Callon
NOES: Councilmembers Clevenger and Jensen
ABSENT: None
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. GF- 326 -1 -A
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION
NS 3.44 REGARDING REAL ESTATE SIGNS FOR RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
-.
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance was initiated by Staff in conjunction with the Saratoga
Los Gatos Board of Realtors in mid 1980 and eventually approved
by the City Council in November of 1980 and became effective in
December of same year, and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance contained a clause that the Ordinance
would become null and void after one year in order to allow the
the Commission and City Council to determine the merits of the
existing Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, after a one year period of time, staff has
received no complaints in regard to the existing Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the
following time and place to wit: at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on
�.••
the 17th day of November, 1981, at the City Council Chambers,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and
-.
WHEREAS, after careful consideration the proposed amend-
ment as it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the General
Plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of the
staff report and the attached Declaration update, the Commission
has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed
amendment attached hereto and marked NS 3. shall be formally
recommended to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the
"..t
same as hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part
of the Zoning Ordinance of the City.
2.. That the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy
of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit
"B ", be and the same as hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to
send a copy of this resolution of recommendation with attached
proposed amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings
held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in
accordance with State law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this day of 1981 by the
following vote:
v
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EXHIBIT B
Findings:
1. The proposed Ordinance will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
2. The amendment would not be injurious to property and
improvements.
-MEW oa §&M&UQ)0&
@� 113,73
S1
o
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/12/81
Commission Meeting: 11/17/81
SUBJECT Revision of Ordinance NS 3.44 Re: Open House (Real Estate)
signs in Residential District
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Attached for the Planning Commission's information is a copy
of the Ordinance which was approved by the .City Council in
November of last year which allowed off -site real estate signs
in residential districts.
This item is before the Planning Commission again because the
Ordinance as adopted by the Council had a one -year clause
contained within it. The City Council wanted to make a deter-
mination after one year if there had been any complaints before
they made the Ordinance permanent.
Staff has received no complaints whatsoever and as a matter of
fact there is a letter from the Good Government Group (.attached)
which indicates their support of making the Ordinance permanent.
The only item that is required to change the Ordinance is the
elimination of the sentence which indicates that the Ordinance
will become null and void after one year.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve
Resolution No. GF326 -1A which is a Resolution recommending
modification to the City Council.
RSR /mgr
Attachments
the
RE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUT'
of Saratoga, California, Inc.
P. O. Box 371
Saratoga, California 95070
October 30, 1981
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Mayor and City Council:
we, 11 -le
Or, T 3 01981
On November 5, 1980 the Saratoga City Council enacted Ord.
NS3.44, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Signs) which
provided for a specific style of Real Estate Open House
signs, and which set the rules for the use of those signs.
That amendment also called for review of the ordinance after
one year.
The Board of Directors of the
toga feels that the situation
was before the passage of this
extension for another year.
Good Government Group of Sara -
is an improvement over what it
ordinance and recommends its
Since part of the lobbying effort of the Los Gatos - Saratoga
Board of Realtors in support of this ordinance was an assur-
ance that realtors would police themselves and each other,
and in the absence of the,s,ervices of a code enforcement
officer on weekends, we suggest that the Board be reminded
of that obligation.
Sincerely,
Eunice D. Stark
President
cc: Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of Realtors
Saratogans in action since 1957.
of
999(B
il`illijw
INWHI ��.WS "M111
U T
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 11/12/81
COUNCIL MEETING: 11/18/81
SUBJECT Statement of Findings & Options Re: Revision of NS
3.44
Options
1. Adopt the proposed modification which will make the
Off -site Real Estate Sign Ordinance permanent.
2. Do not adopt the Ordinance, which will mean there will
be no off -site real estate siq_ns allowed in residential
disoricts.
Discussion of Options
1. The Los Gatos /Saratoga Board of Realtors have been
enforcing the current Ordinance and to date, staff has
received no complaints.
2. The old Ordinance stated that "All signs, outdoor
advertising structures and displays shall be located
on the same site as the use they identify or advertise..."
There was very little enforcement of this code section
from either the City or real estate profession. Should
the Council select Option #2, it is possible that the
current one (1') square foot by four (:41) square feet
signs being utilized may be used, but the old "A
frame signs could also reappear.
Findings
1. The,\.proposed Ordinance will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
2. The amendment would not be injurious to property and
improvements.
Submitted by: EaN Rw-.
J. Wayne Dernetz obinson, Jr.
EIS -4 bile No GU -326
Saratoga.
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONIMENTM,
IMPACT REPORT NOT R1,QU IRED
(Negative*Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080
through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
e Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (Signs) to allow one (1) free standing
sign in residential district for purposes of open house sales.
1.1/1/81 - The.proposed.modifi'cation will.only eliminate the one
year sunset clause. '
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95.07.0
'IASON FOR NEGATIVE DECL[,RATION
The project as proposed will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The ordinance as proposed will eliminate the typical
"A" frame signs used for open house sales. The proposed amendment
is more in keeping with the general character and purposes of the
City of Saratoga.
11/1/81 - The above project has been reviewed and staff.finds that "
a Negative Declaration is still appropriate.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of 19
R. S. ROBINSON, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ENVIRON- MENTAL
CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SAI:ATOGA
` DIIZECTOR'S AUT110RIZED STAFF MEMBER
1
) ;�- / _ pa-<_�
November 25, 1981
City Council
City of Saratoga
Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca.
Re: Open House Signs
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to state, once again, my opposition to allowing off
site real estate open house signs. My reasoning is as follows: while
the situation is greatly improved over the old system of "A frames ",
the situation could be even better for the great majority of Saratoga
residents - -and that is no off site signs at all! On a scale of ten
(the desired goal) the present system, if strictly enforced by the
real estate people, would rate an eight - but why not a ten?
The real estate offices would then be forced to resort to news-
paper advertising to direct people to open houses and the city should
then be free of all off site signs - a truly worthy goal. The big-
gest offenders under the old system were the very same real estate
people who knowingly broke the Saratoga ordinance about signs because
it didn't suit their purposes. Many other quality cities do not allow
off site signs, and as a result are that much better for it.
Would the local brokers be hurt? Not in the long run, because
people would not be able to just drive around looking for signs - and
as a result they would have to go to a local real estate office to see
Saratoga houses - hence local offices would benefit.
The whole question is what kind of environment do you want for
Saratoga? In my opinion, the whole city suffers because these signs
are allowed.
Why not try for perfection?
Sincerely,
lye `
Miles Rankin,Realtor
Serving Saratoga since 1960