Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-18-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
�" & 8 , SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z'I01 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 CITY MANAGER /A2;�;A ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant SUBJECT: Animal Services Agreements with the Humane Society of Santa Clara County to provide Field and Shelter Services to the West Valley Cities, and Licensing Services to the City of Saratoga RECOMMENDED MOTIONS (S) : Authorize the City Manager to execute Animal Services and Licensing Agreements with the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley. BACKGROUND: In 1993, the County of Santa Clara ceased providing all animal control services to County residents of incorporated municipalities. The West Valley cities of Saratoga, Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, and the Town of Los Gatos jointly sought to identify providers of animal control services. Since 1994, the West Valley Cities have contracted with the Humane Society of Santa Clara County for field services and with the Central Animal Hospital (known as the West Valley Pet Shelter) for shelter, veterinary and licensing services. DISCUSSION: Last March, the West Valley Pet Shelter requested an amendment to its agreement to obtain a fifty percent increase in fee payments from the contracting cities. The proposed increase from $60,000 to $90,000 for shelter and veterinary services followed a 33 percent reduction in the public access hours for the shelter operation. Two representatives of the West Valley Cities offered to negotiate the proposal on behalf of the cities. After two months of discussion and meetings, the City representatives and the West Valley Pet Shelter representatives were unable to reach an agreement on a new fee structure. The West Valley Pet Shelter submitted its 90 -day notice of contract cancellation to be effective October 1, 1996. Representatives of the West Valley Cities commenced negotiations with the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley and reopened discussions with the West Valley Pet Shelter in July. Representatives of the West Valley cities concluded that the Humane Society is well prepared to offer quality animal control services to residents. The Humane Society will offer "one- call" services to Saratoga residents whether it be to recover a lost pet, report a stray dog or dead animal in the neighborhood, and to obtain licensing for pets. The Humane Society Shelter will be available to the public 24 -hours per day in contrast to the limited operating hours of the West Valley Pet Shelter. The Humane Society's annual fee to the West Valley Cities for sheltering services is $102,000. FISCAL IMPACTS: The improved level of service comes with an increased annual cost detailed as follows: Current Services Field Services Shelter & Vet Proposed Services Field Services Shelter & Vet Provider Humane Society. West Valley Pet Humane Society West Valley Pet Humane Society Cost $28,743 Shelter 7.800 $36,543 $28,743 Shelter (3 mo) 11950 (9 mo) 9.945 $40,638 The cost to each of the West Valley Cities is allocated based on the jurisdiction's percentage share of program usage for the previous fiscal year. Saratoga pays 16.4% of the current $175,263 field services contract with the Humane Society, and will pay 13% of the $102,000 proposed shelter contract totalling, $40,638 for FY 96/97. The City of Saratoga's Fiscal Year budget provides $43,643 for all animal control services, which will adequately cover the $4,095 increase in costs. The proposed agreement for Animal Control Field Services and Shelter and Veterinary care with the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley has been reviewed by City Attorneys and is being circulated among the five West Valley Cities. The agreement provides for a 3- year term and allows for annual CPI increases of up to 4% during the contract period. A separate agreement for animal licensing is being prepared and will be forwarded to Council under separate cover. This is necessary because not all five of the cities are requesting the Humane Society to provide this service (see draft agreement p. 10, Section 7). The costs of the service are covered from the licensing revenue. Saratoga is expected to receive approximately $13,000 in licensing and impound revenue, for a net program cost of approximately $30,643 per year. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The Humane Society and the West Valley Cities are preparing public information announcements to allow for a smooth transition with respect to this change of service locations and providers. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Cities will not have a shelter to drop off stray and injured animals, or a provider of licensing services creating an unmanageable demand for services upon City staff. Follow Up Actions: Execute and circulate the agreements to the West Valley Cities. Attachment(s): Animal Services Agreement Draft 9/22/96 ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT between THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY a Non - Profit Public Benefit Corporation and the CITY UNIT of CAMPBELL, CUPERTINO, LOS GATOS, MONTE SERENO, AND SARATOGA Effective Dates: Field Services July 1, 1996 Dead Animal Services July 1, 1996 Shelter Services October 1, 1996 Draft 9/22/96 • • ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The Humane Society and the West Valley Cities are preparing public information announcements to allow for a smooth transition with respect to this changeNof service locatiorA and providers. The Cities will not have a s elte to drop off stray and injured animals, or a provider of censing services creating an unmanageable demand for servic upon City staff. Follow Up Actions: Execute and circulate a agreements the West Valley Cities. Attachment(s): Anfmal Services Agreement • Draft 9/22/96 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Animal Services a) Services Provided ................................................................. ..............................1 b) Commencement of Services ................................................. ..............................2 2. Field Services a) Field Services ...................................................................... ..............................2 b) Response Criteria ................................................................. ..............................3 c) Operating Schedules ............................................................ ..............................4 d) Emergency Response ........................................................... ..............................4 e) Appointment as Animal Control Officers ............................... ..............................4 3. Shelter Services a) Shelter Services .................................................................... ..............................5 b) Medical Services ................................................................... ..............................5 c) Operating Schedules ............................................................ ..............................6 4. Dead Animal Services a) Dead Animal Services ........................................................... ..............................7 b) Operating Schedules ............................................................ ..............................7 5. Records Regarding Animal Services a) Maintenance of Records ....................................................... ..............................7 b) Inspection of Records ........................................................... ..............................8 c) Monthly Report ...................................................................... ..............................8 d) Yearly Report ........................................................................ ..............................8 6. Program Revenue a) Fee Collected by HUMANE SOCIETY .................................. ..............................9 b) Payment of Program Fees to CITY UNIT .............................. ..............................9 c) Program Revenue Records .................................................. .............................10 d) Monthly Fee Statement ........................................................ .............................10 7. Animal Licensing ......................................................................... .............................10 8. Other Responsibilities a) City Ordinances ................................................................... .............................10 b) Responsibility for Administrative Hearings .......................... .............................11 c) Timely Payments .................................................................. .............................11 Draft 9/22/96 Draft 9/22/96 IN 9. Payment Provisions 0 a) Payment Schedule ............................................................... .............................11 b) Payment Amounts ................................................................ .............................12 c) Inspection of Financial Records ........................................... .............................13 10. Term and Termination Agreement a) Term ..................................................................................... .............................13 b) Termination .......................................................................... .............................13 c) Effects of Termination .......................................................... .............................14 d) Termination Costs ................................................................ .............................14 11. Indemnification ............................................................................ .............................15 12. Insurance ..................................................................................... .............................15 13. Independent Contractor Relationship .......................................... .............................15 14. Assignabi I ity ................................................................................ .............................16 15. Notices ........................................................................................ .............................16 16. Nondiscrimination ........................................................................ .............................17 • 17. Ownership of Materials ................................................................ .............................17 18. Gifts ............................................................................................. .............................17 19. Venue .......................................................................................... .............................18 20. General Provisions a) Entire Agreement ................................................................. .............................18 b) Waivers ................................................................................ .............................18 c) Interpretations ...................................................................... .............................19 d) Invalid Provisions ................................................................. .............................19 e) Further Documents .............................................................. .............................19 f) California Law ...................................................................... .............................19 9) Counterpart Execution ......................................................... .............................19 h) Amendments ........................................................................ .............................19 • Draft 9/22/96 Draft 9/22/96 1 ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Animal Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") is entered into as of the 1st day of July 1996 (the "Effective Date ") for Field Services and Dead Animal Services and the 1st day of October 1996 for Shelter Services, by Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley, a California non - profit public benefit corporation ( "HUMANE SOCIETY"), and the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and the Town of Los Gatos ( "CITY UNIT "). This AGREEMENT supersedes in its entirety the previous AGREEMENT of October 19, 1995. RECITAL In consideration for certain payments and promises by CITY UNIT, HUMANE SOCIETY has agreed to perform certain Animal Services for CITY UNIT. AGREEMENT Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this AGREEMENT, HUMANE SOCIETY and CITY UNIT agree as follows: 1. ANIMAL SERVICES a) Services Provided: For the consideration set forth herein, HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide to CITY UNIT the Field Services, Shelter Services, and Dead Animal Services described in this AGREEMENT. These three categories of services are collectively referred to herein as the "Animal Services," and each category of services is sometimes hereinafter referred to as a "Program Unit." The Animal Services shall be provided by HUMANE SOCIETY in accordance with all • applicable federal, state, and local laws and ordinances. Draft 9/22/96 1 Draft 9/22/96 r b) Commencement of Service. The Field Services and Dead Animal Services shall begin 0 on the Effective Date of this AGREEMENT, July 1, 1996, and Shelter Services shall begin on October 1, 1996. 2. FIELD SERVICES a) Field Services. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide vehicles, communications equipment, office supplies, field and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies, and equipment reasonably required to perform the following services (the "Field Services "): (i) Investigation and resolution of code violations, including issuance of citations as appropriate, in accordance with city ordinances or state statutes upon request from any city of the CITY UNIT. HUMANE SOCIETY `s Animal Control Officers will appear at hearings at no extra cost to the CITY UNIT if required. • (ii) Investigation and resolution of dangerous dog complaints. (iii) Bite investigations. (iv) Pick -up of injured stray dogs and cats without regard to weight and injured wildlife (excluding birds) that weigh 50 lbs. or less, that are located on public property or readily accessible on private property with the permission of the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent. (v) Police assists on animal - related issues when the call is initiated by the police or the condition requiring assistance has been verified by the police. (vi) Respond to emergency calls. (The term "emergency calls" means complaints of animal bites or attacks on humans that are in progress, or where a bite has occurred and where the animal remains an immediate threat to persons.) • Draft 9/22/96 2 Draft 9/22/96 0 (vii) Pick -up of confined stray dogs, cats, and other small animals to include rabbits, chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks, and excluding confined wildlife such as opossums, raccoons, skunks, or squirrels. (viii) Pick -up of dead animals from city streets and public property as defined in 4(a) below. HUMANE SOCIETY will respond to the other animal - related issues from the CITY UNIT and its residents providing that the costs of services will be reimbursed on a time and material basis that reflects the actual cost incurred by the HUMANE SOCIETY , including subcontracted services. These services include transportation and sheltering for types of animals that cannot be accommodated at the HUMANE SOCIETY (livestock, etc.). Resources will perform the services listed above on a priority basis. Timely response 0 guidelines are prioritized as follows: #1 Sick and injured animals #2 Vicious Animals #3 Confined stray pick -up #4 Code enforcement #5 Bite investigations #6 Dead animal pick -up (dogs, cats, small animals, deer) Priorities may be adjusted based on the immediate threat to a person or another animal. b) Response Criteria. The Field Services are based upon City or citizen complaints and requests. HUMANE SOCIETY Animal Control Officers will target response times to complaints and requests to HUMANE SOCIETY in accordance with the following guidelines: (i) Immediate response of one (1) hour or less within reasonable limits allowed by • staffing availability, to Emergency Calls, Police Assists, and critically sick or Draft 9/22/96 3 Draft 9/22/96 'r injured animals. (The term "Emergency Calls" means complaints of a bite or attack on a human in progress or where a bite or attack has occurred and where the animal remains an immediate threat to persons or property.) (ii) Response within four (4) hours of receiving a call for animals that were running at large and that are now confined by a resident. (iii) Response within eight (8) hours of receiving a call regarding other biting, vicious, injured or sick animals, quarantines, and dead animal pick -ups. c) Operating Schedules. Except as defined in 2 (d) below, the HUMANE SOCIETY will have no obligation to respond outside of the regularly scheduled shift hours of the HUMANE SOCIETY Animal Control Officers. The initial regularly scheduled hours of the Animal Control Officers will cover sixteen (16) hours per day, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., every day, but may be reasonably adjusted from time to time by mutual agreement of the CITY UNIT and HUMANE SOCIETY if the service levels are impacted. HUMANE SOCIETY s telephone switchboard will be • staffed with a dispatcher to accept calls twenty -four (24) hours per day, every day. d) Emergency Response. Any calls defined in 2 (b) (i) (Emergency Calls, Police Assists, critically sick and injured animals) arising between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will be handled by city staff or on an "As Available" basis by the HUMANE SOCIETY if requested by CITY UNIT. The applicable city will be billed at the rate $37.86 per hour (July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997), $39.37 (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998), $40.95 (July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999) and $42.58 (July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000), with a minimum charge of one hour for Field Services rendered by the HUMANE SOCIETY between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily. e) Appointment as Animal Control Officers. CITY UNIT hereby appoints as animal control officers ( "Animal Control Officers ") as such term is contemplated by § 830.9 of the California Penal Code, those HUMANE SOCIETY personnel executing Field Services, as defined in Section 2 (a), on • Draft 9/22/96 4 Draft 9/22/96 0 behalf of CITY UNIT, with full power to exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer and the power to serve warrants, as authorized or directed by a member of the CITY UNIT. HUMANE SOCIETY will assure that personnel executing Field Services will have successfully completed a course in the exercise of these powers pursuant to Section 832 of the California Penal Code within one year of employment as an Animal Control Officer. 3. SHELTER SERVICES a) Shelter Services. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide the following services, including shelter facilities , supplies, animal attendants, supervisors and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment, reasonably required to perform the following services (the "Shelter Services "). • (i) Shelter of abandoned, impounded, lost or stray domestic animals brought to the shelter by CITY UNIT residents or HUMANE SOCIETY personnel. • (ii) Quarantine of biting animals (iii) Rabies testing of suspect animals. (iv) Provision for surrender and reclaim of abandoned, lost or stray domestic animals during established business hours. (v) Euthanization and disposal of abandoned, lost, impounded, or stray domestic animals that are unclaimed by their owners and fail to meet the written health and temperament standards of the HUMANE SOCIETY. b) Medical Services. As part of the Shelter Services, HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide the following services, including office facilities, supplies, and professional and trained personnel, employed or under contract, necessary to perform the following services (the "Medical Services "): Draft 9/22/96 5 Draft 9/22/96 a (i) Provision of veterinarian services twenty -four (24) hours per day to treat and 0 provide veterinarian care to stray, injured, or sick dogs, cats, and other impounded animals. (ii) Monitor quarantined biter animals. (iii) Conduct vaccination clinics and have available, free of charge to the public, rabies control information. c) Operating Schedules. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide Shelter Services for the animals twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The HUMANE SOCIETY Shelter shall be open to the public, at a minimum, from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. HUMANE SOCIETY's front counter shall be open to the public, at a minimum, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. These hours may be reasonably adjusted from time to time by HUMANE SOCIETY, with prior approval by CITY UNIT, so long as the HUMANE SOCIETY Shelter remains open for at least the total minimum number of hours per week set forth above. If the HUMANE SOCIETY plans or intends any change in public business hours or adjustment to regularly scheduled staffing hours that may last for more than one month, the HUMANE SOCIETY shall then notify CITY UNIT at least thirty (30) days prior to the date that the change or adjustment is intended to be implemented. Regular business hours for the provision of Medical Services by the HUMANE SOCIETY shall be, at a minimum, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide emergency veterinary services in accordance with Section 597f of the California Penal Code. If emergency veterinary services are needed on weekends, Holidays, outside of regular office hours of the HUMANE SOCIETY, or whenever veterinary services are otherwise generally unavailable, HUMANE SOCIETY shall contract for these emergency veterinary u Draft 9122/96 6 Draft 9/22/96 *services, at no additional expense to the CITY UNIT, at local veterinary clinics or wherever emergency veterinary services are available. 4. DEAD ANIMAL SERVICES a) Dead Animal Services. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide. vehicles, storage facilities, disposal mechanisms, field and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment required to perform the following services (the "Dead Animal Services "): (i) Pick -up of dead animals, including wildlife, from city streets and public property. (ii) Owner identification and notification, if possible. (iii) Disposal. . b) Operating Schedules. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide Dead Animal Services seven (7) days a week between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. HUMANE SOCIETY shall be available to the public for drop -off and disposal of dead animals at its shelter facility seven (7) days a week, twenty -four (24) hours a day. 5. RECORDS REGARDING ANIMAL SERVICES a) Maintenance of Records. HUMANE SOCIETY shall maintain accurate records regarding its performance of Animal Services under this AGREEMENT. Such records shall include Field Services records regarding calls, dispatches and Animal Control Officer's responses; Shelter Services records regarding receipt, care, reclaim, and disposition of abandoned, impounded, lost or stray domestic animals, including names and addresses of persons reclaiming animals; and Dead Animal Services Records regarding receipt and disposal of dead animals. Draft 9/22/96 7 Draft 9/22/96 V b) Inspection of Records. HUMANE SOCIETY's records regarding Animal Services shall 0 be open to inspection by CITY UNIT or CITY UNIT 's designated representative, upon request of the CITY UNIT during HUMANE SOCIETY's regular business hours. c) Monthly Report. HUMANE SOCIETY shall deliver to each participating city of the CITY UNIT during the term of this AGREEMENT a monthly Animal Control and Impound Report summarizing Field Services, Shelter Services, and Dead Animal Services provided by HUMANE SOCIETY for that city. This report shall include but not be limited to the following information: (i) Number of Animal Control calls received for which a response was provided, broken down by -- • Type of animal • Type of call • Average response time for each type of call (upon completion of • HUMANE SOCIETY's computerized call tracking system) (ii) Number of calls received broken down by -- • Calls received for services we provide • Calls received for services we do not provide (Requested services will be noted.) (iii) Number of dead animals picked up and brought to the shelter by -- • Animal Control • City residents d) Yearly Report. HUMANE SOCIETY shall complete and submit to the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department the Annual Report of Local Rabies Control Activities. Activities provided by the CITY UNIT's Animal Shelter Provider between January 1, 1996 and the Effective • Draft 9/22/96 8 Draft 9/22/96 4 0 Date for Shelter Services under this Agreement will be provided to the HUMANE SOCIETY by the CITY UNIT's Animal Shelter provider. These include: Sections: A. Dogs vaccinated in "actual cost' public vaccination clinics B. Dogs licensed in "actual cost' public vaccination clinics C. Number of "actual cost' public vaccination clinics held D. Individual vaccination fee charged E. Total number of dogs licensed in jurisdiction G.2 Dogs surrendered by owner G.3 Dogs surrendered by the public H. Disposition of dogs impounded 6. PROGRAM REVENUE a) Fees Collected by HUMANE SOCIETY. HUMANE SOCIETY collects fees, charges, and penalties ( "Program Fees ") from the public in connection with some of the Animal Services it provides. These Program Fees are established by each city of CITY UNIT by resolution or ordinance. If no fee or charge has been established by a city of CITY UNIT for an Animal Service, HUMANE SOCIETY shall work with that city to determine the appropriate fee or charge for that service and shall impose that fee or charge after it has been duly adopted by the city of CITY UNIT and becomes effective. b) Payment of Program Fees to CITY UNIT . All Program Fees collected by HUMANE SOCIETY in connection with the Animal Services provided specifically to CITY UNIT , except fees collected for emergency veterinary services which are paid to contract veterinary providers, shall be • paid or credited monthly by the HUMANE SOCIETY to each city of the CITY UNIT by the fifteenth Draft 9/22/96 9 Draft 9/22/96 (15th) business day of the month immediately following the month in which the Program Fees were 0 collected. c) Program Revenue Records. HUMANE SOCIETY shall maintain accurate records of all revenues derived from the Program Fees for Animal Services. Such records shall be available for inspection by CITY UNIT in the manner provided in Section 9 (c) of this AGREEMENT. d) Monthly Fee Statement. HUMANE SOCIETY shall provide to CITY UNIT with each monthly payment of Program Fees, a statement of Program Fees collected that shows the total amount of Program Fees collected and the total amounts collected in each fee category, such as impound, quarantine and board fees. HUMANE SOCIETY shall include with this statement a summary that shows, by day, all receipts entered for the individual city of CITY UNIT , the amounts per receipt by each fee category, and the totals for the month by fee category which total shall match the amounts shown on the statement of Program Fees collected. 0 7. ANIMAL LICENSING HUMANE SOCIETY, in connection with its Shelter Services, shall assist the CITY UNIT in . licensing activities when the HUMANE SOCIETY releases impounded dogs, or other animals to which licensing is applicable that are reclaimed by their owners at the shelter, where CITY UNIT licensing forms and other requirements for licensing, including rabies vaccination certificates, are provided or available to HUMANE SOCIETY. For animals adopted from the HUMANE SOCIETY, HUMANE SOCIETY shall refer owners to the appropriate city of CITY UNIT for licensing. HUMANE SOCIETY may agree to provide animal licensing facilities or services for CITY UNIT under a separate AGREEMENT with CITY UNIT. • Draft 9/22196 10 Draft 9/22/96 8. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES a) City Ordinances. The cities of the CITY UNIT intend to work together to establish uniform animal control ordinances and citation authority among the cities composing the CITY UNIT. As part of this process, CITY UNIT and HUMANE SOCIETY agree to cooperate in an effort to define- (i) Overall philosophy for code enforcement and the CITY UNIT's expectations of the HUMANE SOCIETY in code enforcement. (ii) What ordinances and state mandates are to be enforced. (iii) How these ordinances and mandates should be enforced. (iv) What the HUMANE SOCIETY's discretionary limits are. b) Responsibility for Administrative Hearings. The HUMANE SOCIETY shall not be • responsible for or bear the expense of arranging and conducting any required hearings regarding dangerous dogs. HUMANE SOCIETY's Animal Control Officers will appear at the hearings at no additional cost to the CITY UNIT if required. c) Timely Payments. CITY UNIT shall promptly deliver to HUMANE SOCIETY the payments hereinafter required under this AGREEMENT for the Animal Services provided by HUMANE SOCIETY. 9. PAYMENT PROVISIONS a) Payment Schedule. Payments shall be made to the HUMANE SOCIETY in equal monthly installments. The HUMANE SOCIETY agrees to invoice each city of the CITY UNIT fifteen (15) days before the first of the following month.. All installment payments by the CITY UNIT shall be due and payable in advance on the first business day of each month during the term of our • AGREEMENT , and if unpaid, shall be delinquent on the tenth business day of each month p q y without Draft 9/22/96 11 Draft 9/22/96 demand or notice to the CITY UNIT. Five percent (5 %) of the amount of all delinquent payments shall be added as a service charge and shall be payable by the CITY UNIT together with the delinquent payments. b) Payment Amounts. For all Animal Services to be provided by and for the performance of all other obligations of the HUMANE SOCIETY to CITY UNIT under this AGREEMENT, CITY UNIT agrees to pay HUMANE SOCIETY the following sums for the defined periods of this AGREEMENT: 7/1/96 - 6/30/97 7/1/97 - 6/30/98 7/1/98 - 6/30/99 7/1/99 - 6/30/00 Animal Sheltering $ 76,500* $ 102,000 $ 102,000 $ 102,000 Field Services 175,263 182,273 182,273 182,273 Total Contract $ 251,763 $ 284,273 $ 284,273 $ 284,273 * Sheltering Services begin 1 October, 1996; payments are for period October 1 -June 30,1997 4 The sum payable for Animal Sheltering for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998 shall be • adjusted based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI -W) for San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose (Bay Area) for May 1996 to May 1997. The adjusted Animal Shelter amount will be added to the Contract Value for Field Services of $182,273 to establish the adjusted Total Contract Value for the period from 1 July 1997 through 30 June 1998. Beginning 1 July 1998 and in subsequent fiscal years, the Total Contract Value will be established by escalating the previous years adjusted Total Contract Value based on the applicable May to May change in the aforementioned index providing said adjustment is not less than two percent (2.0 %) nor more than four percent (4.0 %). If the CPI -W adjustment for the May to May period in any year exceeds four percent, the CITY UNIT shall meet with the HUMANE SOCIETY to determine the adjustment in excess of the four percent. • Draft 9/22/96 12 n Draft 9/22/96 Billings will be divided among the five cities /town of the CITY UNIT as directed by the Animal Services Committee. In April of each year, beginning in 1996, the Animal Services Committee will notify the HUMANE SOCIETY of the percentage shares of each city /town. c) Inspection of Financial Records. HUMANE SOCIETY's financial books and records pertaining to its provision of Animal Services shall be open to inspection and audit by CITY UNIT, or its designated representative, at CITY UNIT's expense, at any time during normal business hours during the term of this AGREEMENT. In addition, HUMANE SOCIETY will provide the CITY UNIT with a copy of its annual audited financial statements, audit management letter and responses. 10. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT a) Term. The term of this AGREEMENT shall be for a period from July 1, 1996, the • Effective Date, through June 30, 2000. b) Termination. This AGREEMENT may be terminated earlier at any time -- C� Draft 9/22/96 (i) Upon the written consent of both the CITY UNIT and the HUMANE SOCIETY. (ii) By either the CITY UNIT or the HUMANE SOCIETY immediately upon notice to the other, if the other breaches any material obligation under this AGREEMENT and such breach remains unremedied for at least thirty (30) days following written notice thereof to the breaching party. (iii) Immediately upon written notice by the CITY UNIT to HUMANE SOCIETY if HUMANE SOCIETY has a receiver appointed for all or substantial part of its business or assets, if a bankruptcy proceeding is brought by or against HUMANE SOCIETY as a debtor, or if HUMANE SOCIETY ceases its business operations. 13 Draft 9/22/96 'r (iv) Upon at least three (3) months prior written notice by CITY UNIT to HUMANE • SOCIETY of its desire to terminate this AGREEMENT or any individual Service; individual Services being defined as Field Services, Shelter Services and Dead Animal Services. (v) Upon at least three (3) months prior written notice by HUMANE SOCIETY to CITY UNIT of its desire to terminate this AGREEMENT or any individual Service; individual Services being defined as Field Services, Shelter Services and Dead Animal Services. c) Effects of Termination. Upon the effective date of any termination of this AGREEMENT, HUMANE SOCIETY's obligation to provide Animal Services to CITY UNIT under this AGREEMENT shall cease, and CITY UNIT's obligation to make payments hereunder for periods of time after the effective date of termination shall cease, provided that the parties shall have any and all remedies available under law for any breach of this AGREEMENT. • d) Termination Costs. In the event the CITY UNIT elects to terminate this AGREEMENT for other than material breech prior to June 30, 1998, the CITY UNIT agrees to the following lump sum termination payment recognizing the HUMANE SOCIETY lease obligations with respect to office space and vehicle requirements for said CITY UNIT. It is further understood that the termination payment set forth herein is the pro rata share for CITY UNIT as of the effective date of this AGREEMENT which will be reduced accordingly if the HUMANE SOCIETY subsequently enters into agreements to provide services to other private or public sector agencies not under contract during the 1996 -97 fiscal year. Termination Cost if AGREEMENT is not renewed effective 7/1/97 $4,770.00 Draft 9/22/96 14 0 Draft 9/22/96 • 11. INDEMNIFICATION HUMANE SOCIETY shall defend with counsel approved by CITY UNIT, indemnify and hold harmless CITY UNIT, its officers, employees and agents against any and all claims, actions, loss, liability or expense (including attorneys' fees) arising out of, based upon, or resulting in any way from work or services performed under this AGREEMENT due to any alleged or actual, willful or negligent acts (active or passive) or omissions by HUMANE SOCIETY's officers, employees or agents. The acceptance of said services and duties by CITY UNIT shall not operate as a waiver of such right of indemnification. 12. INSURANCE HUMANE SOCIETY agrees to procure and maintain at its own expense the insurance policies set forth in EXHIBIT A, entitled "Insurance," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. All policies, endorsements, certificates and /or binders shall be subject to approval by CITY. UNIT as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved by CITY UNIT. HUMANE SOCIETY agrees to provide CITY UNIT with a copy of all said policies, certificates and /or endorsements before work commences under this AGREEMENT and to maintain such policies, certificates and /or endorsements in full force and effect during the term of this AGREEMENT. 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP This AGREEMENT shall in no way be construed to constitute HUMANE SOCIETY as the partner, legal representative, or employee of CITY UNIT for any purpose whatsoever, or as the agent of CITY UNIT, except for the limited purpose of providing Animal Services in accordance with • this AGREEMENT and code enforcement in accordance with city ordinances, and neither party shall Draft 9/22/96 15 Draft 9/22/96 act or attempt to act or represent itself directly or by implication as having any such status or 0 relationship. The parties shall have the relationship of independent contractors, and except as specifically provided in this AGREEMENT, each party shall be solely responsible for all obligations and liabilities pertaining to the business, activities, and facilities of that party. As an independent contractor, HUMANE SOCIETY shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to CITY UNIT's employees, and HUMANE SOCIETY hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. 14. ASSIGNABILITY The CITY UNIT and the HUMANE SOCIETY acknowledge and agree that the expertise and experience of HUMANE SOCIETY are material considerations inducing CITY UNIT to enter into this AGREEMENT. Neither the CITY UNIT nor the HUMANE SOCIETY shall assign or transfer any interest in this AGREEMENT, nor the performance of any obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other, and any attempt by either the CITY UNIT or the HUMANE SOCIETY to assign this AGREEMENT or any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect. 15. NOTICES Any notices permitted or required hereunder shall be deemed to have been received when delivered in person or on the third (3rd) business day after the date on which mailed, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended at the address set forth below its signature at the end of this AGREEMENT and to the attention of the individual who executed the AGREEMENT for such party. Draft 9/22196 16 Y f Draft 9/22/96 • 16. NONDISCRIMINATION HUMANE SOCIETY warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. HUMANE SOCIETY does not and shall not discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with it or persons receiving or seeking services from it on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 17. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS All reports, documents or other materials provided to the CITY UNIT by the HUMANE SOCIETY shall upon delivery thereof become the property of the CITY UNIT, without restriction or limitation upon their subsequent use; provided, however, that data base software programs or other data organization methods used by the HUMANE SOCIETY in preparing the report, document, or other material provided to the CITY UNIT by the HUMANE SOCIETY shall remain the exclusive property of the HUMANE SOCIETY, without restriction or limitations upon their use. 18. GIFTS a) The HUMANE SOCIETY knows that each city of the CITY UNIT has prohibitions against the acceptance of gifts by a CITY UNIT officer or designated employee. b) The HUMANE SOCIETY agrees not to offer any CITY UNIT officer or designated employee gifts prohibited by the Code of Ethics or Municipal Code of each city of the CITY UNIT. c) The offer or giving of any gift prohibited by a Code of Ethics or a Municipal Code shall Oconstitute a material breach of the AGREEMENT by the HUMANE SOCIETY. In addition to any Draft 9/22/96 17 Draft 9/22/96 ' t 1 other remedies the CITY UNIT may have in law or equity, the CITY UNIT may terminate this •, AGREEMENT for such breach as provided in Section 10 of this AGREEMENT. 19. VENUE In the event that suit shall be brought by any party to this AGREEMENT against another party, the parties agree that the venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or where otherwise appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California. 20. GENERAL PROVISIONS a) Entire Agreement. This AGREEMENT constitutes the entire AGREEMENT between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and • contemporaneous oral and written commitments, understandings and agreements. No changes or modifications to this AGREEMENT shall be valid or binding unless contained in a written document executed by the parties. b) Waivers.. No delay or failure of either party to exercise or enforce at any time any right or provision of this AGREEMENT shall be considered a waiver thereof or of such party's right thereafter to exercise or enforce each and every right and provision of this AGREEMENT. A waiver to be valid shall be in writing but need not be supported by consideration. No single waiver shall constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver. The acceptance by CITY UNIT of the performance of any work or services by the HUMANE SOCIETY shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this AGREEMENT. �J Draft 9/22/96 18 J Draft 9/22/96 • c) Interpretations. In construing or interpreting this AGREEMENT, the word "or" shall not be construed as exclusive, and the word "including" shall not be limiting. The parties agree that this AGREEMENT shall be fairly interpreted in accordance with its terms without any strict construction in favor of or against either party, and any ambiguity shall not be interpreted against the drafting party. d) Invalid Provisions. If any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in full or in part, such provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it legal, valid, and enforceable, and the other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall not be affected thereby. e) Further Documents. The parties agree, upon request, to sign and deliver such other documents as may be reasonably required to carry out the intent and provisions of this AGREEMENT. -- f) California Law. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. g) Counterpart Execution. This AGREEMENT may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same document. h) Amendments. The parties agree, upon request of the CITY UNIT, that this AGREEMENT is subject to amendment if any member of the CITY UNIT, with ninety (90) days notice to other members, files a Letter of Intent to withdraw because of budgetary reasons. Draft 9/22/96 19 Draft 9/22/96 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the effective Date. CITY UNIT APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM. City Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTEST: Draft 9/22/96 20 CITY OF CAMPBELL City Manager CITY OF CUPERTINO 0 City Manager TOWN OF LOS GATOS Town Manager 0 1 Draft 9/22/96 • APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF MONTE SERENO City Manager CITY OF SARATOGA City Attorney City Manager • ATTEST: HUMANE SOCIETY HUMANE SOCIETY of SANTA CLARA VALLEY, A NON - PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION By Executive Director Address: 2530 Lafayette Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 ATTEST: Draft 9/22/96 21 Draft 9/22/96 • e C7 Draft 9/22/96 22 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 2`l'1'� s�CB EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 CITY MGR. IV7 r4ev� ORIGINATING DEPT. Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Cable Restitution Fund Percentage and Establishing Use of Restitution Fund Monies Recommended Motion(s): Approve the resolution accepting the cable restitution fund percentage and the establishment of uses for restricted fund monies. Report Summary: On February 21, 1996, a settlement was reached between South Bay Cable Vision and the District Attorney of Santa Clara County (in The People of the State of California Vs. Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.) whereby a cable restitution fund of $1,000,000 was established. The terms of the settlement provided several avenues for subscribers and franchise authorities to reclaim losses arising from late fee practices found to be unfair business practices. First, there was the distribution of restitution to current and former subscribers of South Bay who paid $10.00 late fees to South Bay and who submitted claims for such restitution. This was made possible in early April through direct mail to current subscribers, notifications in the newspapers and messages run on KSAR Channel 6, our community access channel. The second avenue of restitution involves the establishment of a fund that would be set up as a trust fund where the remaining balance would be deposited after all distributions were made to subscribers, consumer protection funds and public television channels as stipulated in the judgement. In order for the City of Saratoga to be able to access the leftover funds in the trust fund, we must pass a resolution which addresses the following two conditions: 1) Accept the percentage distribution to the City of Saratoga; and, 2) Explicitly agree to use the funds solely to enhance public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) to and use of cable - related services by funding equipment, facilities, maintenance, programming, staffing and /or training for the benefit of consumers and cable subscribers within the franchise area. According to the judgement (p.11, Attachment III), the City of Saratoga is allocated a 9% share of the restitution funds which is Cable Restitution Funds Page 2 based on our franchise's percentage of total cable system subscribers. Also, any funds that are used pursuant to the second provision are to be spent in addition to any and all other obligations we have already asked of TCI to provide PEG support. Fiscal Impacts: The exact amount in the fund will not be known to us prior to the time when the judgement stipulated that this resolution must be passed. August 15, 1996 marked the last day for South Bay to issue and mail refund checks and September 14, 1996 was the last day to provide the District Attorney an- accounting of the direct restitution paid identifying to whom restitution checks were issued and in what amount, etc. The fiscal impact will range between zero and $90,000. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Publication of the agenda. Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motions: If the City does not pass a resolution by October 16, 1996, we would forfeit our ability to share in the restitution trust fund and the 9% would be put back into the fund for the remaining jurisdictions to divide amongst themselves. Also, the potential for enhanced PEG programming and related activities would be lost. Follow Up Actions: Staff will forward a copy of the resolution to the trust fund administrator, Mr. Dennis Gilardi, and Ms. Martha Donohoe,D.D.A., at the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. Attachments: I. Resolution Accepting Cable Restitution Fund Percentage and Establishing Use of Restitution Fund Monies II. 8/29/96 Letter from District Attorney's Office III. 4/3/96 Letter from District Attorney's Office and copy of February 21, 1996 Judgement J- County of Santa Clara Office of the District - \ttorney County Government Center, west wing 70 west Hedding Street San Jose, California 95 i 10 (408) 299-7400 t' «� 60 5 OV 1996 . CITY (i-j r4CI+41EN i M � , - u�)u George W. Kennedy District Attorney August 29, 1996 Harry R. Peacock, City Attorney City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: South Bay CableVision Restitution Fund Distribution Dear Mr. Peacock: This is a reminder to your. jurisdiction to pass a resolution to obtain your city's share of the South Bay CableVision Restitution Fund. Trust Fund Administrator Dennis Gilardi must receive a copy of the resolution no later than October 16, 1996. If you have already passed the resolution and notified Mr. Gilardi, then please disregard this notice. If you have not passed such a resolution and /or notified Mr. Gilardi, then we urge you to do so. A substantial amount of money remains to be distributed, so even if the city's percentage entitlement is small, the city will forgo thousands of dollars if you do not act. Enclosed please find my April 3rd letter to you describing what is required to secure your city's share of the funds. Please do not hesitate to call me if you require additional information. My direct line is (408) 299 -8404. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY By: Martha J. Donohoe Deputy District Attorney Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested 4 County of Santa Clara Office. of the District Attorney County Government Center, West Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 951 10 (408) 299 -7400 George W. Kennedy District Attorney Harry R. Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 EpE�WE APR 4 1996 D L, . csAt—.jLTOGA CITY MANAGEI ?'S OFFICE April 3, 1996 Re: South Bay CableVision Restitution Fund Distribution Dear Mr. Peacock: 477' c� i'_ NTH Y, As you are probably aware, South Bay CableVision and the District Attorney of Santa Clara County have reached a settlement in People v. Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P., pursuant to which a restitution fund of $1,000,000 has been established. The terms of the settlement provide for the distribution of restitution to current and former subscribers of South Bay who paid $10.00 late fees to South Bay and who submit claims for such restitution. Enclosed please find examples of the Notice (Exhibit A) and Claim Form (Exhibit B) which have been mailed to all current subscribers. Also enclosed is a sample of the Notice to Former Subscribers and Claim Form (Exhibit C) which will be published in the San Jose Mercury News and the Argus during the month of April. My office encourages you to notify the public by providing information about the South Bay / CableVision Restitution Fund o n yo ur community access channel and in your local newspaper. Please be advised that if you wish to publish the notice and claim form to former subscribers, the claim form, which is the bottom portion of Exhibit C, must be in the same size and format as the enclosed. 41s A timeline of events (Exhibit E) relative to the Restitution program is enclosed to help you determine if publication in your local newspaper is possible. Please keep in mind that the deadlines set out in the timeline will be strictly adhered to in determining who is entitiled to receive from the Fund. Therefore, if you are unable to publish a claim form before May 5th, then please do not publish a claim form. In the event that funds remain after all claims have been paid, those funds will be distributed to trust funds established to fund the investigation, prosecution, and enforcement of consumer protection actions, San Francisco Bay Area public broadcasting television channels, and South Bay franchise authorities which agree to use the funds solely to enhance public, educational, and governmental access and use of cable - related services. il April 3, 1996 Page 2 We cannot yet determine whether there will be sufficient funds remaining after the distributions to subscribers, consumer protection trust funds, and public broadcasting television channels to enable the fund to make a distribution to your jurisdiction. However, to qualify for such a distribution, it is essential that your jurisdiction pass a resolution which (1) accepts the percentage distribution to the franchise as defined on page 11 in the judgement (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D), and (2) explicitly agrees to use the funds soley to enhance public, educational, and governmental (including institutional network) access to and use of cable - related services by funding equipment, facilities, maintenance, programming, staffing, and/or training for the benefit of consumers and cable subscribers within the franchise area. The trust fund administrator, Dennis Gilardi, 1115 Magnolia Ave., Larkspur, CA 94939, must receive a copy of the resolution no later than October 16, 1996. To preserve your jurisdiction's ability to receive funds under the settlement and judgment, we urge you to take steps now to see that an appropriate resolution is passed and copies of that resolution are forwarded to Mr. Gilardi and the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office (c /o Martha Donohoe, D.D.A.). If you have any questions regarding the Restitution Fund, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 299 -8425. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY LM Martha J. Donohoe Deputy District Attorney 1 2 8 4 �2 61 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 24 25 mov me V. Kennedy .h SA.U. .dae. Cablarni. 95110 GEORGE W. KENNEDY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY (State Bar 1 52527) (ENDORSED) MARTHA J. DONOHOE, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNE (State Bar 1 117600) -F I L E COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, WEST WING 70 West Hedding Street FEB 21 1996 San Jose, California 95110 Telephone: (408) 299 -7400 TEPHEN V. LOVE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ^ry c�ank C� o cou.:y _ .. GC?UTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS, L.P., a Limited Partnership, Defendant. CV 3"054 NO. STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, appearing through its attorneys George W. Kennedy, "District Attorney, County of Santa Clara, by Martha J. Donohoe, Deputy District Attorney, having filed its complaint herein alleging that defendant's late fee practices constituted unlawful and unfair bnlainpcc Ae+tinea enjoinable pursuant to Business & Professions Code S 17200 gt ��; and defendant, BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS, L.P., a Limited Partnership, appearing through its attorneys Coblentz, Cahen, McCabe & Breyer, by Richard R. Patch, Esq., having accepted service thereof; all parties having stipulated and consented to this Stipulated Final Judgment 1 Exhibit D I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OW ;eorge W. Kennedy District Attorney County of Santa Clara an Jose. Califomu 95110 © 5"1 REV 1191 prior to the taking of proof, without adjudication of any issues of law or fact and without this Stipulated Final Judgment constituting evidence or an admission by defendant regarding any issue of law or fact alleged in said complaint; and this court having considered the pleadings and the Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment, and for good cause appearing; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: It 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto. 1 2. The terms of this Stipulated Final Judgment have been reviewed by the Court, and the Court finds that it was entered into in good faith and is, in all respects, fair, just and equitable to the public and to the past and present customers of BRENMOR, doing business as South Bay CableVision, who have paid late fees to Brenmor as alleged in the Complaint. INJUNCTION 1 3. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties settling plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, defendant, its directors, officers, agents, employees, representatives, successors and assigns and all persons who are acting in concert and participating with it with actual or constructive knowledge of this Judgment are hereby enjoined, for a period of five (5) years from the date of this Judgment, from setting or collecting invalid liquidated damages in the form of excessive late payment fees for a cable service customer's failure to pay a monthly service bill when due, to wit: defendant shall not 2 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 George W. Kennedy District AtLorney County of Santa Clara San Jose, California 95110 © 5"1 REV 1/91 charge late fees or door collection fees in any amounts or in any manner other than the following: 1 3.A. Within 60 days of the date of the date of entry of this judgment, four dollars ($4.00) per month as a basic late payment fee, which may be assessed when a customer's monthly service bill is not paid by the 45th day after the initial cut -off of the billing cycle but in no event earlier than 13 days after the service period for which payment is sought has ended; and, 1 3.B. Within 30 days of the date of the date of entry of this judgment, ten dollars ($10.00) as a door collection fee if, on or after the 10th day after the late fee is assessed, but in no event earlier than the 23rd day after the after the service period for which payment is sought has ended, defendant dispatches personnel to the customer's home and at that time the customer pays to said personnel the outstanding and overdue service charges as may be required to prevent disconnection of cable service. 1 3.C. In the event that any Federal or State statute, code or regulation is hereinafter enacted or adopted which permits the assessment and collection of a late fee by cable service providers in an amount different from that required by this injunction, defendant shall be permitted to assess and collect a late fee in the amount(s) and under the circumstances provided by such a statute, provided, however, that notwithstanding any such Federal or State statute, code or regulation, defendant shall assess and collect only those amounts, i ordered herein (namely, $4.00 and $10.00, respectively) at the times 3 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 herein specified, in paragraphs 3.A and 3.B, for a period of two (2) years from the entry of this Judgment. 1 4. Within thirty (30) days after entry of this Stipulated Final Judgment, defendant shall notify those employees who will be responsible for implementing the provisions of the injunction, of the terms of the injunctive provisions of this Stipulated Final Judgment. Defendant shall provide a verification to plaintiff, of the names and positions of each employee to whom notice of the terms of the injunctive provisions has been given. . 1 5. Defendant shall deliver a copy of the Stipulated Final Judgment to the purchaser, transferee, assignee or successor in interest (if any) of its right to operate the cable franchises currently operated as South Bay CableVision and shall obtain from said party and shall deliver to the Office of the District Attorney, a written acknowledgment of receipt of the Stipulated Final Judgment which is signed by authorized agent for said purchaser, transferee, assignee or successor in interest. RESTITUTION 1 6. The defendant shall pay, in settlement and compromise of plaintiff's claim for restitution, the sum of One Million Dollars 21 ($1,000,000), which sum shall be received by plaintiff pursuant to 22 authority of Business and Professions Code section 17203. The payment 23 shall be disbursed in the manner described below in order to 24 compensate for the alleged harm done to California consumers by 25 defendant through the allegedly unfair late fees claimed in this 26 action and to provide full settlement and satisfaction of any and all George W. Kennedy District Attorney 4 County of Santa Clara San Jose. Califomia 95110 © S.at REV 1/91 !r 1 2 A 4 5 6 7 1.1 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 George W. Kennedy Lhstntt Attorney County of Santa Clara in Jose, Califomis 95110 5441 REV 1/91 claims in any way arising from or relating to alleged late fee overcharges. The exact number and identity of affected cable subscribers and the amount of late fees paid by each are impossible to determine due to the varied nature of the allegations, the small individual amounts at issue, the mobility of the subscriber population, the lack of accessible records of payment, and because alternative restitution formats are too impractical or costly. For all of the foregoing reasons, and to best serve the interests of justice, this payment in restitution shall consist of the following components: Such payment shall be disbursed as direct and Dy 1x& restitution at the time and in the manner hereinafter provided. Direct restitution shall be paid in the form of direct payments to current and former subscribers of defendant in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties who paid ten dollar ($10.00) late fees to defendant. Cy pX= restitution shall be made on behalf of current and former subscribers of defendant in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties who paid five dollar ($5.00) late fees to defendant or who paid ten dollar ($10.00) late fees and do not receive a direct refund. The restitution nrnnran shall be governed by the following terms and procedures: ! 6.A. Within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Judgment, defendant shall establish a restitution fund (hereinafter, Restitution Fund) in the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) in an interest - bearing, trust account. Said Restitution Fund, and its accumulated interest, shall be used for the sole purposes of (a) compensating current and former subscribers who, during the period from September 1, 1991 through November 30, 1994, were assessed and A ` 1 2 S 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR ,eorge W. Kennedy District Atterneyy County of Santa Clara an Joae. California 95110 ©S.at REV 1191 thereafter paid Ten Dollar ($10.00) late fees to defendant, and (b) administering the payment of said restitution to claimants, and (c) the payment of restitution to herein described zy lea beneficiaries. 1 6.B. The amount of direct restitution shall be Five Dollars 1($5.00) for each late fee paid. 1 6.C. In order to make a claim for restitution, each eligible current or former subscriber must submit a claim on a form which shall be provided by defendant or its agent, upon which such subscriber shall set forth the number of Ten Dollar ($10.00) late fees paid by him or her to defendant during the pertinent period and shall certify, under penalty of perjury, that he or she in fact paid the late fees so described. Such claim forms shall be mailed to all current subscribers. 1 6.D. Completed claim forms shall be forwarded, postage prepaid, to South Bay CableVision, 3450 Garrett Drive, Santa Clara, California 95054 or to its. designated Restitution Fund administrator at the address specified in the claim form. 1 6.E. To be eligible to receive restitution, a subscriber must mail a claim form within sixty (60) days from the date the claim forms are mailed to subscribers, or within thirty (30) days from the date the last notice of the restitution program is published in the newspaper, whichever is later. 1 6.F. Defendant shall provide notice, as specified below, in a manner designed to provide actual notice to its current and former subscribers of the availability and terms of the restitution program. 6 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W George W. Kennedy Distnrt Attorney County of Santa Clara to Jose. California 95110 S5..+ REv tAt 1 6.F.1. Defendant shall provide - notice of the direct restitution program to current subscribers by inserting a separate written notice into a monthly billing statement. This notice shall be mailed prior to the direct mailing of the claim form to all current subscribers. The notice shall be mailed no later than forty -five (45) days from the date of entry of this Judgment. The written notice to be provided to current subscribers shall be in the form and format attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In addition, defendant may, at its option, use supplemental means to contact and /or effect reimbursement under this Judgment to current subscribers. 1 6.F.2. A claim form shall be mailed directly to current subscribers, postage prepaid within not less than 15 days after the notice is mailed in the monthly billing statement. The claim form to be provided to current subscribers shall be in the form and format attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 1 6.F.3. Defendant shall also provide notice to current and former subscribers by publishing a notice in the Local and State section of the San Jose Mernuri News, San Jose and Peninsula Editions, and the mss, on at least one (1) day per week for four (4) consecutive weeks commencing no later than forty -five (45) days from the date of entry of this Judgment. The published notice shall be in the form and the format (including size and typeface) of Exhibit 3 hereto. 1 6.G. Defendant may, at its sole election, investigate the eligibility of individual claimants to receive the claimed restitution. Upon agreement of the plaintiff, defendant may deny 7 0 1 2 8' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 George W. Kennedy District Attorney County of Santa Clara San Jose. California 95110 © Saat REV 1/91 Ipayment of claims based upon its review of its records. Defendant may, in pertinent notices, notify current subscribers and the public of its option to so investigate, verify and deny claims. Following such investigation (if any), defendant shall make the restitution to those eligible claimants who have complied with the procedures set out in paragraph 6.0 -E, in the following manner: 1 6.G.1. All claimants shall receive restitution in the form of a check payable to the subscriber for at least the first Five Dollar ($5.00) refund claimed. To the extent permitted by the remaining funds, all claimants who claim to have paid three (3) or more Ten Dollar ($10.00) late fees shall receive a =Q rAtd share (or, remaining funds permitting, a full refund) of the second and third Five Dollar ($5.00) late fee refund claimed. Funds remaining (if any) after payoff of all "second and third fee refund" claims may be used to pay or reimburse the costs of defendant, or defendant's designee, in administering the refund program (up to and not to exceed the amount of $ 80,000). Defendant may elect to appoint an outside administrator to prepare and mail pertinent notices, review claim forms, administer refunds, and perform necessary accountings. The fees and costs charged by said administrator and paid by defendant shall be recovered from the Restitution Fund to the extent and within the total allowed and set forth above ($80,000), as if incurred by defendant. The total cost of administration which may be reimbursed to defendant and /or its designee from the Restitution Fund shall note exceed $80,000. After such costs have been paid from the Restitutions Fund, and to the extent permitted by remaining funds, all claimants 8 I+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O ;eorge W. Kennedy District Attorney County of Sane Clara an Jose. California 95110 © 5"1 REV 1/91 who claim to have paid four (4) or more late fees shall receive a pro Lata share (or, remaining funds permitting, a full refund) of the fourth refund claimed. To the extent permitted by the remaining funds, the foregoing procedure shall be used to refund the remainder to persons requesting five, six, and so on, refunds, until the fund is exhausted, or all claims are paid. Refund checks shall be issued and mailed, postage prepaid, within sixty (60) days after the final deadline for filing all claims. Said checks shall be facially valid for a period of sixty (60) days. In the event that checks are returned as undeliverable, or remain uncashed at ninety (90) days after issuance, then the unclaimed funds shall revert to the Restitution Fund for purposes of distribution as = pres restitution. 1 6.G.2. In the event that any funds remain in the Restitution Fund after all claims have been satisfied, and defendant's administration costs of up to and not exceeding $80,000, are fully reimbursed, the remaining funds shall, within ninety (90) days after the final restitution payment has been mailed, be distributed as sX pz&a restitution. Such payment, combined with the direct restitutionary payments provided for above, are intended to satisfy and extinguish any and all claims by defendant's subscribers for restitution and /or damages for all late fees paid between September 1, 1991 and the date of entry of this Stipulated Final Judgment. LY grma restitution is to be paid to the following recipients in the following order until the Restitution Fund is depleted. The distributions specified hereafter have been selected because they are the next best use of the restitution funds in the instant matter. Z ',( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 George W. Kennedy District Attorney County of Santa Clan :an Joae, California 95110 © 5sa1 REV tr9t If 6.G.2.a. In the event that the amount of the Restitution Fund is less than or equal to Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) following the payment of direct restitution, then the funds shall be distributed on a 50$/50$ basis to the beneficiaries listed in paragraphs 6.G.2.b.1, and 6.G.2.b.3. 1 6.G.2.b. In the event that the amount of the Restitution Fund exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), then the funds shall be distributed as follows: 1 6.G.2.b.1. Forty Percent (40 %), up to a maximum sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) to the District Attorney's Consumer Fraud Trust Fund (account 0264) to be used in accordance with the provisions of the trust fund, to wit: to enhance the investigation, prosecution and enforcement of consumer protection actions in Santa Clara County; 1 6.G.2.b.2. Fifteen Percent (15 %), up to a maximum sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) to the Consumer Protection and Prosecution Trust Fund, created through the case entitled The People Of The State Of California v. ITT Consumer Financial Corporation, et al-,, Alameda Superior Court Civil Number 656038 -0 (September 21, 1989) to be used in accordance with the provisions of that trust fund, to wit: to enhance the investigation, prosecution and enforcement of consumer protection actions in California; 1 6.G.2.b.3. Forty -five Percent (45 %), up to a maximum sum of Forty -five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) to be divided equally among the San Francisco Bay Area Public Broadcasting System Channels: KTEH (Channel 54), KQED (Channel 9), and KCSM (Channel 60) for the sole and exclusive use of purchasing public broadcast programming; and, 10 A %I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vorge W. Kennedy Ihstno Attorneyy County of Santa Ce sra �C osy Cabfomta 95110 �/ 5,4e1 REV 1/91 1 6.G.2.b.4. Any monies remaining after the distributions described in paragraphs 6.G.2.b.1, 6.G.2.b.2, and 6.G.2.b.3 shall be distributed to eligible and qualified franchise authorities of South Bay, which franchises may include the cities of: Santa Clara, Mountain View, Milpitas, Saratoga, Newark, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and the County of Santa Clara. Said jurisdictions may share in the fund based upon each franchise's percentage of total cable system subscribers. These percentages are as follows: City of Santa Clara, 30 %, Mountain View, 22 %, Milpitas, 13 %, Saratoga, 9 %, Newark, 11 %, Los Gatos, 12 %, Monte Sereno, 1 %, and the County of Santa Clara, 2 %. In order to qualify for said distribution, each of the eligible franchise jurisdictions must, within sixty (60) days of the final direct restitution payment, pass a resolution which: 1) accepts the percentage distribution to the franchise as defined in this Judgment, and 2) agrees to use the funds solely to enhance public, educational, and governmental (including institutional network) access to and use of cable - related services by funding equipment, facilities, maintenance, programming, staffing, and /or training, for the benefit of consumers and cable subscribers within the franchise area. Such funds shall be in addition to any and all other obligations of the defendant to provide public, educational and governmental (PEG) support. Nothing set out in this paragraph is intended to relieve, diminish, or offset the PEG obligations of the defendant. The defendant will not participate in any manner whatsoever in the use or disbursement of the restitution funds. The eligible franchiaoc wi-in qualify for disbursement pursuant to this paragraph, maintain sole 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pdiscretion over disbursement of the funds received provided that all disbursements shall be for the purposes specified in this paragraph. 1 6.G.2.c. In the event that any eligible franchise authority declines or fails to qualify as a gy 9:gj beneficiary, as set out in (paragraph 6.G.2.b.4, its share of the fund shall revert to the restitution fund, and shall be distributed to all qualified franchises in proportional relation to their original percentage share as defined in paragraph 6.G.2.b.4. This paragraph is intended to accomplish full depletion of the restitution fund by reference to the weighted average shares of the participating qualified franchises. Said calculation shall be completed prior to any Dy prga distribution to the franchises and only one such distribution will be made. 1 6.H. Within thirty (30) days after the final direct restitution distribution is made, defendant shall provide to the District Attorney an accounting of the direct restitution paid, identifying to whom it has been paid and in what amount, the amount of any costs reimbursed, and the amount remaining in the Restitution Fund to be distributed to the ry pres fund. Within ninety (90) days of the accounting described above, defendant shall provide to the office of the District Attorney a final accounting of the direct and cy RrgS restitution made, the reimbursement of costs (if any) to defendant, and the amount (if any) remaining in the Restitution Fund. PENATM?ES AND COSTS 1 7. Contemporaneously with the signing of the Stipulation For Entry of Judgment, defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum of TWO 26 1 HUNDRED •eorge W. Kennedy Ustnct Attorney County of Sane Clan .n Jwe. Cahfoms 95110 5sat REV 1191 AND FIFTY -THREE THOUSAND AND SEVENTY -FOUR DOLLARS 12 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O ;eorge W. Kennedy District Attorney County of Santa Clata an ioae, California 95110 © 5"1 REV 1/91 ($253,074.00). The payment, with the exception of Court filing fees, shall be held by plaintiff for deposit upon entry of the Stipulated Final Judgment. The payment shall be allocated as follows: 1 7.A. The sum of ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY -THREE THOUSAND AND SEVENTY -FOUR DOLLARS ($193,074.00) in settlement of plaintiff's claim for civil penalties, which sum shall be received by plaintiff pursuant to authority of Business and Professions Code S 17206. Section 17206 mandates the assessment of a civil penalty for each violation of Business and Professions Code S 17200, regardless of any defendant's intent or lack thereof to violate the law. 1 7.B. The sum of FIFTY -NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY - SIX DOLLARS ($59,636.00) as reimbursement of costs of investigation and prosecution. 1 7.C. The sum of THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY -FOUR DOLLARS ($364.00) as court filing fees. 1 8. The payments made pursuant to paragraph 7 shall be payable as follows: 1 B.A. TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY -TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND TEN DOLLARS ($242,710.00) payable to the District Attorney of Santa Clara County; 1 8.B. TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) payable to the District Attorney's Consumer Fraud Trust Fund (account 0264); 1 B.C. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY -FOUR DOLLARS ($364.00) payable to the Clerk of the Superior Court. 13 M 1 2 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 24 25 26 wre Owbict V. am =of Sane CahWnia 0.5110 L. AEv 1091 1 9• All payments made pursuant to this Judgment and all notices or correspondence required by or in conjunction with it, shall be mailed or delivered to: Martha J. Donohoe, Deputy District Attorney Office of the District Attorney 70 W. Hedding Street, West Wing San Jose, CA 95110 1 10. The parties waive the right to appeal this Stipulated Final judgment both as to form and content. 1 11. Jurisdiction is retained for a period of five (5) years I for the purposes of enabling any party to the Judgment to apply to this Court for such further orders and directions as may be necessary and appropriate for the construction and carrying out of this Judgment, for the modification or dissolution of any injunctive provisions hereof, for enforcement of compliance herewith, or for the punishment of violations hereof. 1 12. The clerk shall enter this Stipulated Final Judgment forthwith. DATED: fE8 2 1 1 »6' sobayl2.jt READ A146lF1 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 14 M■ 0 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. rr AGENDA ITEM oC l � l� MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 CITY MGR. I jgly� ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk SUBJECT: Notice of Need to Amend Conflict of Interest Codes - Saratoga Parking Authority; Public Financing Authority; City of Saratoga Recommended Motion: Direct staff to make no changes in the codes. Report Summary: The Political Reform Act requires that Conflict of Interest Codes be reviewed biennially to determine whether they must be amended. The City Council is responsible for codes adopted by the City of Saratoga as well as the Saratoga Parking Authority and the Public Financing Authority (the two bodies established in connection with financing the Leonard Road Project and Village Parking District #3). None of these codes need amendments due to organizational changes because there have been no changes requiring amendments. Furthermore, no amendments are required due to changes in State law because these bodies adopted the State model code. Therefore, staff finds no basis to recommend any changes. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: None. Attachments: None. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. P,"11 5 AGENDA ITEM 64 MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Communi y Dev opment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 - Vidanage; 12528 Spring Blossom Ct. Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Design Review and Variance request to construct a new 4,002 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant 14,004 sq. ft. parcel. A Variance .is requested to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage -based rear yard setback. Recommended Motion: Deny the applicants' request and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the Variance and Design Review application. Background: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new 4,002 sq. ft. single story residence on a 14,004 sq. ft. vacant parcel on Spring Blossom Court, a new cul -de -sac located on the west side of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road between Wardell Road and Carniel Avenue. The property is lot #5 of Tract 8639 which is located within the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. The site is virtually flat in topography and contains nine ordinance protected trees which are located at the southwest corner of the parcel. The City Code requires that setbacks for vacant lots be determined as a percentage of the lot width and lot depth. The subject property is considered an interior parcel by City Code definition as it meets the Code requirements for site frontage, site width and site depth. The percentage -based setbacks require the rear yard setback to be 25% of the site depth, resulting in a 45 ft. rear yard setback. Summary of Planning Commission Action: The application was first heard by the Planning Commission on July 10, 1996. The applicant was proposing an 18 ft. tall, 3,741 sq. ft. single story home with a 25 ft. rear yard setback. At the w public hearing, several neighboring property owners expressed concern with the Variance request. Ultimately, the Planning Commission indicated that they could not support the Variance request to place the structure 20 ft. closer to the rear property line than allowed by City Code requirements. The item was continued to the August 14 Planning Commission meeting so that the applicant could redesign the project. The Planning Commission indicated that they would consider granting a Variance if the home was redesigned with a greater rear yard setback. In order to create a building footprint with an increased rear yard setback, the applicant completely redesigned the residence. The revised proposal consisted of an 18 ft. tall, 4,002 sq. ft. single story home with a 38 ft. rear yard setback. The Planning Commission considered the revised proposal at the August 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommended approval of the revised project with a condition that all construction be a minimum distance from the on -site trees in order to ensure their preservation. Although the 4,002 sq. ft. residence is in compliance with the City's allowable floor area, the Commission was concerned with the additional 260 sq. ft. which was added to the proposal. The Planning Commission indicated that they thought the house could be designed to meet the required rear yard setback and that they could not make the required Variance findings. Therefore, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the Variance request and the associated Design Review request. The attached staff report and Planning Commission memorandum include further analysis of the application. Appeal: The applicants, Linda and Sarath Vidanage, have redesigned the residence with an increased rear yard setback as the Planning Commission requested at the July 10 hearing. The revised proposal complies with the floor area standards and the applicants feel that it is compatible with the setbacks of the other homes approved for this subdivision. They feel that there are special circumstances applicable to the property based on its irregular shape and the subdivision restriction for a one -story design. Recommendation: The Planning Commission has found that the necessary Variance findings could not be made to approve the application and has adopted the attached denial Resolution. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission's decision be upheld and that the appeal be denied without prejudice so that the applicants can submit a new design which meets the required 45 ft. rear yard setback. Public Notice: A public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject parcel and published in the Saratoga News. Follow Up Actions: A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes dated July 10 and August 14, 1996 2. Letter from appellant's attorney, dated September 12, 1996. 3. Staff Report dated July 10, 1996 and Planning Commission memorandum dated August 14, 1996 (with respective attachments) 4. Resolutions DR -96 -026 and V -96 -006 5. Exhibit "A" - Originally Proposed Plans 6. Exhibit "B" - Revised plans prepared for the August 14, 1996 meeting. 7. Letter from Mr. Mark F. Ryan, dated September 11, 1996. 3 PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 4 - setback. If monument signs are proposed, they are located away from the building, within the front of the property. He felt that there should be an exception for signs in commercial districts. If a commercial building meets other criteria, staff did not believe that a sign would need to meet a building setback requirement. Commissioner Abshire asked if there is to be a street number placed on the sign. Planner Walgren responded that an address number would be located at the top of the sign. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public hearing at 7:39 ' p.m. There were no speakers for agenda item 5. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:39 P.M. Commissioners Murakami and Siegfried stated their support of the request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96- 012 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. S -96- 002 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. 6. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 - VIDANAGE, 12528 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,741 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 14,004 sq. ft. The application includes a Variance request to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage -based rear yard setback. The property is located within the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that condition 3 addresses the concerns raised by the neighbors that the pad grade may be changed during construction. He noted that condition 3 specifies that the building has to be built at the existing grade level and that this would be verified by a civil engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff recommended approval of the design review and variance to the rear yard setback. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. David Britt, project designer, concurred with the staff report and indicated that he would agree to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Murakami inquired as to the height of the building pad. He indicated that one of the homes that has been built in this area was recently raised two feet and that a question was raised regarding this lot as far as whether this lot would also be raised. -PLANNING COMMISSI� MINUTES r JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Mr. Britt responded that there were two homes currently under construction. He indicated that lot 4 was built on the existing grade instead of digging out the required subfloor. Lot 5 has provisions to require that the subfloor be excavated. Therefore, it would not be raised. He noted that the Kerwin Ranch subdivision was built similar to that of lot 4. Vice - chairwoman Patrick noted that a lot of dirt has been piled on the lot. She asked what the applicant intends to do with the dirt? Mr. Britt responded that, it was his belief that the applicant would use the dirt for landscaping or that it would be • smoothed out-over the lot. Commissioner. Siegfried asked staff about the difference in foundation construction. He asked if a condition was included to require grading at the required subfloor. Planner Walgren responded that the resolution includes conditions that would ensure that the building does not exceed 18 feet from the current grade. Paul Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, indicated that he lives directly behind the home that was raised (lot 4). He expressed concern that he nor Mr. Lau received notice of this hearing, noting that a neighbor informed him of this meeting. He indicated that Mrs. DeBianco received her public notice on Monday and that she was not able to attend the meeting nor submit her comments in writing regrading this request. He requested that the variance be denied as he did not receive notice of this public hearing. He indicated that he went to the building department to obtain information regarding setback requirements, noting that the Ordinance was adopted in 1992 that stipulates that all vacant lots are required to have 25 percent of their yard depth at their rear setback which would equal 45 feet in this case. He felt that the City should make homes comply with city codes. He asked if other homes would be exempt from meeting setback requirements? He felt that there were enough individuals present that are concerned with the construction of the home on this site. If the variance is considered and granted, he felt that the City may need to consider Measure G and put the request before the voters. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Campbell if he received the original notice on the development itself. Mr. Campbell responded that he has been present since 1991 when development occurred and that he was notified of previous hearings and that he was in attendance at those meetings. Commissioner Asfour asked staff to clarify whether this request qualifies for Measure G. Community Development Director Curtis stated that this project was not one that was subject to Measure G. Sue Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, indicated that she resides adjacent to this property. She concurred with the comments as expressed by her husband. It was her belief that the neighbors were intentionally deleted from receiving notice of this request. She felt that the applicant does not want the neighbors to be notified. She felt that the lack of notice warrants denial of the variance request and that she felt that city codes should be followed. Ann Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, informed the Commission that she resides directly behind the fence from the home being considered for a variance. Her husband and her neighbor, Mr. and 2 PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Mrs. DeBianco strongly oppose any variance that would place the home closer to the fence. Having the home overlooking her fence would be unbearable. She requested that the variance be denied. Commissioner Abshire asked how far back Mrs. Ryan's home was from the lot line. Ms. Ryan responded that she did not have that information. Commissioner Asfour asked staff to identify the location of the neighbors who addressed the Commission this evening. Planner Walgren identified the lots as being lots 68 and 73 as shown ' on the vicinity. map. Mr. Britt stated that he felt that the design proposed was a reasonable solution for this difficult site. He felt that the home was designed to be compatible with the existing homes and the subdivision. He felt that if the home was designed with a 45 foot rear setback, the home would be pushed up closer to the eastern and the southern property lines, adversely affecting the adjacent homes, making the home less compatible with those of the neighborhood. Vice - chairwoman Patrick noted that the rear property line jogs back further than the adjacent parcels. Mr. Britt indicated that the rear property line was setback 15 feet further than lots 78 and 79. He stated that he did not know how far the home located on lot 60 was setback from the rear property line. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his belief that the neighbors were upset that they were not notified of this hearing date. Community Development Director Curtis stated that a speaker indicated that the applicant intentionally left the neighbors' names off the list. He clarified that the owner does not generate the hearing list. He indicated that the City contracts to a provider who uses the latest County Tax Assessors Roll. He stated that he would need to review the file to determine who was notified of this hearing date. . Commissioner Siegfried stated that Vice - chairwoman Patrick brought up a good point that the rear property line jogs back further than lots 78 and 79. He indicated that his initial reaction was to grant the variance. However, he was not sure whether the applicant should take another look at redesigning the home to achieve a greater setback. He stated that he was sympathetic with the applicant and that the adjacent neighbors would need to understand that the lot was created under a different ordinance than what currently exists. Under the previous ordinance, it was believed that a 25 foot rear setback would be sufficient. He felt that a problem exists and that it could be addressed by some form of variance. He recommended that the applicant be requested to return with a redesign. Commissioner Murakami stated that he senses hostility with the neighbors. He felt that maybe the developer may have had a poor relationship with the neighbors. He concurred with the 0 PLANNING COMMISSI' MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 7 - recommendation that the applicant investigate a redesign. Commissioner Abshire did not believe that this parcel was a flag lot. In view of the neighbors' comments, he could not approve the variance. He recommended that the applicant consider a redesign. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his belief that this parcel was a flag lot. He emphasized that these six lots were created under a different code than currently exists. He felt that the property line needs to be reviewed and that alternative designs be considered. Vice - chairwoman Patrick stated that she felt that the lot was a flag lot and that she understood the difficulty in applying newer restrictions onto older sites. Because this property jogs back 15 feet, the City would be siting a home 10 feet back from where the other homes are sited. She understood that this was a difficult site but that she was not sure if alternatives have been considered to address the neighbors' concerns. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he could not find the public hearing mailing list. He stated that it has been represented that noticing was not received and that he could not verify this fact. He stated that staff would further investigate this issue should the Commission continue this item. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:07 TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR REQUEST THAT ACTION BE TAKEN THIS EVENING. Mr. Britt stated that the home could be redesigned to reduce the rear setback and that he would agree to a continuance. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DR- 96-026 AND V- 96-006 TO AUGUST 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. 7. DR -96-024 - RAN, 19121 DAGMAR DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval construct a 642 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing single story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 8,036 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He noted that this would be the first, two story home proposed in this existing residential tract. He requested that the Commission make a statement as to whether the approval of a two story home is the type of precedent that it is comfortable in setting in this residential neighborhood. Staff recommended approval of the request. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public hearing at 8:10 p.m. No comments were offered for agenda item 7. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 5 - following City codes. Commissioner Siegfried stated that during his tenure on the Commission that he has seen homes get bigger and bigger. The City has amended its code to recognize economic changes. He noted that the subdivision was approved to restrict height limitations and to request the construction of single story homes. Commissioner Abshire stated that today's homes tend to be linear and massive. He felt that the City has to live with the homes being proposed. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the home is restricted to a single story home and that it occupies only 38 percent of the lot, noting that it could occupy 45 percent of the lot. She pointed out that this was a 1996 home and that the City could not require the applicant to build homes similar to 1970 homes. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 96 -038. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 - VIDANAGE, 12528 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,002 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 14,004 sq. ft. The application includes a Variance request to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage -based rear yard setback. The property is located within the R -1- 12,500 zoning district (cont. from 7/10/95 at the direction of the Planning Commission; City review deadline is 12/18/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended that condition 2b be amended to include the following: "Prior to the issuance of permits, the applicant will be responsible to survey the property to verify the tree locations and to make sure that no part of the structure is closer than 8 feet from the trees in order to preserve the trees." Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Michael Rowe, project designer, indicated that the home was redesigned to provide a greater setback. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Rowe to explain how the square footage of the home increased by 260 square feet. Mr. Rowe responded that the increase in square footage was to the perimeter of the home. Lou Pambianco stated that the proposed home backs up to his property. He expressed concern with drainage in this area and felt that with the size of the home, it is anticipated that drainage problems would increase. a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Paula Pambianco, 20541 Wardell Road, expressed concern with the home that she would be looking at. She stated that she has a beautiful old home with existing trees and that she would be opposed to any variances that would threaten existing trees. The loss of trees would result in the loss of charm and character of the neighborhood. She also expressed concern with drainage. Although the home is proposed at 19 feet, it may be padded, increasing the height of the home. Commissioner Asfour informed Mrs. Pambianco that the trees are to remain. Mark Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, expressed concern with the error in plan submission. He did not believe that the rear yard has been defined, noting that it is located where the redwood trees are located. He asked if this was considered a flag lot because if it was not, Section 15- 2.090b determines the rear yard. Section 15- 06.430b defines rear lot line to be the most parallel to and the most distant from the front lot line. It was his contention that the majority of the front line is the most parallel to his rear lot line and that it is the most distant from the front lot line. He did not believe that the rear lot line is properly defined according to code. He objected to any variances and expressed concern with the impact to the redwood trees and drainage. He stated that there is a 12 foot gap to the house to the left of this home, noting that a decision has not been made as to what is to be done with the gap. He felt that the issue of the gap needs to be resolved prior to Commission action. Paul Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, expressed concern with the variance request. He requested that the 45 foot variance be accepted, not the 38 feet. He also expressed concern with the size of the home, noting that the rear property line contains a retaining wall that belongs to the adjacent two neighbors. He indicated that Mr. Law, adjacent neighbor, was out of the country and that he asked that he (Mr. Campbell) express concern with what is to be done with the 12 foot offset of land. Robert Sayre, 12664 Wardell Court, stated that a previous storm damaged the eucalyptus trees. He noted that redwood trees do not grow quickly to mitigate the impact of the large homes. Sarath Vidanage, applicant, stated that he purchased the property for a nursery in 1973. He indicated that he lost his use permit for the nursery two years ago. He stated that he did not support the removal of the trees. He indicated that drainage would be mitigated by the installation of a drainage system. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Planner Walgren indicated that the 12 foot offset was related to the request for the survey to be performed prior to the issuance of permits. If the Commission approves the home, it is being approved 38 feet from the rear property line, not from the fence line. When the home is built, it would be built per the setback from the property lines and not from fences or retaining walls that may exist. Regarding the existing retaining wall and the fence located to the rear of the property, it was not something that staff anticipated dealing with but that normally, it is an issue that is resolved between two property owners. He indicated that the city engineer would be q PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 7 - reviewing engineered drainage plans that are to be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. He stated that every effort would be made to drain to the public storm drain system located on the street. Also, the resolution contained conditions that would require that the height of the building be varied to ensure that the home does not exceed 18 feet from the existing natural grade. Regarding the yard orientation, he stated that when you have irregular shaped parcels like this one, it takes some discretion to determine which is the rear, front and side yards. He concurred with the speaker that you establish the front property line as being the property that abuts the street. Staff determined that the west property line was the most logical setback in this case. He indicated that the site is consistent with the tentative map in terms of yard orientation and that the site development plan shows that the west property line as being the rear property line. Commissioner Murakami inquired about the expiration of the previous use permit for the nursery. Planner Walgren indicated that the applicant elected not to seek renewal of the use permit. Commissioner Asfour noted that staff has indicated that the area would be surveyed. He asked if conditions were included that would address the drainage concerns. Planner Walgren responded that conditions 2a and 2b would address drainage concerns. Commissioners Patrick, Asfour, Murakami, Abshire stated that they could not support the variance request to encroach into the required setback as the house can be redesigned to fit within the required setback. Commissioner Patrick asked if the public hearing should be reopened to determine if the applicant would like to request a continuance. Mr. Vidanage indicated that he would request Commission action this evening. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / ASFOUR MOVED TO DENY V -96 -006 AS THE NECESSARY FINDINGS COULD NOT BE MADE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR -96 -026 BECAUSE THE COMMISSION COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thought findings could be made to approve variance requests under certain circumstances. In this case, he could not make the findings to grant the variance when the home is being increase by 260 square feet. Commissioner Asfour stated for the record that Community Development Director Curtis has indicated that the denial was effective as of tonight's action and that there would be a 15 day appeal period. 1 2 Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee: $675 Receipt No.: APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: �Ccxa-*"k C, Address: �- v ( 9 A-h4 Telephone: ( fQ ? J yo-/- Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: V- g� ' 00 (0 �aS�B �rOr�►,s�OS�ovn �, Decision Being Appealed: /0.,V' iaiace_ de'r.'Lr Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): See ai -a.. k ►n1e-y't W-kL- srB I o-w z. *Appel is Signature *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. File No. V- 9 % - OOj AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING if l J ay IL C. \/1 Q G_� , authorize Engineering Data ervice above file. as appellant on the above file, hereby s to perform the legal noticing on the v� Date • Signature: S DEMPSTER SELIGMANN & RAINERI ATPORMYS AT IAW WILLIAM R. SELIGMANN JOSEPH C. RAINERI OF COUNSEL J. ROBERT DEMPSTER (RET.) PARALEGAL BRENDAL.BREON LEGAL ASSISTANT SHARON G. KAHLE LA CANADA BUILDING 3 1/2 N. SANTA CRUZ AVE. SUITE A LOS GATOS, CA 95030 PHONE 408.399.7766 rAX 408.399.7767 PRINTED ON P - YCLED PAPER September 12, 1996 Mayor Paul Jacobs �c /o Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Application of Vidanage DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 12528 Spring Blossom Court (Lot 5) Dear Mayor Jacobs: My office has been retained to assist Sarath and Linda Vidanage with the above - referenced variance application. Initially, I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Council on the City's Community Development staff, who have been both professional and courteous to my clients and me throughout the course of the application. As the Council is aware, the present appeal consists of two applications: (1) a request for design review; and (2) a request for a seven foot variance to the rear yard setback. The lot at issue was formerly part of a commercial nursery operated by Mr. Vidanage for over twenty (20) years. After the City rezoned the property for residential use, the property was eventually subdivided in 1991 under the City's former, less stringent setback ordinance. This subdivision created the present, unique, cooking pan shaped lot. This lot presents a virtual text book case for a variance. Under applicable State law, a city "shall" grant a variance when "because of special circumstances applicable to the property. including . . . shape ., the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoined by other property. . . under identical zoning classification." The unusual shape of this lot clearly deprives the Vidanage's lot of privileges. accorded to identically zoned lots of similar size. The difficulties presented by the configuration of the lot are readily apparent when compared with a typical rectangular lot of the same size. For example, the present lot is 14,000 square feet. A typical rectangular lot of 100 feet by 140 feet would require a rear yard set back of thirty -five (35) feet under the City's current ordinance. Conversely, the present lot, due to its long pan- handle would be required to have a forty -five (45) foot rear setback, even though there is no more square footage, and even less buildable are. Therefore, the present lot, solely due to its shape, would be deprived of the same development privilege as identically zoned properties, unless the Council approves the present variance. In fact, the current variance application actually maintains a greater rear yard setback than a standard lot by more than three (3) more feet. Consequently, the variance does not accord any special privilege to the Vidanages that is not enjoyed by most other similarly sized properties. By approving the variance, the City Council will provide a level playing field for a residential development, and give the Vidanages a definite boundary within which to build the proposed house. Once this standard is set the Council can appropriately deal with the design application. Naturally, I hope this letter is of some assistance to you in reviewing the Vidanages' application; and I appreciate your patient attention to this letter. Sincerely, William R. Seligmann cc: Sarath & Linda Vidanage David Britt Michael Riback Harry Peacock, City Manager DEMPSTER. SELIGMANN & RAINERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW U, REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-96-026 , V-96-006; Applicant/ Owner: VIDANAGE Staff Planner: Anne Dailey Date: July lo, 1996 APN: 366-13-080 12528 Spring Blossom Ct. Director Approval: ----------------- — ------------ --------- 10 II 6 i 5 i 4 3 i 2 i I PCL. A A- 1W UP - +1f sm. 1114 1491 sm-*" 8 2 5- 6 5 =i 4 2 2 0 N,► loan 44 W ?a 'Vol$ 105J9 ?0517 TA. N 9 774 7' P.M. 354-M-20 CARNIEL SUBDIVI ROSE ION AVENUE S 10109 P05 M 00354 00558 J-05f0 06.14 WK. if. 70 77 i s ck _M4 b 1�7 28 %1; 2.9 2 -70 P 33 2 01 1�6 — 7 8 q 10 1z Ty ii a as 7a I,0 3 3 4 'L B Pr,1 A 14 ? _j,, ,cnb toss ?4 12 k� 064 75 0; 74 1� . rr tb d?j "T 046 44 2 65 w -112 51 V- 76 5 2 ISO 62 S Y 78 77 9 1 66 .21 4S UPUP6 s 112.15 < .0 76 T I Cr 4 7Y SPI A -'%3- 00* // WAROELL TO cc 77 ". IS 5 page 1.4 -10 Ossom CT. 60 4 > ±3 5!9 60 2 5 rL soR 1431 .K JB �z 7 17 A _j PCL I PCL. 3 I _j W 0 396 3 69 1 94 i L3 73 77 71 4j -1.11-01 41 Cr < 0. 0. MIS 90 0 2 01 6 0. 1 L III -f?fn —ROAD 143 IT -M-47' P. M 339-M- I I 12528 Spring Blossom Court L, File No. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006; 12528 Spring Blossom Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 04/03/96 Application complete: 06/18/96 Notice published: 06/26/96 Mailing completed: 06/27/96 Posting completed: 06/20/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,741 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 14,004 sq. ft. Variance approval is also requested to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage -based rear yard setback. The subject property is lot #5 of Tract 8639, the Spring Blossom Court subdivision, and is located within the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting the attached Resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1.. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR: 7*96 -026 3. Resolution V -96 -006 4. Arborist Report dated April 17, 1996 5. Correspondence 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" iq File No. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006; 12528 Spring Blossom Court STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential PARCEL SIZE: 14,004 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 001 GRADING REQUIRED: None - MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Taupe colored sand finish stucco siding with off -white trim and a lightweight concrete tile roof per the submitted material board. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 430 (6,004 sq. ft.) 550 (7,702 sq. ft.) HEIGHT: SIZE OF 18 ft. 20 ft. STRUCTURE: Living Area: 3,037 sq. ft. Garage: 656 sq. ft. Covered Porches: 48 sq. ft. TOTAL: 3,741 sq. ft. 4,050 sq.ft. SETBACKS: Front: 81 ft. Front: 36 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Rear: 45 ft. Right Side: 11 ft. Right Side: 11 ft. Left Side: 11 ft. Left Side: 11 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Overview: The subject property is lot #5 of the Spring Blossom Court subdivision which is located on the west side of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road between Carniel Avenue and Wardell Road. The five lot subdivision received Tentative Map approval in June of 1991. All five lots within the subdivision are subject to Design Review approval by the Planning Commission and are restricted to single story construction. Additionally, the subdivision conditions limit the maximum building height of all five lots to 18 feet; however, portions of the roofline may extend to 20 ft. if the additional height improves the design of the home without adversely affecting neighboring views. The Planning Commission has approved Design Review applications for lots #3 and #4 which are currently under construction. 141 1 File No. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006; 12528 Spring Blossom Court Lot #5 is flat in topography and contains nine ordinance protected trees, which are located along the property line at the southwest corner of the parcel. Design Review: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,741 sq. ft. single story residence with a maximum height of 18 feet. Several of the techniques recommended to minimize bulk and building mass in the City's Residential Design Handbook have been incorporated into the proposal. The - design utilizes varied rooflines and architectural details to reduce the perception, of building mass. The proposed height is limited to 18 feet, which should not interfere with neighboring views. Additionally, the building footprint is angled towards the front property line which will help to maximize the usable rear yard area and to minimize the potential for privacy impacts upon the adjacent property owners. Variance: Per City Ordinance adopted in 1992, setbacks for all vacant lots are derived as a percentage of the lot width and lot depth. The applicant is requesting a Variance in order to construct the proposed home within the required 45 ft. rear yard setback. Staff is supporting the Variance request based on the following special circumstances: • The irregular configuration of the subject lot resembles a flag lot, but is considered an interior parcel by City Code definition as it meets the Code requirements for an interior lot in terms of site frontage, site width, and site depth. This irregular configuration results in an access corridor which can not be utilized for a portion of the building envelope. The City's current percentage -based setbacks require the rear yard setback to be 250 of the site depth, resulting in a rear yard setback of 45 ft. The conditions of the subdivision approval have limited this parcel to a single story design and a 45 ft. rear yard setback would further limit this parcel to a smaller building envelope. Additionally, the rear yard would be much larger than the adjacent lots within the same subdivision. • The parcel was created in 1991 under standards which would have allowed a rear yard setback of 25 ft. The current percentage based setback requirements were not adopted until 1992. • The proposal, does meet the minimum 25 ft. rear yard setback which was in place when the parcel was created. It also meets the current percentage -based setbacks for the front and side yards. Tree Preservation: The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has determined that none of the existing trees are in conflict with the proposed construction. Three Coast Redwoods have been recommended for removal . due to their poor health. The EM File No. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006; 12528 Spring Blossom Court recommendations for tree preservation have been incorporated into the attached Resolution. Landscape: The subdivision approval required a landscape plan for each parcel which indicated a minimum of two 24 inch box street trees. These trees have been incorporated into the proposed site plan along with several additional ornamental trees located within the front yard area. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the landscape plan be upgraded to incorporate trees equal to the $2,420 replacement value recommended -by the City Arborist. Correspondence: Staff has received correspondence from the adjacent property owner to the west. He has indicated his concern regarding the Variance request, as well as the height of the proposed structure in relation to the currently existing grade. The plans submitted by the applicant do not propose any grading. Staff has included a condition in the attached Resolution requiring that the construction plans indicate that the foundation will be constructed at the existing natural grade. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed residence is well massed and detailed and that the Design Review and Variance findings can be made to support the application. Therefore, staff recommends approval of both the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting the attached Resolutions. II BARRIE D. C("—'ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 - 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. VIDANAGE 12527 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT SARATOGA R g6 Prepared at the Request of: Mpg( 1. X19 Anne Saratoga Q�,CINING DOI . City of 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench April 17, 1996 Job #04 -96 -149 wt., BARRIE D. q- ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 - 353 -1052 ' 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. VIDANAGE 12527 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Anne Dailey, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the construction proposal to construct a single'-story residence on this vacant lot as it relates to adjacent trees. Information about the health and structure of the trees on this property will be provided and recommendations will be made by which damage to them can be minimized during construction. Abstract There are nine trees on site that meet regulation requirements. Three trees are in poor condition and are recommended for removal. Their value is $2,420, which equals one 36 inch box, one 24 inch box, and two 15- gallon native trees. The six trees retained are assessed at a total of $8,150. A 25% bond for this amount equals $2,038. Findings There are nine trees in a row at the southeast corner on this site that meet City of Saratoga regulation standards. The only other tree on site is a 9 inch diameter Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia) tree on the east boundary line. The nine trees are classified as follows: 6 - Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 3 - Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) Overall these trees are in poor to fair condition. these trees are the victims of over - planting, and poor maintenance which resulted in competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients. There are no strong winners of this competition. All have competed for light and water, but some have fared better than others. 11 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 2 �- AT THE PROPERTY e- MR. AND MRS. VIDANAGE t 12527 SP. G BLOSSOM, SARATOGA Tree #5, a coast redwood, has suffered main leader failure at approximately 18 feet above grade. The growth that has attempted to take over the role of the main leader are side branches, which have relatively weak attachments. These side branches pose a high risk of failure. The larger these branches become, the greater the risk. Tree #8, a coast redwood, has the same hazardous condition as tree #5, except the point of the attachments for tree #8 are about 38 feet above grade. There is no effective treatment for this problem. Recommend removal of both trees. Tree #7 is in poor health. The canopy is very sparse. A recent scientific study (Journal of Arboriculture 21 [5]: September 1995) indicates the overall decline is the most reliable factor in predicting tree failure. Although there are no obvious symptoms of disease, this tree is in such poor condition that I consider this tree hazardous. Recommend removal. Recommendations for Trees Which are to Be Retained 1. To prevent massive loss of absorbing root tips, the original grade beneath the canopy of each tree must be left undisturbed and under no circumstances be rototilled, plowed, disked or cultivated. 2. To prevent long term damage from soil compaction a temporary protective chainlink fence must be constructed at the dripline of each tree or group of trees before any construction or grading equipment arrives on site and must remain in place until all construction is completed, including cleanup operations (see notations on the plan). The protective fence must be left in place at all times during construction unless supervised by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). The chainlink fence must be 5 feet minimum height, mounted on 2 -inch galvanized pipe, driven 2 feet into the ground, and be able to keep out even foot traffic. 3. To compensate for the loss of absorbing root tips outside of the protective fence, install a soaker irrigation line on top of the undisturbed soil surface approximately. 2 feet inside the protective fencing. Irrigate each tree approximately 20 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks until at least 8 inches of rain has fallen. In the case of '/8-inch Aquapore Porous Pipe, a 10 -inch diameter tree would require 7 hours of soaking with 100 linear feet of soaker line at a reduced pressure of 10psi. 4. To reduce soil compaction from foot traffic, install a 3 inch layer of bark chips inside the protective fences over the entire area beneath the canopy of each tree with the exception of the 12 inches around the root collar, which must be left bare and dry. The spreading must be done by hand and before the irrigation ( 0) begins. This insulating layer will reduce soil compaction and further encourage root tip growth. �0 TREE SURVEY AND PRESER', ION RECOMMENDATIONS 3 AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. VIDANAGE 12527 SPRING BLOSSOM, SARATOGA 5. To prevent absorbing root tip as well as structural root loss, any trenches for utilities or roof drains must be outside of the driplines of trees. 6. To minimize the exposure -to disease or structural damage, tree branches which are in conflict with construction or with construction equipment must be managed as follows: Branches up to 3 inches in-diameter may be cut by carpenters so as to leave a stub of at least one foot in length from the branch's point of attachment to the larger branch. Branches larger than 3 inches must be removed by an ISA- certified arborist. Any "stubs" from branches 3 inches in diameter or smaller must also be removed by an ISA- certified arborist prior to project completion. Value Assessment There are no trees in conflict with construction. Trees #5, 7 and 8 are recommended for removal due to poor condition. Their combined value is $2,420. This equals one 36 inch box, two 24 inch box, and two 15- gallon native trees. C. , The total value of trees retained is $8,150. A 25% bond for this amount equals $2,038. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Associate Barrie D. Coate and Associates MLB:la Enclosures: Map Charts ,p BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES Canary Island Pine Pinus 16 18 45 21 2 3 1 canariensis - - - - - - -- - = ! sq. in 201 q _ - X $27 /sq. in - $5 427 0 - - -- -- - X sp. class (90 /o) _ $4,884 -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- - X cond. (60 %) _ $2,931 -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - X loc. (50 %) _ $1,465 Final Value 2 Canary Island Pine 14 15 55 27 2 3 _ 5 -gal = $36.00 Horticultural Consultants sq. in 154 154 X $27 /sq. in = $4158; X sp. class (90 %) _ $3,742 X cond. (75 %) _ $2,807 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,403 Canary Island Pine - -- - -- -- — - -- - - 11 12 55 24 2 3 Final Value _ U sq. in 95 X $27 /sq. in = $2,565 X sp. class (90 %) _ $2,308 X cond. (75 %) _ $1,731 in L4� Q 12 14 40 15 2 3 > } 15-gal = $120 353 Sequoia sempervirens W pp Q sq. in 113 - X $27 /sq. in = $3,051 X sp. class (90 %) _ $2,746 �;, V Z L �n ¢ } ' �' - - p 0 w J Q X cond. (30 %) _ $1,123 ¢ 0 F-- CE 24 "box = $420 36 "box = $1,320 (408) -1052 W w a d V 20 22 55 30 3 3 '- w Q Z = Z W i J J 0 J -' U W in " �_ O cn D OQ O L F- ! W Z Q� W Q Z w -j a¢ a 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 (n _ ~ } 1' V } O 11 Uji OV V 5 Z W ai M } } Z 72 "box = $15,000 = H = _ W0 °° = t� Q w-j OC ►_- Q 5 Q p W 0 �w o} I--Q OW Y Z � V W wQ ww !cR� az > m cn o w 0 w 00 VM O 2 RE Key # Plant Name o o 0 o N = (n Z (n � ¢ o ¢ z ¢ o o a V Z Z ¢ ¢ ¢ COMMENTS Z OOC JOB TITLE: Vidanage /Spring Blossom Court Job # 04 -96 -149 Date: 4/17/96 Canary Island Pine Pinus 16 18 45 21 2 3 1 canariensis - - - - - - -- - ! sq. in 201 q _ - X $27 /sq. in - $5 427 0 - - -- -- - X sp. class (90 /o) _ $4,884 -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- - X cond. (60 %) _ $2,931 -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - X loc. (50 %) _ $1,465 Final Value 2 Canary Island Pine 14 15 55 27 2 3 _ sq. in 154 154 X $27 /sq. in = $4158; X sp. class (90 %) _ $3,742 X cond. (75 %) _ $2,807 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,403 Canary Island Pine - -- - -- -- — - -- - - 11 12 55 24 2 3 Final Value _ sq. in 95 X $27 /sq. in = $2,565 X sp. class (90 %) _ $2,308 X cond. (75 %) _ $1,731 X loc. (50 %) _ $866 -_ _- Coast Redwood 12 14 40 15 2 3 Final Value 4 Sequoia sempervirens sq. in 113 - X $27 /sq. in = $3,051 X sp. class (90 %) _ $2,746 X cond. (60 %) _ $1,648 X loc. (50 %) _ $824 _ - Coast Redwood __ -- -_ - -- -_ -- _ -- - -- 14 14 30 15 3 4 Final Value J leader failure at 18' 5 sq. in 154 X $27 /sq. in = $4,158 X sp. class (90 %) _ $3,442 X cond. (30 %) _ $1,123 X loc. (50 %) _ $561 Final Value Coast Redwood 20 22 55 30 3 3 i 6 i i sq. in 314 _ X $27 /sq. in = $8,478 X sp. class (90 /o) _ $7,630 X cond. (45 %) _ $3,434 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,717 - -- - - -- Final Value JOB TITLE: Vidanage /Spring Blossom Court Job # 04 -96 -149 Date: 4/17/96 BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES Coast Redwood 12 15 38 15 4 1 - [-I-- Ll = s . in 113 X $27 /sq. in = $3,051 X sp. class (90 %) _ $2,746 X cond. (60 %) _ $1,648 -1 X loc. (50 %) _ $8_24 — ?- Final Value 8 5 -gal = $36.00 Horticultural Consultants Topped at 38', result co-dom. - - - -- - -- - — -- - -- — - - -- -- - - - -- - -- -- - -- - - - - -I eaders - - C7 X sp. class (90 %) _ $6,901 X cond. 30 %) _ $2,070 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,035 - - -- �. cc Final Value 9 � �. 15 -gal = $120 _ W r� C7 X cond. (45 %) _ $3,751 — X loc. (50 %) _ $1,875 Final Value 0 w_j w sq. in X $27 /sq. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ Q _� 24 "box =. $420 (408)353 -1052 pp Q Cb i i' w Z Z Z l U u' 0 in CC Z O a CC O 36 "box = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 41 u w e d w w O W 0 l" in CC w O w I w __j a Q 52 "box = $7,000 c to c H Q U F=- to w > U¢ O w U cn Y f- U to Q S (� w uw cn to � >> 0 Z 72 box = $15,000 w0 °D � Q 2 U w ¢ �� Q¢w�O> 0 0 F-w HQ OwDUiLUW Z U wQ p Qz .j p p Oja: o z Key # Y Plant Name 0 0 m. 0 ?v w a (n w F-. cn w w O O O (n o¢ �¢(n Z w QQwwww COMMENTS = = Z CC CC U CEO l— P O 0 00- U z z CL Ct a 7 Coast Redwood 12 15 38 15 4 1 - [-I-- Ll s . in 113 X $27 /sq. in = $3,051 X sp. class (90 %) _ $2,746 X cond. (60 %) _ $1,648 -1 X loc. (50 %) _ $8_24 — ?- Final Value 8 - Coast Redwood 19 21 40 15 3 4 Topped at 38', result co-dom. - - - -- - -- - — -- - -- — - - -- -- - - - -- - -- -- - -- - - - - -I eaders - - sq. in _ 284 X $27 /sq. in = $7,668 X sp. class (90 %) _ $6,901 X cond. 30 %) _ $2,070 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,035 - - -- �. Final Value 9 - —_ Coast Redwood 18 �1 15 _ -. -- - -- 40 55 18 3 3 _ s . in 343 X $27 /sq. in = $9,261 - X sp. class (90 %) _ $8,335 --- _ X cond. (45 %) _ $3,751 — X loc. (50 %) _ $1,875 Final Value sq. in X $27 /sq. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) Final Value i sq. in X $27 /sq. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ I Final Value f sic in _— X $27 /sq. in = $ JOB TITLE: Vidanage /Spring Blossom Court Job # 04 -96 -149 Date: 4/17/96 X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ Final Value o� * Placa dnaa prof Vito roar aNbwk TREE PRC rear ywd as back SITE PLAN BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES L s�S8®me950 (10!)7Sl -IOS2 0 (401Gstas152 HonfakuralConsultant; Consulting Arbo im An Analysis of Trees At the Vidanage Residence 12527 Spring Blossom Court Prepared for: City of Saratoga Planning Department Job 101 -96 -149 Ftet4/17/96 JUt / `9 1996 Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Re: DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 (APN: 366 -13 -080) - VIDANAGE, 12528 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT Dear Sir/Madam: Pursuant to your Notice of Hearing regarding the above referenced property my family has several concerns about the proposed construction. We reside at 20563 Wardell Road. Our rear property line is contiguous with the rear property line of the referenced property. We are quite concerned with the potential loss of our privacy that we have enjoyed in our home and backyard over the past twelve years. The applicant has requested a variance to locate the residence 25 feet from the rear property line where 45 feet is the minimum setback required by the city code. We object to any variance that would locate the residence closer to our property than the applicable city code. In discussing this matter with a member of the planning staff it appears the applicant may be successful in arguing that the 45 foot setback does not apply. Considering that the other properties under construction in that tract of land are not 45 feet from the- rear property line, my sense is that not withstanding my formal objection the variance will eventually be granted. In the event the residence is allowed to be located within 25 feet from the rear property line I implore the commission, staff other appropriate body to emphasize to the entity constructing the residence that it must strictly adhere to the requirement that the height of the structure not exceed eighteen feet from the natural grade. It appears to me that the the residence currently being constructed at 12536 Spring Blossom Court is significantly higher than the residence under construction immediately adjacent to it, and virtually towers over the pre- existing residence directly -f behind it. The height differential appears to be largely due to the height or grade of the two lots. Before construction began the. grade appeared to be uniform. When the property housed a nusurery it was essentially flat. What concerns me now, however, is the overall height of the residence to be constructed at 12528 Spring Blossom Court. A staff member has indicated over the phone that the application requests no permit to grade the property in-issue. Yet there are large mounds of earth on the property now. I'm concerned that the dirt will be used to raise the level of the lot resulting in a house that towers over our property the way 12536 towers over the residence directly behind it. Our family strongly objects to any grading that increases the height of the lot beyond the existing natural grade. Due to previous commitments we cannot attend the public hearing on this matter scheduled for July 10, 1996. We would appreciate your including this letter in the Planning Commission's information packet. Sincerely, z7At4,1 - - Mark F. Ryan 20563 Wardell Rd. �6 C U TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Overview: R 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Marie Burger M E M O R A N D U M Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe Planning Commission Anne Dailey, Assistant Planner August 14, 1996 DR -96 -026, V -96 =006; VIDANAGE 12528 Spring Blossom Court At the July 10, 1996 public hearing, the Planning Commission heard a proposal to construct a new 3,741 sq. ft. single story residence at 12528 Spring Blossom Court. The proposal included a Variance request to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage -based rear yard setback. The applicant was proposing a 25 ft. rear yard setback, where 45 ft. was required by the City Code. The Commission indicated that they could not support a Variance request to allow the structure to be placed 20 ft. closer to the rear property line. than allowed by Code requirements. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the rear property line of the subject parcel jogs approximately 10 ft. further to the west than the rear property lines of lots #3 and #4. The item was continued until the August 14, 1996 public hearing so that the applicant could make the necessary design changes in order to increase the rear yard setback. Proposal: In order to create a building footprint with an increased rear yard setback, the applicant has designed an entirely new residence. The applicant is now requesting approval for a 4,002 sq. ft. single story structure with a maximum height of 18 ft. The residence is set back 38 ft. from the rear property line. A Variance is still necessary in order to allow the applicant to encroach into the required 45 ft. rear yard setback. Analysis: The increased rear yard setback has resulted in a smal-.ier building envelope; however, the applicant has increased the size of the Printed on recycled paper. 0 File No. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006; 12528 Spring Blossom Court proposed residence by 260 sq. ft. The current design utilizes the majority of the area within the building envelope and the structure is closer to the existing on -site trees. Staff has spoken to the City. Arborist regarding the new proposal and he feels that the plan is acceptable. The Arborist has indicated that the applicant will need to construct tree protective fencing within two ft. of the proposed building wall and will need to provide irrigation and mulch treatment to the trees as soon as possible in order to increase their tolerance towards the impacts of construction.. The proposal satisfies all zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, maximum height and impervious coverage. Furthermore, staff feels that the proposed design is compatible with other homes approved within this subdivision and feels that it is consistent with the Design Review findings. Therefore, staff is able to recommend approval of the Design Review request. Additionally, based on the lots irregular configuration staff feels that the Variance findings can be made to support the request for an encroachment of 7 ft. into the required rear yard setback. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's Design Review and Variance requests by adopting the attached Resolutions. Attachments: 1. Resolutions DR -96 -026 and V -96 -006 2. Planning Commission minutes dated 7/10/96 3.. Revised plans, Exhibit "A" anne \memo.pc \vidanage Zg f RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -026 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Vidanage; 12528 Spring Blossom Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 4,002 sq. ft. single story residence with a maximum height of 18 feet on a- vacant parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly not Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, upon closing the public hearing at the August 14 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission moved to deny the Design Review request since the findings could not be made to approve the associated Variance application. Variance appproval is necessary to allow the proposed structure to encroach into the required rear yard setback. Without Variance approval, the proposed design is not feasible; therefore, the Design Review request was denied. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, DR -96 -026, application for Design Review approval, be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of August, 1996 by the following roll.call vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce & Chairperson, Planning ommission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission �q RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Vidanage; 12528 Spring Blossom Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to allow a new 4,002 sq. ft. residence to encroach into the required rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support the subject Variance application to allow the proposed structure to encroach into the required rear yard setback based on the following finding: • A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified within the R -1- 12,500 zoning district in that the percentage -based setbacks apply to all vacant parcels in the City of Saratoga and a reasonable size residence can be constructed on the subject parcel within the limitations of the City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with the subject Variance application, V -96 -006 be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice. Section 2.' Unless.appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of August 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick Pierce & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None 3p 1f File No. V -96 -006; 12528 Spring Blossom Court Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: G%(•Gcil CiG• -��l'� Secret ry, Planning Commission j1 Rte" I V E D SEP 1 '(1996 PLANNING DEPT, Saratoga City Council September 11, 1996 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 (APN: 366 -13 -080) - VIDANAGE, 12528 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT Dear Sir/Madam Pursuant to your Notice of Hearing regarding the above referenced property my family hereby submits our concerns about the proposed construction. We reside at 20563 Wardell Road. Our rear property line abuts one of the property lines of the subject parcel. Intrnrinrtinn This matter is an appeal of a unanimous Planning Commission decision to deny approval to construct a residence according to the design plan. A previous request for approval of a smaller residence on the site was also denied. The applicant also sought a variance to the setback requirements in the first application. At the time of the initial denial the Commission recommended the applicant consider designing a smaller residence in order to meet the setback requirements. Instead the applicant submitted a request for approval of a larger house and again requested a variance to the setback requirements. The Commission denied the variance and did not approve the design. The applicant has appealed. The applicant has several times informally remarked that my family and the families of our neighbors are attempting to deny him the ability to build on the property. This notion is incorrect. Our desire is for the applicant to build a residence that conforms to the City of Saratoga design requirements resulting in the least adverse impact to our privacy and the rural character of our neighborhood. Inherent in this desire is the preservation of the redwood and pine trees planted along our rear property line Incorrect determination of the rear property line The Law The subject lot does not meet the definition of a flag lot as defined by section 15- 06.420(d) because it has the requisite site frontage as defined in 15- 12.070. Because it is not a flag lot one 3 �- cannot look to section 15- 12.090(5)(d) to determine the rear lot line. One must look to the definition of rear lot line found in section 15- 06.430(b) which says in part the rear lot line is the line "most distant from and most closely parallel to the front lot line ". In looking at the front lot line it is my contention that the proper rear lot line is the line contiguous with our rear lot line. This line running from point A to point B on the on the attached Exhibit is the line most parallel to and distant from the front lot line. The applicant's design plan is fatally flawed by his erroneous contention that the line running from point B to point C on the attached Exhibit is the rear lot line. Because of this error the required setbacks are not met and the design should not be approved. Equity The intent of the myriad of regulations pertaining to the setback requirements for a house to be built in Saratoga clearly is to protect the privacy and enjoyment of the neighboring residences. The grade of the property contiguous to the proposed rear lot line of the subject property is approximately 4 feet higher in elevation than the subject lot. Defining the side lot line as that running from point B to point C and its attendant side setback requirements is more appropriate. The closer proximity of a house to the line defined by points B and C will be less impactful to the Wardell Court residence simply because of the height differential of the two lots. Defining the rear yard in this manner will have the additional benefit of maximizing the chances for saving the existing redwood and pine trees planted along the lot line running from point A to point B of the Exhibit. The current proposal places the residence 4 to 5 feet from several of the existing trees. Staff has recommended a redesign to address this concern. (See the following section for more details.) The Current Proposal As mentioned above this current proposal is the second design proposed by the applicant. Frankly, the first. proposal was "better" than this second proposal in that the proposed house was smaller and the footprint ran diagonally across the lot creating a rear yard that in effect was a triangle. The problem with the first design was the same as this design, the applicant ignored the setback requirements in the hope that there would be no objection to the variance request. In this second design, contrary to the advice of the Planning Commission, the applicant came back with a design for a house approximately 260 square feet bigger. The drawings submitted for this second proposal do not accurately depict the location of the house relative to the existing trees. Staff confirmed my measurements and conclusion that the current proposal puts a portion of the house within several feet of the base of an existing tree and well within the drip line of more than one tree. Staff recommended that this situation be remedied before any approval issued. The Council should not approve the existing plan because of the close proximity of the house to the trees. Moreover the Council should not approve this plan because it does not meet the rear 11 setback requirements assuming arguendo the proper rear property line is that line running from B to C on the attached Exhibit. Newly Recognized Property Line As if this matter were not already complicated enough, the Council should be made aware of the fact that a new survey of the properties revealed that the subject property's line running from point B to point C on the Exhibit is approximately 10 to 12 feet short of the existing 4 high foot retaining wall and fence bounding the Wardell Court property. Issuance' of any approvals before this issue is resolved between the property owners risks the creation of a "no persons land" bounded by fences. Conclusion The Planning Commission' unanimous rejection of the applicant's design was well reasoned. A variance to any setback requirement should not be issued and the proposed design should be denied by the Council. The applicant has created this situation in his zeal to maximize the density of his development and specifically this property. He is trying to force through the maximum size house without regard to the setback requirements. The adjoining neighbors are overwhelmingly opposed to the granting of any setback variance that diminishes the privacy and enjoyment of our respective properties. This latest design is an "in your face" if you don't like the first design I'll build an even bigger house because you had the temerity to oppose me. The lot drawing for this proposal erroneously represented the. structure's relationship to the existing majestic and irreplaceable redwoods thereby endangering their survival if the design is approved as proposed. Please don't override the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission. Please don't reward the applicant's zealous pursuit of maximum density in a city that prides itself on maintaining its rural residential character. Respectfully submitted, Mark F. Ryan 34 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Q�1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. '�'I'1 �'{' AGENDA ITEM: U v MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 C ITY MGR: ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development O"" 1 // SUBJECT: Lease for Wireless Communication Antenna Site - Congress Springs Park Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to enter into lease agreement with Pac Bell. Report Summary: On July 24, 1996, the Planning Commission approved (5 -0) a Use Permit allowing the installation of a monopole antenna for a wireless communication facility. The antenna and equipment boxes are located at the west end of the park adjacent to the Route 85 sound wall near the equipment storage shed. Pac Bell will be leasing the site from the City at a price tentatively set at $1000 per month. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manager to continue negotiations and enter into a lease agreement. Staff has done some initial research into what other agencies have required in approving antennae installation on public property. Bay area agencies including Millbrae, Hillsborough, Daly City, Sausalito and Burlingame have approved sites with rents ranging from $800 -$1500 per month. Several Monterey County agencies have approved sites including County of Monterey, City of Monterey, Soledad, Seaside, Salinas and Marina with a range of $500 -$700 per month. Staff contacted other local area agencies (Campbell, Los Gatos, San Jose) and found that no other local cities /towns have approved sites on public property. However, everyone seems to be considering the option and the opportunity to participate in this new revenue source. Cellular sites rent for more because of "income stream" from existing use (car phones, etc.) while PCS sites rent for less because there is no income for the company at this time. The recommended $1000 per month lease rate for the City of Saratoga sites is therefore competitive with the market rate. Environmental Determination: None for a lease agreement. A Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission as part of the Use Permit approval. Fiscal Impacts: The City will receive $1000 per month rental for the antenna site. The money is unrestricted and will be placed in the General Fund. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: No special advertising is required for this authorization of a lease agreement. A public hearing was advertised and held by the Planning Commission on the Use Permit. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff will be unable to complete negotiations and the signing of the lease which will result in a loss of $12,000 annually. Follow Up Actions: Staff will sign the lease and the antenna site will be constructed in the near future (approx. 2 -4 months). COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT 1996, is between PACIFIC BELL California corporation ( "Lessee ") whose addre Drive, Building 1, 4th Floor, Pleasanton, CA SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, ( "Lessor" 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. The parties hereto agree as follows: ( "Lease ") dated of MOBILE SERVICES, a 3s is 4410 Rosewood 94588, and CITY OF whose address is 1. Premises. Lessor owns the real property legally described in Exhibit "A" commonly known as Congress Springs Park (Assessor's Parcel Number 389 -02 -001) . Subject to the following terms and conditions, Lessor leases to Lessee that portion of Lessor's property ( "Lessor's Property ") depicted in Exhibit "B ", including any applicable easements for access and utilities (the "Premises ") . 2. Use. The Premises may be used by Lessee for any lawful activity in connection with the provisions of mobile /wireless communications services, including the transmission and the reception of radio communication signals on various frequencies and the construction, maintenance and operation of related communications facilities. Lessor agrees, at no expense to Lessor, to cooperate with Lessee, in making application for and obtaining all licenses, permits and any and all other necessary approvals that may be required for Lessee's intended use of the Premises. 3. Conditions Precedent. This Lease is conditioned upon Lessee, or Lessee's assigns, obtaining all governmental permits and approvals enabling Lessee, or its assigns, to construct and operate mobile /wireless communications facilities on the Premises. 4. Term. The term of this Lease ( "Term ") shall be ten (10) years commencing with the issuance of a local building permit allowing Lessee to construct its mobile /wireless communications facilities on the Premises, or December 31, 1996, whichever is earlier ( "Commencement Date "). 5. Rent. (a) Upon the Commencement Date, Lessee shall pay Lessor, as rent, the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) ( "Rent ") per month. Rent shall be payable on the 1st day of each month, in advance, to Lessor's address specified in Paragraph 17, Miscellaneous. (b) If the Commencement Date is other than the first day of a calendar month, Lessee may pay on the first day of the Term the prorated Rent for the remainder of the calendar month in which the Term commences, and thereafter, Lessee shall pay a full month's Rent on the first day of each calendar month, except that payment shall be prorated for the final fractional month of this Lease, or U,, if this Lease is terminated before the expiration of any month for which Rent should have been paid. (d) Rent shall be increased annually as of the anniversary of the Commencement Date by four percent (40) of the Rent paid during the previous year. 6. Improvements Access. (a) Lessee shall have the right (but not the obligation) at any time following the full execution of this Lease and prior to the Commencement Date, to enter the Premises for the purpose of making necessary inspections and engineering surveys (and soil tests where_ applicable) and other reasonably necessary tests (collectively "Tests ") to determine the suitability of the Premises for Lessee's Facilities (as defined herein) and for the purpose of preparing for the construction of Lessee's Facilities. During any Tests or pre- construction work, Lessee will have insurance as set forth in Section 12, Insurance. Once the Tests and pre - construction work is completed, Lessee shall place the property back to the condition it was in prior to the Tests being conducted. Lessee will notify Lessor of any proposed Tests or pre- construction work and will coordinate the scheduling of same with Lessor so as to perform the work in a manner -to minimize disruption to the property of Lessor and the peace and enjoyment of the public. If Lessee determines that the Premises are unsuitable for Lessee's contemplated use, than Lessee will notify Lessor and this Lease will terminate. (b) Lessee has the right to construct, maintain and operate on the Premises radio communications facilities, including but not limited to, radio frequency transmitting and receiving equipment, batteries, utility lines, transmission lines, radio frequency transmitting and receiving antennas and supporting structures and improvements ( "Lessee's Facilities "). In connection therewith, Lessee has the right to do all work necessary to prepare, add, maintain and alter the Premises for Lessee's communications operations and to install utility lines and transmission lines connecting antennas to transmitters and receivers. All of Lessee's construction and installation work shall be performed at Lessee's sole cost and expense and in a good and workmanlike manner. Title to Lessee's Facilities and any equipment placed on the Premises by Lessee shall be held by Lessee. All of Lessee's Facilities shall remain the property of Lessee and are not fixtures. Lessee has the right to remove all Lessee's Facilities at its sole expense on or before the expiration or termination of this Lease. Any construction shall be consistent with the approved plans and drawings referred to in Exhibit B. Once Lessee has removed Lessee's Facilities from the Premises, Lessee shall return the Premises to the condition which existed as of the Commencement Date of the Lease. Upon removal of the Lessee Facilities, Lessee, however, shall not be required to remove any concrete foundation within 3 feet below grade level, nor shall Lessee be required to remove any underground cable, wires or utilities. (c) Lessor shall provide access to Lessee, Lessee's employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors to the Premises twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, at no charge to Lessee. Lessor represents and warrants that it has full rights of ingress to and egress from the premises, and hereby grants such rights to Lessee to the extent required to construct, maintain, install and operate Lessee's Facilities on the Premises. Lessee's exercise of such rights shall not cause undue inconvenience to Lessor, or to the activities of Lessor or others who may have scheduled the use of Lessor's property. (d) Lessor shall maintain an unobstructed access from the nearest public roadway to the premises in a manner sufficient to allow access by Lessee, its contractors and their vehicles. Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing such access, at its sole expense, except for any damage caused by Lessee's use of such access. If Lessee causes any such damage, it shall promptly repair same to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works Director of the City of Saratoga. (e) Lessee shall have the right to install utilities, at Lessee's expense, and to improve the present utilities on or near the Premises (including, but not limited to the installation of emergency back -up power) . Subject to Lessor's approval of the location and design, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Lessee shall have the right to place utilities on (or to bring utilities across) Lessor's Property in order to service the Premises and Lessee's Facilities. Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall execute recordable easement(s) evidencing this right. (f) Lessee shall fully and promptly pay for all utilities furnished to the Premises for the use, operation and maintenance of Lessee's Facilities. (g) Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall allow Lessee to install sub - metering equipment on existing Lessor utility services (s). Lessee agrees to install, at Lessee's cost, the required equipment, meters and connections and will reimburse the Lessor for Lessee's use of utilities at a rate equal to the Lessor's unit cost for the utilities plus reasonable billing costs as determined by Lessor's Finance Director in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles uniformly applied by Lessor to Lessor's tenants in the City of Saratoga. (h) Upon the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Lease, Lessee shall surrender the Premises to Lessor in good condition, less ordinary wear and tear. 7. Interference with Communications. Lessee's Facilities shall not disturb the communications configuration, equipment and frequency which exist on Lessor's Property on the Commencement Date ( "Pre- existing Communications ") , and Lessee's Facilities shall comply with all non - interference rules of the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ") . Lessor shall not permit the use of any portion of Lessor's Property in a way which interferes with the communications operations of Lessee described in paragraph 2, above. Such interference with Lessee's communications operations shall be deemed a material breach by Lessor, and Lessor shall have the responsibility to promptly terminate said interference. In the event any such does not cease promptly, the parties acknowledge that continuing interference will cause irreparable injury to Lessee, and therefore, Lessee shall have the right to terminate the Lease immediately upon notice to Lessor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Pre - existing Communications operating in the same manner as on the Commencement Date shall not be deemed interference. 8. Taxes. Lessee shall pay personal property taxes assessed against Lessee's Facilities, possessory interest taxes assessed against Lessee's Facilities and the Premises subject to this Lease, business license taxes and all other taxes imposed by the City of Saratoga in conjunction with the construction and operation of Lessee's Facilities. Lessor shall pay all other taxes, fees and assessments attributable to the Premises. 9. Termination. This Lease may be terminated without further liability on thirty (30) days prior written notice as follows: (i) by either party upon a default of any covenant, condition, or term hereof by the other party, which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default; (ii) by Lessee for any reason or for no reason, provided Lessee delivers written notice of termination to Lessor prior to the Commencement Date (iii) by Lessee if it does not obtain or maintain, licenses, permits or other approvals necessary to the construction or operation of Lessee's Facilities; or (iv) by Lessee if Lessee is unable to occupy or utilize the Premises due to ruling or directive of the FCC or other governmental or regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, a take back of channels or change in frequencies; (v) by Lessee if Lessee determines that the Premises are not appropriate for its operations for economic, environmental or technological reasons, including without limitation, signal strength or interference; or (vi) by Lessor upon a determination, ruling or directive of the FCC, CPUC or other governmental or regulatory agency that operations being conducted by Lessee at the Premises constitute a materials hazard to the health or safety of the public. 10. Destruction of Premises. If the Premises or Lessor's Property is destroyed or damaged so as in Lessee's judgment, to hinder its effective use of Lessor's Property, Lessee may elect to terminate this Lease as of the date of the damage or destruction by so notifying Lessor no more than 30 days following the date of damage or destruction. In such event, all rights and obligations of the parties which do not survive the termination of this Lease shall cease as of the date of the damage or destruction. 11. Condemnation. If a condemning authority takes all of Lessor's Property, or a portion which in Lessee's opinion is sufficient to render the Premises unsuitable for Lessee's use, then d Lessor's Property, or a portion which in Lessee's opinion is sufficient to render the Premises unsuitable for Lessee's use, then this Lease shall terminate as of the date when possession is delivered to the condemning authority. In any condemnation proceeding each party shall be entitled to make a claim against the condemning authority for just compensation (which for Lessee shall include, the value of Lessee's Facilities, moving expenses, prepaid rent, business dislocation expenses, bonus value of the lease and any other amounts recoverable under condemnation law) . Sale of all or part of the premises to a purchaser with the power of eminent domain in the face of the exercise of its power of eminent domain, shall be treated as a taking by a condemning authority. 12. Insurance. (a) Lessee shall maintain the following insurance: (1) Commercial General Liability with limits of $5,000,000.00 per occurrence, (2) Automobile Liability with a combined single limit of $1,000,000.00 per accident, (3) Workers Compensation as required by law, and (4) Employer's Liability with limits of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. (b) Lessee shall maintain standard form property insurance ( "All Risk" coverage) equal to at least 90% of the replacement cost covering Lessee's property. (c) Lessee shall name Lessor, its officers, agents and employees, as an additional insured with respect to the above Commercial General Liability insurance. (d) Lessee shall have the right to self - insure with respect to any of the above insurance. 13. Assignment. Lessee may assign this lease to an affiliate provided that Lessee provides Lessor with 90 -day written notice of such assignment. Such written notice shall include a certificate of insurance and new address for notice. Any other assignment shall be subject to the prior written consent of the Lessor which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 14. Title and Quiet Enjoyment. (a) Lessor warrants that it has full right, power, and authority to execute this Lease; Lessor further warrants that Lessee shall have quiet enjoyment of the Premises during the Term of this Lease or any Renewal Term. (b) Lessee has the right to obtain a title report or commitment for a leasehold title policy from a title insurance company of its choice. If, in the opinion of Lessee, such title report shows any defects of title or any liens or encumbrances which may adversely affect Lessee's use of the Premises, Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease immediately upon written notice to Lessor. Vil repairs to the Premises except for damages to the Premises caused by Lessee, its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors. 16. Environmental. Lessor represents that to the best of Lessor's knowledge and belief the Premises have not been used for the generation, storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous substances or hazardous wastes. In addition, Lessor represents that to the best of Lessor's knowledge and belief no hazardous materials, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, pollutants, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum or other fuels (including crude oil or any fraction or derivative thereof) or underground storage tanks are located on or near the Premises. Lessor has performed no independent research to confirm these representations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, Lessee relies upon the representations stated herein as a material inducement for entering into this Lease. 17. Miscellaneous. (a) If any provision of the Lease is invalid or unenforceable with respect to any party, the remainder of this lease or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. (b) This Lease shall be finding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assignees of the respective parties. (c) Any notice or demand required to be given herein shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, confirmed fax, or reliable overnight mail to the address of the respective parties set forth below: Lessor: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: City Manager Lessee: Pacific Bell Mobile Services 4410 Rosewood Drive Building 1, 4th Floor Pleasanton, CA 94588 Lessor or Lessee may from time to time designate any other address for this purpose by written notice to the other party. (d) This Lease shall be governed under the laws of the State of California. (e) The substantially prevailing party in any legal claim arising hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any. 1 (f) Terms and conditions of this lease which by their sense and context survive the termination, cancellation or expiration of this Lease will so survive. (g) Upon request either party may require that a Memorandum of Lease be recorded in the form of Exhibit "C ". (h) This Lease constitutes the entire Lease and understanding between the parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other leases concerning the subject matter contained herein. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to this Lease must be in writing and executed by both parties. (SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS) I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease as of the date first above written. ATTEST WITNESS LESSOR: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By: Name: (Print Name) Title: Date: ATTEST WITNESS (Print Name) Date: TAX ID #: Date: LESSEE: PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, a California corporation By: Ken Elmer, Chief Financial Officer or F. Kevin Flaherty, Network Deployment Manager Date: n EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LESSOR'S PROPERTY Lessor's property of which Premises are a part is legally described as follows: (e.g. Legal description from Title Report description) to EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES The location of the Premises within the Lessor's property together with access, ingress, egress, easements and utilities are more particularly described or depicted as follows: A final drawing or copy of a property survey depicting the above will replace this Exhibit "B" when initialed by Lessor. Notes: 1. This Exhibit may be replaced by a land survey or Site Plan of the Premises once it is received by Lessee. 2. Setback of the Premises from the Lessor's boundaries shall be the distance required by the applicable governmental authorities. 3. Width of access road shall be the width required by the applicable governmental authorities, including policy and fire departments. 4. The type, number and mounting position and locations of antennas and transmission lines are illustrative only. Actual types, numbers, mounting positions may vary from what is shown above only if approved by Lessor in writing. P: \planning \wp \pacbell F1] RESOLUTION NO. UP -96 -009 A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA, APPROVING USE PERMIT PACIFIC,.BELL MOBILE SERVICES /CITY OF SARATOGA CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit Approval to construct a 34 ft. tall monopole antenna at Congress Springs Park on Glen Brae Dr.; and WHEREAS, an environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds: a. That the proposed PCS antenna is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. That the proposed PCS antenna and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed PCS antenna complies with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. -After careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Pacific Bell Mobile Services /City of Saratoga for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed accessory structure /generator enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit "A" attached. 2. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted addressing the requirements of this Resolution. 3. The antenna shall be painted a gray /sky blue to blend in with the skyline. The utility cabinets shall be painted to match the existing soundwall and screened with landscaping. Staff shall inspect the antennas within 30 days of installation to assess the effectiveness of the painted colors. I �- File No. UP -96 -009; Pacific Bell Mobile Services 4. Three 24 inch box evergreen trees shall be planted around the perimeter of the antenna to provide further screening. 5. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 6. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall* constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Conditions of this use permit must be completed within twenty -four (24) months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 24th day of July, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Asfour, Kaplan & Murakami NOES: Abshire & Pierce ABSENT: Patrick & Siegfried % �7 !Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: SecretaVy, Planning Commission Attachments: • Environmental Initial Study • Letter & Affidavit form Hammett & Edison, Inc. • Negative Declaration I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1 AGENDA ITEM S� 7 MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT - VOICE MAIL SYSTEM Recommended Motion(s 1. Move to declare LA- TEL -SF Bay Area to be the lowest responsible bidder for the goods. 2. Move to award contract to LA- TEL -SF Bay Area for the equipment in the amount of $7,200.00. Report Summary: In July, City Council approved the first of a two phased plan to upgrade our telephone system. The first phase replaced the main telephone processor. The second phase, proposed here, replaces the voice mail or messaging system. The current voice mail system was purchased used and is at the end of its useful life. Moreover, on September 2nd, the manufacturer, Applied Voice Technology, discontinued support for the product and will no longer service or supply parts for the system. Before a failure occurs, leaving the City without messaging capability, staff recommends upgrading the unit, to current technology, that allows integration to the City's central computer system. This recommendation is consistent with the City's Technology Master Plan. Staff solicited proposals from qualified vendors using the informal bidding procedures contained in Article 12 -15 of the Municipal Code. Three vendors responded and the cost for their proposals are as follows: LA- Tel -SF Bay Area $7,200.00 Voice Plus, Inc. $10,000.00 - $12,000.00 General Telcom $12,447.00 Proposals are available for review in the Finance Director's Office. The low cost option bidder, LA- Tel -SF Bay Area, has an excellent service record with the City and was previously awarded the contract for the telephone system migration. Staff is confident that their proposal is responsive to the City's solicitation and recommends that the City Council declare them to be the lowest responsible bidder for the voice mail system in the amount of $7,200.00. If approved by the City Council, the system would be installed immediately. The transition should be straight forward since the proposed hardware has all the features of the old system plus many more, including expanded messaging, paging, networking and faxing. Fiscal Impacts: Cost of $7,200.00 for voice mail system. Funding for the proposal will be split evenly between existing Program 7079 - Central Services and Program 8083 - Fixed Asset Maintenance budget authority. Follow Up Actions: Execute order with L.A.- Tel -S.F. Bay Area. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: On September 2, 1996, the voice mail component of the system will no longer be supported. Strong likelihood of failure is present (system is at 98% of capacity) . Parts and service will not be obtainable and 25o trade in discount will be lost. Attachment c: \execsumm \exsm912a.96 SEP -12 -96 THU 09:53 27r it Telecommunications Voice, Data, Video & WWW ;t, Authorized Toshiba Dealer { (408) 474 -0590 - Fax: (408) 474 -0597 • Service (800) 2014321 2833 Junction Ave., Suite 106, San Jose, CA 95134 VOICE MAIL SOLUTIONS FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA SYSTEM_ AVT CALLXPRESS SYTEM SOFTWARE LICENSES $10,800.00 2 VOICE CARDS, DIALOGIC D41D $ 2,520.00 PC PLATFORM $ 1,800.00 FACTORY TRADE IN < $1,800.00> TOTAL $13,320.00 sYS VT CALLXPRESS, CONFIGURED AS ABOVE, USED WITH ONE YEAR WARRANTY ACCEPTED BY: DATE: $7,200.00 P_ 01 g1VE T4/��.o w en you trade -in your Ca11X press 200, 400, or Classic system for CallXpress3, you'll benefit from the most advanced call process- ing and unified mes- saging features on the market today! Applied Voice ridmbgy Applied Voice Technology 11410 NE 122nd Way Kirkland, WA 95034 (2061820 -60Cb (206) bbo-10 -to l�x mm.appliedvo:ce,com m 1995 Applied Voice Technology ASAP l 304DO A FEATURE COMPARISON AUTOMATED ATTENDANT FEATURES Programmable Call Processors Y/Night/Holiday Greetings Caller Queuing. _ _ _ Transaction Processing.____ _ VOICE - FIF0 /LIFO Message Preseritation� MAIL Urgent Messages First _ _ _ FEATURES - — - Future Delivery _ — Restricled Message Forwarding (Private) FAX MESSAGING UNIFIED MESSAGING FEATURES SYSTEM ADMIN HARDWARE PLATFORMS Gru_Processing_ Single -Key Message Rep�r___ .._ -- AVT Networking IS Networking - - -- -- Immediate Message Notification ----- - - - - -- Daily Message_Reminder Desktop-based Message Management Fax Server - Telephone_Access to E -mail _ _ Access Message_by_Type_.. . Template Editing of Mailboxes Mailbox Range Programming__ —____ Automatic Backup Routines Maximum_.port capacity 0 tin pera._.__ ._._g_Systern_.........._.- Processor Speed Maximum Storage (hours) Redundant Storage _ Optional March 1996 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: Sept. 18, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Renewal of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution extending the existing DBE Program for an additional year from October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997. Report Summary: On April 19, 1989, the City adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in order to satisfy one of the technical requirements for receipt of federal funds for local projects. The Program is intended to facilitate the opportunity for minority and female owned businesses to submit bids and receive awards of contracts on federally funded projects. The Program is required to run during the same period as the federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. The expiration date of the DBE Program has already been extended to September 30, 1996, and a further extension is necessary to September 30, 1997. No changes to the Program itself are being made. It is anticipated the City will continue to renew this program to retain eligibility to receive federal funds for various projects. Fiscal Impacts: Adds nominal costs to the bid, award and contract administration work for the project. Follow Up Actions: The resolution will be sent to the CalTrans Office of Local Programs. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The DBE Program would expire on September 30. Afterwards, the City would become ineligible to receive federal funds. Attachments: Proposed resolution with attached DBE Program. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONCERNING DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAMS WHEREAS, on April 19, 1989, the City Council adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, the initial expiration date of the adopted DBE Program was September 30,. 1989, and WHEREAS, the DBE Program has been renewed annually through September 30, 1996, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to further renew the DBE Program for an additional year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. The adopted DBE Program attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is further renewed and extended to cover the period from October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997. 2. The overall DBE goal established by the Program shall remain at 10% during the period of renewal, and all other terms and provisions of the DBE Program shall remain in full force and effect as set forth in exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notification of the annual DBE goal for the renewal period, as required under Part IV of the DBE Program. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor E X H I B I T "A" DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM CITY OF SARATOGA I. Policy Statement It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to utilize Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and firms as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 in all aspects of contracting to the maximum extent feasible. This policy which is fully described herein constitutes policy and commitment to substantially increase DBE Utilization in all program activities funded wholly or in part by any U.S. Department of Transportation model element. This Agency, its contractors and subcontractors, which are the recipients of Federal -aid funds, agree to ensure DBE firms have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts. In this regard, r this Agency and all of its contractors and subcontractors will take all reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR 23 to ensure that DBE and firms have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. II. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Liaison Officer The City Engineer is the DBE Liaison Officer for this agency and shall report to the City Manager. M. Duties of the DBE Liaison Officer The DBE Liaison Officer shall develop, manage and implement the DBE Program on a day - today basis. The Liaison Officer shall- A. Arrange solicitations, time for the presentation of bids, quantities, specifications, and delivery schedules so as to facilitate the participation of DBEs. Where such changes are found necessary to increase DBE utilization, they will made in consultation and cooperation with the functional unit involved. B. Provide guidance to DBEs in overcoming barriers, such as inability to obtain bonding or financing. -1- C. Carry out information and communication programs on contracting opportunities in a timely manner. D. Investigate the services offered by banks owned and controlled by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. E. Unless noted elsewhere herein the listing of DBEs certified by Caltrans will be utilized as businesses to be included in the solicitation of bids. Said listing is to be made available to all project bidders. Such listing will include the following information: Name, address, telephone number, ethnic and /or sexual ownership, type of work performed by firm. F. Prior to approval of the substitution of any DBE subcontractor, the prime contractors will be required to prove performance of good faith efforts to replace the DBE with another eligible DBE. G. Establish a DBE overall annual goal. The goal shall be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. H. Establish an appropriate individual project DBE goal for each Federal Aid Project advertised. I. Perform good faith analysis when the project goal is not achieved. J. Maintain such documentation as is necessary to verify performance of all activities included in this program. W. Public Notification A. At the time of submittal of this program to the State Department of Transportation, a notice in both minority and majority local media will be published. Said publication shall include: (1) The annual overall DBE goaL (2) Notification that a description of how the goal was set is available for public inspection for a period of 30 days. -2- (3) Notification that both U.S. DOT and this agency will accept comments on the goal for 45 days from the date of the notice. The notice shall advise interested parties that comments are for information purposes only. B. This program will be reaffirmed by public notice annually at the time of publication of overall goal. If substantial changes are made to this document, the entire document shall, be subject to notification ,noted in A above. C. In addition to the foregoing, interested disadvantaged and majority contractor organizations will receive direct mailings of this complete program. V, Establishment of Goal A. The DBE goal will be established both annually (overall) and on a per contract basis. The overall goal will be based on planned contract activity for the coming year. The overall goal established will be subject to methodology and procedures established in 49 CFR 23, Subparts (C) and (D) and take effect on October 1st of each year. B. The overall DBE goal established with this initial program is 10% and covers the period October 1, 1989, to September 30, 1990. C. Individual project goals will be established based on the following criteria: (1) Attainment of established overall goals. (2) Size of project. (3) Opportunities for DBEs as subcontractors, vendors and suppliers. (4) Minority population of geographic area in which work is to be performed. -3- (5) , DBE goals being utilized in the geographic area by other State, Federal or local jurisdictions. (6) Availability of certified DBEs. (7) Past experience on projects similar to the project being evaluated. (8) Such other factors as may effect the utilization of DBEs. Complete evaluation documentation will be retained for each project. D. Projects which do not contain a specific goal will contain the following provisions: (1) "Policv. It is the policy of the Department of Transportation that- disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds under this agreement. Consequently, the DBE requirements of 49 CFR Part 23 apply to this agreement." (2) "DBE Obligation. The recipient or its contractor agrees to ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds provided under this agreement. In this regard, all recipients or contractors shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR Part 23 to ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Recipients and their contractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, natioinal origin, or sex in the award and performance of DOT - assisted contracts." VL Contract Procedure This program shall be implemented through the utilization of a contract special provision which will be provided /updated as necessary by Caltrans'Division of -4- 0 Local Streets and Roads. These procedures require bidders to submit the names of DBE subcontractors and suppliers, a description of the work each is to perform or material. to be furnished, and the dollar value of each DBE subactivity. VII. DBE Notification Projects will be advertised in local newspapers and minority focus newspapers when possible. These ads will include reference to DBE requirements and will indicate the DBE project goal. DBE supportive service assistance centers will receive notification of projects scheduled to be advertised. Such centers, will be afforded the opportunity to receive complimentary plans and specifications for projects within their geographical area of responsibility. Vim. Selection Criteria for Projects With DBE Goal Every project containing a DBE goal shall be evaluated by the DBE Liaison Officer or his /her designee to ascertain bidding contractors' efforts to attain the DBE goal. The award of any project must be concurred with by the DBE Liaison Officer or his /her designee before said contract may be awarded. Should there be disagreement between functional units concerning contractors' efforts to attain contract goals for DBE participation, the matter shall be referred to the City Manager or his /her designee, for final determination. Competitors that fail to meet the DBE goal and fail to demonstrate sufficient reasonable good faith efforts shall be declared non - responsive and ineligible for award of the contract. All contracts that contain a DBE goal, pursuant to this policy, will be monitored on an ongoing basis by project personnel during the course of construction. The DBE Liaison Officer is to be immediately advised of any circumstances wherein contractor compliance with the DBE provision is questionable. The contractor shall submit a final report for each project which includes total payments to the prime contractor as well as any payments the prime contractor has made to DBE subcontractors, vendors and suppliers. If the report indicates the prime contractor has not achieved the project goal, project personnel shall attach an -5- evaluation, in narrative form, of the reasons for failure to attain the goal and any corrective action that was taken. Prime contractors will be required to notify the Agency of any situation in which regularly scheduled progress payments are not made to DBE subcontractors, vendors or suppliers. IX. Counting DBE Participants This Agency, its contractors, and subcontractors shall count DBE participation in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.47, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. X. Records and Reports A. The DBE Liaison Officer shall maintain such records, and provide such reports, as are necessary to ensure full compliance with this policy. Such s records and reports shall include, as a minimum, the following information: (1) Awards to DBEs. (2) Awards to majority contractors. (3) Final project reports concerning DBE utilization. (4) Such other data as is needed to fully evaluate compliance with this program. B. The DBE Liaison Officer shall submit reports to Caltrans and/or to the appropriate U.S. DOT element as required. These reports will include: (1) Number and dollar value of contracts awarded. (2) Number and dollar value of contracts and subcontracts awarded to DBEs. (3) Description of general categories of contracts awarded to DBEs. -6- (4) The percentage of the dollar value of all contracts awarded during the year which were awarded to DBEs. (5) Indication as to the extent of which the percentage met or exceeded the overall goal. (6) Reports shall be broken down separately by ethinic grouping. XI. Complaints Any complaints received by the Agency concerning this program will be investigated by the DBE Liaison Officer. He /she will endeavor to resolve said complaints within 90 days after receipt. The appropriate DOT element and Caltrans will be furnished a copy of the complaint and may be invited to participate in the investigation/ resolution. The DOT element and Caltrans will receive a complete investigative report on the complaint and may be requested r to concur in the proposed disposition of said complaint. Contractors will be directed to notify the Agency of any complaints they may receive concerning this program. -7- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.�, -�11 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 CITY MGR. /d ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's OfficeXl R SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Use of COPS (Citizens Option for Public Safety) Funding Program Recommended Motion(s): 1. Approve the recommendations of the Sheriff for the allocation of law enforcement funds under the COPS program to meet specific front line law enforcement needs for Saratoaa. 2. Instruct the Finance Director and the City Treasurer to establish a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) as a separate Special Revenue Fund in the City's chart of accounts. 3. Instruct that all monies received for the COPS program be deposited directly into the SLESF to be expended exclusively as required by the provisions of Chapter 6.7 of Division 3 of Title 3 of the Government Code, but that no expenditure be authorized unless Measure L is passed by the voters on November 5th. Report Summary: In July of this year the governor signed into law AB 3229 as Chapter 134 of the statutes of 1996. This law provides supplemental funding, through the state budget, for front line law enforcement services. These services are defined as service needs supplemental to the already approved law enforcement budgets of local government entities. Funding for these services are specifically to add to the level of "front line municipal police services" and are specifically prohibited from being used to replace existing funding. The law requires that written requests be submitted by the chief of police of a city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city. In Saratoga's case that is the Sheriff of Santa Clara County. The written requests shall be acted upon by the legislative body, at a public hearing held in September of each year that the Legislature appropriates funds for the purposes of Chapter 6.7. For each fiscal year in which a city receives any moneys pursuant to Chapter 6.7, the governing body may not alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the city and deposited into the SLESF. The Sheriff has submitted a written proposal requesting funds totaling $67,211.45 for fiscal 1996 -97. Saratoga is expected to receive some $2.30 per capita from the COPS funding for fiscal 1996 -97, or some $68,024.80. The Sheriff's proposal calls for using the money for the following purposes: 1) a bicycle safety program, 2) light detection and ranging devices, 3) establishing a bicycle patrol component to the city's law enforcement patrol services, 4) a preliminary alcohol screening device, 5) multimedia computer system, 6) night vision scopes, and 7) a video recording program. While alternative use of the funds has been discussed, the uncertainty of continued budget funding from the state weighs against counting on this funding for more than the current fiscal year. Therefore, increasing field operations on a continuing basis was not the recommended use of the funds. Fiscal Impacts: These services should be totally self funding through the COPS funding from the state, for the current fiscal year. If the program is approved a budget adjustment resolution would have to be prepared and acted on at your -first meeting in October. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: This matter has been discussed by the Public Safety Commission at its meeting on September 9, 1996. As a public hearing item this matter was sent to all subscribers to the City Council agendas, and was posted as a part of the agenda for this meeting on September 13, 1996. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The money would not be available to the City for these additional service recommendations. Follow Up Actions: Establish the SLESF fund, prepare the appropriate budget adjustment resolution, notify the Sheriff to proceed with the program, file a notice with the county's Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee (SLEOC) and file monthly reports to the Committee and to the City Council relating to allocations from the SLESF, and make such summary reports available to the general public. Attachments: Staff Report dated September 18, 1996, with Attachment of the "COPS" Program report from Sheriff Gillingham dated September 6, 1996. DATE: TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM September 18, 1996 City Council Harry Peacock, City Manager A I g'� 0-,P,6� SUBJECT: Public Hearing on use of COPS (Citi ens Option for Public Safety) Funding Program RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: 1. Approve the recommendations of the Sheriff for the allocation of law enforcement funds under the COPS program to meet specific front line law enforcement needs for Saratoga as contained in the report from the Sheriff dated September 6, 1996. 2. Instruct the Finance Director and the -.City Treasurer to establish a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund ( SLESF) as a separate Special Revenue Fund in the City's chart of accounts. 3. Instruct that all monies received for the COPS program be deposited directly into the SLESF to be expended exclusively as required by the provisions of Chapter 6.7 of Division 3 of Title 3 of the Government Code, but that no expenditure be authorized unless Measure L is passed by the voters on November 5th. BACKGROUND In the 1996 -97 State Budget, Governor Wilson proposed an initiative which would allow California's income tax payers to check off whether or not they wished to have 1% of their state income tax earmarked for increased local law enforcement services. In the give and take of the budget process this initiative was translated into a program to provide, primarily on a per capita basis, some $100,000,000 in the state budget for supplemental local law enforcement funding for what are defined as "front line municipal police services" including antigang and community crime prevention programs. The money for this fiscal year is to be forwarded to the counties by the State Controller no later than September 15, 1996. Based on Saratoga's population Saratoga can expect to receive slightly over $68,000 from the COPS program this fiscal year. As with most other state programs there are strings attached. The money can only be used to supplement currently approved law enforcement appropriations. In other words, no jurisdiction can accept the money and then use it to supplant moneys already appropriated for law enforcement. A special fund, called the SLESF (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) must be set up by each county treasurer and city treasurer to receive and account for the moneys. In order to appropriate the moneys, either existing or anticipated, the City must do so in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police (the Sheriff in Saratoga's case). The law does not appear to allow the City Council discretion in changing these requests, but rather must either approve them or decide not to spend the money. The moneys can only be used for "front line municipal police services" and antigang and community crime prevention programs. In appropriating the moneys the City Council must do so at a public hearing which must be held in September of each year that the Legislature appropriates funds under the COPS program. Moneys deposited in the SLESF may only be invested in safe and conservative investments in accordance with those standards of prudent investment applicable to the investment of trust moneys. The City Treasurer must provide a monthly SLESF investment report to the chief of police. The City Treasurer is also required to file a monthly written report which details and summarizes allocations from the Fund and make such report to the City Council, a special county oversight committee (the SLEOC, or Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee), and the Sheriff. Annually, starting on or before September 1, 1998, the City Treasurer shall file with the above entities a consolidated written report, of the same nature as the monthly report covering the entirety of the immediately preceding fiscal year. The City is limited in its ability to recover the costs for administering the program to no more than 0.5% of the SLESF allocation for each year. In our case that would be about $340. Given the current compensation-of the City's Finance Director this means that he can only charge about 10 hours of his time a year to meeting these numerous accounting and reporting requirements. The SLEOC, which is appointed at the county level, is empowered to determine if the moneys allocated to each city have been expended in compliance with this law. The law gives the City Council 60 days to consider requests submitted by the Sheriff but the hearings must be held in September of each year the funds have been appropriated by the Legislature. On September 6, 1996, the Sheriff forwarded to the City his proposal for use of the funds. A copy of the proposal is enclosed as Attachment "A" to this memorandum. The Sheriff proposes using the available funds, assuming the County acted by September 15th, for seven purposes. These are: 1. $8,813.12 to create a bicycle safety program for Saratoga. 2. $8,869.90 to purchase a Light Detection and Ranging Device (LIDAR) which enables a speeding vehicle to be picked out in heavy traffic. 3. $34,786.13 to institute and equip deputies for patrol on bicycles. 4. $2,320.00 to purchase a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device (Alco- Sensor IV) to enable deputies to effectively implement the new zero tolerance alcohol consumption standards for juveniles. 5. $3,363.03 to purchase a multimedia computer system for use by the School Resources Officer and others in making presentations at the schools in Saratoga and for other meeting purposes (i.e., Neighborhood Watch). 6. $6,780.00 to purchase four night vision scopes to assist in locating fleeing subjects allowing deputies to see at night in low light area of the City which are common in Saratoga. 7. $2,289.27 to purchase two camcorders so that residents can check them out from City Hall and develop video tape documentation of possessions for insurance purposes. These proposals total some $67,221.45, slightly less than the some $68,000 the City would receive under the program. DISCUSSION With the exception of the $29,549 which would be spent on deputy costs for added patrol time, the rest of the money would be spent for one time costs items, excluding maintenance. This is an important consideration since there is no assurance that the Legislature will continue to fund the COPS program in future years, and since the money is tied to local maintenance of effort requirements which may be all but impossible to meet should the voters decide, in November or in future years, to terminate the City's Utility User Tax. If either or both situations occur, Saratoga would have no assured source of revenue to continue ongoing operational type funding such as increasing patrol time. In my discussions with Captain Wilson about possible uses of the COPS funds we did discuss the option of providing greater traffic law enforcement patrol during the times we currently do not have dedicated units assigned to that task. With a traffic patrol deputy currently costing $71.73 an hour, it would be possible to increase patrol hours for the second traffic unit from the current 1,200 a year to essentially full time status, i.e. 10 hours a day, four days a week, or to provide additional night time traffic patrol six hours a day almost seven days a week. However, this effort would be impossible to sustain should the state fail to provide annual funding or the Utility Users Tax measure fail, or both. It is for these reasons that Captain Wilson has made the proposal he has and staff concurs with that reasoning. Given the proposals presented, staff believes Captain Wilson has made a good case for the use of the money, as specified. Each proposal fulfills the intent of the statute by providing for either improved "front line municipal police services" or is a significant aid in the City's various crime prevention efforts, with the bicycle safety program, the alcohol screening device, the computer system and the camcorders falling nicely into the latter category and the other three proposals falling squarely into the realm of "front line law enforcement" personnel, equipment, and programs necessary to meet the needs of "front line law enforcement ". A concern which is unique to Saratoga is our ability to accept these funds in light of the possible termination of the Utility User Tax. The legislation specifies that to receive the money and spend it, no current law enforcement appropriation can be reduced. This presents a special risk to Saratoga in agreeing to take the money and then, in order not to have to return it, to be unable to reduce current law enforcement appropriations to help make up the $1.6 million annual budget shortfall the City will face if the Utility User Tax is not continued. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff finds that the proposal submitted by the Sheriff is consistent with the intent of the COPS legislation. It finds that because of the uncertainty of continued state funding that to commit the additional resources primarily to ongoing personnel costs, especially in the first year, is not a preferred alternative, at least for fiscal 1996 -97. It finds that the specter of loss of Utility User Tax moneys in the near future presents special problems for Saratoga in using the funds offered. For this reason it is recommended that should the City Council decide to participate in the COPS funding program that it be with the specific understanding that Saratoga would not authorize use of any of the funds unless the Utility User Tax ballot measure, Measure L, is approved by the voters on November 5th. Enclosure: Proposal from Sheriff Gillingham dated September 6, 1996. 4M�M "TI131 OFFICE IF THE SHERIFF ocr' ELI- 6 1996 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES P. GILLINGHAM CL . i o ' GAi".ATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga From: Captain R. (Vaq4i ) Date: September 6, 1996 Subject: COPS Money Attached for your review is our proposal for the estimated funds for your community. After the cover sheet, there is a page which totals our requests. The pages that follow define each request on its individual cost. Please advise me if you wish any changes or additions. REW : kg Attachments cc: A/S Sing Lt. Slack File Citizens Option for Public Safety A FQ J� "COPS" Program Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office Charles P. GAingham, Sheriff RECAP PROGRAM TOTAL Bicycle Safety Program $ 8,813.12 Light Detection and Ranging Device Equipment $ 5,293.00 Training $ 3,576.90 $ 8,869.90 Bicycle Patrol Equipment $ 2,283.93 Training $ 2,953.20 Patrol Time $ 29,549.00 $ 34,786.13 Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device $ 2,320.00 Multimedia Computer System $ 3,363.03 Night Vision Scopes $ 6,780.00 Video Recording Program $ 2,289.27 TOTAL $ 67,221.45 BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM The Sheriff's Community Relations Unit and the School Resource Officer are frequently called upon to present bicycle safety programs to children. Due to the fact the bicycle safety workshops and rodeos are staff intensive and require an inordinate amount of organization and preparation, it is more cost effective to contract through a private company. Safe Moves was started in the city of Los Angeles in 1986. The program was established to educate children about traffic safety and train them to be safe pedestrians, bicyclists, and bus, train, and automobile passengers. Their program promotes bicycle safety through workshops, bicycle rodeos, and community outreach programs. With interactive programs and community partnerships, Safe Moves has contributed to the decrease in traffic related injuries and deaths in Los Angeles. Safe Moves has documented a 34 percent reduction in bicycle and pedestrian related injuries and deaths of school -age children. In 1993, Safe Moves was selected as the Safety Professional of the Year by the California Safety Center. In 1996, Safe Moves was the winner of the 1996 Secretary of Transportation Community Partnership Award for Child Transportation Safety. It is important to educate children in bicycle rules and regulations as well as traffic safety. This proposal through Safe Moves will incorporate in class instruction as well as a "hands -on" training course with realistic traffic situations. Safe Moves will present an in- school workshop presentation at all nine schools, at the elementary school and middle school level, in Saratoga. This workshop will be a discussion of the different elements of bicycle, pedestrian and skating safety along with safety exhibits, demonstrations and audience participation. Safe Moves will also conduct two training courses at two designated schools and one civic event training course at a designated public site in Saratoga. The training course features realistic traffic situations students encounter each day and challenges the child's ability to recognize and react to traffic situations. The students learn to anticipate and react safely and become safer commuters. The training course will also include bicycle and helmet inspections for those who bring their own equipment. Safe Moves instructors will evaluate each bicyclist on their current level of understanding of traffic laws and the level of bicycle skills. Students are given an evaluation of their performance and a checklist of areas they need to work on with their parents. For the civic event, Safe Moves will provide for the City of Saratoga; the event banners with the City of Saratoga logo, all promotion and advertising, including press releases, all the staffing for the events, safety literature, props needed for the training course, prizes, and all pre and post arrangements for the events. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office will provide the date and site of the two school training courses, the date and site of the one civic event, dates and sites of the in- school workshops, approval of all printed materials to be distributed, coordination of bicycle registration through the Fire Department and coordination the of city representatives and officials for the event activities. The School Resource Officer will assist at the School Training Course and the In- School Workshop as part of his regular assignment. Two deputies will be assigned on overtime to attend the Civic Event Training Course. The following schools will be invited to participate: Argonaut, Blue Hills, Christa McAuliffe, Foothill, Marshall Lane, Redwood and Saratoga COST Civic Event Training Course $2,300.00 School Training Course $1,800.00 x 2 Schools 3,600.00 In- School Work Shop $300.00 x 7 Schools 2;100.00 Total $8,000.00 Cost of two deputies to attend the Civic Event (16 hours @ $50.82) $ 813.12 Total Cost of Program $ 8813.12 SAFE MOVES PROPOSAL for The CITY of SARATOGA Ideal bicycle and pedestrian safety education must couple an intellectual understanding of bicycle rules and regulations, with `hands -on' experience. The Safe Moves program provides students with both of these vital aspects through in- school presentations and traffic training courses. The :In- School Workshops The school workshops are presented at elementary and middle schools. The workshops consist of a Safe Moves Educator discussing the different elements of bicycle, pedestrian and skating safety, and transit use in a `step -by -step' format for easy comprehension and implementation. The workshops incorporate safety exhibits, demonstrations and audience participation to accomplish our educational goals. Each workshop is geared toward individual grade levels in order to combine teaching techniques with cognitive development to ensure high retention rates. In addition, geographical and economical factors for.each school visited are incorporated into the presentations so that the student populations receive realistic examples relevant to their specific communities. A workshop will last between 30 and 45 minutes, depending on the age group. Prizes and safety literature are distributed to all participants. This format allows the participants to learn about bicycle education and traffic safety in a fun, non- traditional way. The goal is to generate excitement and enthusiasm for something that is often dry and boring. The Safe Moves City Training Course The Safe Moves City training course features sidewalks, streets, crosswalks signals, traffic signs, driveways, railroad tracks, trains, alleyways, cars, dogs, houses and garages with driveways, storefronts... over forty realistic traffic situations students encounter each and every day as they `walk, ride and roll' through their communities. By challenging the students' ability to recognize and react to traffic situations, they learn to anticipate and react safely, and become safe commuters. Each bicyclist receives one -on -one training from a safety instructor. The instructor's responsibilities include evaluating the current level of understanding of traffic laws and the level of bicycle skills. The course is used to improve the level of understanding and performance. Students are given an evaluation of their performance, and a checklist of areas they need to work on with their parents. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 4204 Glencoe Avenue, Marina del Rey, California 90292 • 310/827 -7896 • Fax 310/827 -1831 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: 2118 Violet Way, Campbell, CA 95008 • 408/374 -8991 i Page Two The mechanics of the Training Course: 1. Logistics School -site Training Courses can be set up on school playgrounds or parking lots and can be conducted either during the school day, or on a weekend, depending on the school's preference. If during the school day, students participate by class according to a pre- determined schedule. Each class averages about 20 minutes to complete the course. The training course accommodates 1 st through 8th grades. 2. Registration All bicyclists participating in the training course are required to submit a permission form signed by a parent or legal guardian. For the school -site training course, permission forms will be distributed the week prior to the event and taken home by the student for the signature. Only those students with a signed permission from may ride bicycles or skates through the course. All others may participate as pedestrians. For the civic events, permission forms will be available at the registration booth on the day of the event. After registration is complete, the student takes a written quiz on bicycle safety. The quiz ( 7 multiple choice questions and a game) is reviewed and corrected by training course staff. Each participant receives a hand stamp to indicated that he /she has been properly registered. 3. Bicycle and Helmet Inspection Each bicyclist who brings their own bicycle to the training course will have it inspected by Safe Moves staff Minor bicycle repairs will be conducted on site - such as inflating tires, or tightening seats. All approved bicycles will receive a sticker indicating that they have passed inspection. Only approved bicycles will be allowed on the course. If a bicycle does not pass inspection, a checklist is provided to the student indicating the problems. If the bike is a hazard to the safety of the child, he /she will be provide with a Safe Moves bicycle for use on the course, and instructed that their bicycle should not be ridden until repairs are made. All helmets are inspected for proper fit and sizing. Each child who brings their own helmet to the training course will receive a `fitting' and all students will be taught the proper way to wear a helmet. Any child who does not bring a helmet, will be provided with one for use on the course. 4. Training Course Once the bicyclist has registered and passed the bicycle and helmet inspection, he /she is told how the course works. Although the course is a learning tool, the bicyclist is educated in a fun and challenging way. The course lessons are designed to be age appropriate and are adjusted to the skills of the rider. Page Three After the student completes the course, they receive a second hand stamp which allows them to receive their prizes at the registration booth. The Safe Moves Program for the City of Saratoga: 1) Training Courses: Safe Moves will conduct three (3) training courses - two (2) at school sites and one (1) civic event. The following will be provided by Safe Moves: 1. The Safe Moves City • All props - i.e. sidewalks, houses and garages, storefronts, cars, traffic signals and signs, railroad tracks and signals, dogs... • Peripherals - i.e. registration booth, table, chairs, displays, pencils... 2. A minimum of 15 bicycles for use by participants 3. A minimum of 30 helmets for use by participants 4. Event banners containing the City of Saratoga logo 5. All staff for the event 6. Certificate of Insurance 7. Design, printing and distribution of event announcement fliers and permission forms. 8. Safety Literature for distribution to all participants 9. Prizes (stickers, discount coupons to local museums and entertainment) 10. Safety Quiz 11. All pre- and post -event arrangements (i.e. scheduling dates and times, details regarding specific needs and requirements, confirmations, thank you's,...) 12. Promotion and advertising, including press releases 13. Data collection, compilation and analysis of Saratoga students' transportation habits, and traffic safety knowledge 2) In- School Workshops: Safe Moves will conduct in- school workshops for nine (9) schools. The following will be provided by Safe Moves: 1. Safe Moves interactive safety display featuring traffic signs, bikes, and helmets 2. Safety literature and prizes for all participants 3. Safe Moves Instructor Page Four 4. All pre- and post- workshop arrangements (i.e. scheduling dates and times, details regarding specific needs and requirements, confirmations, thank you's,...) The Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department will provide the following: 1. Approval of date and site of the two (2) school training courses 2. Determination of the date and time for the one (1) civic event 3. Approval of dates and sites of In- School Workshops 4. Approval of all printed materials to be distributed 5. Coordination of law enforcement agencies to conduct bicycle registrations 6. Funds for the program 7. Coordination of city representatives and officials in event activities Description Cost Cost per Civic Event Training Course: $2,300.00 x 1 event = $2,300.00 Cost per School Training Course: $1,800.00 x 2 events = $3,600.00 Cost per In- School Workshop: $300.00 x 9 schools = $2,700.00 Grand Total: $8,600.00 &-r rc,,e �elto�_ S6ltc� 6C 36O X 7 S'Cfft&6S 6%0'�_d lofz� �,G00 UO ?eN14 _FC SeIfbo t s (N6C t(Ct a bcd CHILD TRANS P SAFETY AwARD Safe Moves Safe Moves, founded by Pat Hines who lost a friend in a bicycle crash while training for the 1984 Olympic; Trials, has served the City and County of Los Angeles since 1986. The program was established to educate children about traffic safety and train them to be safe pedestrians, bicyclists, and bus, train and automobile passengers. Because traffic crashes are one of the leading causes of death and injury among children and teens under the age of 14, Safe Moves targets all pre - schools, elemen- tary schools and middle schools in the City and County of Los Angeles. Through various partnerships, the pro- gram reaches approximately one million children and families each year. This innovative community program used data from health, police, and transportation organizations and the results of a student transportation survey conducted by Safe Moves and Los Angeles City and County police agencies, and school systems to determine the kinds of traffic safety programs needed for young students. Based on these findings, Safe Moves developed a comprehensive approach to educating children about transportation safety. The organization conducts inter- active traffic safety workshops that are geared to each grade level and are tailored to each geographical area. It presents parent training workshops, educating parents on traffic safety, laws and ordinances. 'It has estab- lished student mentor programs, bicycle helmet distrib- ution programs, and community outreach campaigns. Safe Moves has partner- ships with 51 law enforce- ment agencies and 70 school districts, all located in the City and County of Los Angeles. Police officers and school administrators have played a significant role in helping Safe Moves educate the young people of Los Angeles. The program also works with Los Angeles area recreation centers, boys and girls clubs, neighborhood watch programs and a variety of transportation organizations. With interactive educational programs and communi- ty partnerships, Safe Moves has contributed to the decrease in traffic- related injuries and deaths, and cre- ated traffic safety awareness among school -aged chil- dren, their parents, school officials, the business com- munity and governmental officials throughout Los Angeles. Safe Moves has documented a 34 percent reduction in bicycle and pedestrian related injuries and deaths by evaluating school attendance and health records. In 1994 alone, 114 graduates of the Safe Moves pro- gram walked away from bicycle collisions because they were wearing a bicycle helmet. In addition, Safe Moves has effectively increased the use of alternative modes of transportation by school -aged children in order to decrease the traffic in and around school sites. LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING DEVICE (LASER) Speed detection radar technology has changed little over the years. It is still an effective enforcement tool but it has its limitations. The effective range is only a few hundred yards, it is difficult to isolate one vehicle in heavy traffic and the proliferation of radar detectors has allowed violators to avoid citations by slowing before the officer can obtain a reading on the radar unit. A "Lidar" device solves these problems. "Lidar" is an acronym for, "light detection and ranging." Lidar is similar to radar in its functions and application, but it uses laser light instead of microwaves to detect objects. Radar projects a broad, cone - shaped beam 200 -400 feet wide, with an effective range of only a few yards. A laser device casts a shaft of light that widens to just over one yard at a quarter -mile range. This type of device can isolate one vehicle at ranges of up to a half mile away, even in heavy traffic. The laser works too fast for detection devices. The 0.3- second invisible burst is so brief and focused, electronic countermeasures are ineffective. A laser device offers a second capability that is not at all possible in radar. The same circuitry that computes a moving object's speed also makes accurate distance measurements as far as a half mile away. In 1995, there were 332 reported traffic accidents in Saratoga. Of these, 147 were injury accidents requiring a full accident investigation. A major part of the accident investigation and report is the taking of accurate measurements at the scene and completing a factual diagram showing those measurements. (See Attachment) Approximately one half of the time spent at an accident scene is spent taking those measurements with a Roll -a -meter or metal tape. Every significant piece of evidence at the scene must be measured using a base line or by triangulation. This part of an investigation requires two officers to take and record the measurements as well as those officers who are directing traffic away from the scene. The time involved in this procedure for a fatal or serious injury accident can take two to three. A device that would simplify this process would allow the involved officers to more quickly leave the scene and return to other duties and the street could more quickly return to a normal traffic flow. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation estimates the gathering of this data can be done in one third of the time it takes with conventional devices. After collecting all of the measurements at the scene, the investigating officer must complete a detailed diagram. This portion of the accident report often takes longer than completing the written portion. A laser device can be used to quickly and accurately take these measurements at the scene. The data can automatically be stored and then downloaded into a computer. The data can be directly transferred to the CAD software currently being utilized in the C* STARS Accident Reporting Program. This will greatly shorten this time consuming task and allow the investigating officer to more quickly complete the report and return to other duties. These capabilities have other applications. The ranging function can be used at other types of crime scenes or enforcing law where distance is one of the elements of the crime; i.e. 20007 VC Operating a sound system that can be heard more than 50 feet from a vehicle. This device can also be used to determine average speeds on a specific section of a roadway. An example would be in response to a complaint from a resident about speeding on a particular street. A reserve deputy, cadet or volunteer could use the laser to measure the speeds of all vehicles over a period of time. The information can be downloaded and printed. If this information shows a need for enforcement, that can be done or a copy can be sent to the resident showing that the speed limit is being observed. This capability can also be utilized by the traffic engineers to more easily and quickly conduct traffic surveys. The purchase of one complete system will serve to enhance the speed enforcement and accident investigation capabilities of the Sheriff's Department in Saratoga. Laser Technology Inc., the company that manufactures this device offers a 24 hour training class. It is more cost effective to train two instructors who can then give a ten hour training class to other deputies. At least ten hours of instruction is needed in order to properly use these devices. COST LIT 20 -20 Marksman Laser $3649.00 (2X red dot scope, shoulder rest, carrying case) Quickmap Package $1295.00 (HP 48GX data collector,, software, cables) Marksman Battery with shoulder case $ 85.00 2 Marksman Holsters $ 250.00 (One for each traffic car) Shipping and Handling $ 14.00 Total Unit Cost $5293.00 Training Class for Instructor $ 100.00 ($200.00 /class -one half paid by Cupertino) Overtime wages for Instructor training (10 hours X $49.67) $ 496.70 Overtime for training (Six deputies @ 10 hours each) $2980.20 Total Cost for Training $3576.90 Total Cost for Laser Program $8869.90 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FACTUAL DIAGRAM PACE DATE OF COLLISION ^ /{1 1 E (200( NCIC UM�2E \R1 O1FFI NU1[M�BER 2 C\ MOO ..'n YR�� T 1 V�O �` /I� I �� V_Z-q � OV�1 J ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND NOT TO SCALE UNLESS STATED (SCALE I 1 , 14 6��• 15 8 10, 4' 13'5" 133" G NORTNE 1 1 I 0 5,8 14' 19'7' A SCOTLAN D R, I 1 ' I I ' ORA CHP 555 —Page 4 (Rev II -85) OPI 042 r� I0 D I { 1 II1 1 II II i ' I , 1 I ( J REFERENCE POINT © SKIDS -V2'�,o- 2S" © SIDE SCUFF SKID - V1 OD GOUGE of DEBRIS FIELD .O, MBER I MO. V R. IREViE wER S NAME 03 ^O�b L/R I 13 I i t Light Detection and Ranging Device Laser Technology Marksman TM Marksman casts a beam that's barely three feet wide even at a thousand feet. Marksman also expedites accident reconstruction and performs highway speed and volume surveys. ®aster, more accurate and reliable speed control is only the beginning. The demands of today's speed control tax the abilities of even the most highly - trained enforcement personnel and equipment. Overcrowded highways and radar detectors combine to make speed enforcement increasingly difficult. For a growing number of municipalities and state law enforcement organizations, radar simply isn't getting the job done. Worst of all, the toughest areas to enforce speed laws are the roadways that need it the most. The solution comes from the company that pioneered laser speed enforcement. Laser Technology, Inc. now raises the performance standard, with the second generation'of laser speed enforcement tools: the Marksman The most advanced instrument of its kind, representing a new level in speed control efficiency. The Marksman laser speed and ranging tool goes beyond the traditional functions of radar guns and first- genera- tion lasers, in a durable, easy -to -use, intelligent package. The Marksman uses the same technology NASA depends on to measure the distance and closing speed of approaching satellites to set the new benchmark in speed control laser performance. The Marksman fires a harridess, narrow laser beam. Radar projects a broad, cone - shaped beam 200 to 400 feet wide, with an effective range of only a few hundred yards. The Marksman casts an invisible shaft of light that widens to just over a yard at a quarter -mile range. Individual vehicles can be isolated at the push of a trigger, even weaving from lane to la e, at ranges up to a half mile away. 'The Marksman is fast. Too fast for detection devices. The 0.3- second invisible laser burst that creates the speed measurement is so brief and focused, electronic countermeasures are completely ineffective. The Marksman is durable. Casing seams are resistant to both moisture and water vapor, inherent surge protection safeguards vital circuitry, and each instru- ment is designed with no internal moving parts or adjustable radio frequencies to go out of alignment. The Marksman is exceptionally shock resistant. One unit was dropped into interstate traffic and hit by several vehicles traveling at high speed, but once a circuit board was remounted, it performed to original specifications. _ Alarkstnan is versatile. The same circuitry that computes a mov- ing object's speed also makes accurate distance measurements as far as half a mile away. This becomes extremely valuable when performing fast, simple, and more'accurate accident reconstruc- tion, or performing any other distance - determination function. Even checking for false walls in semi trailers, all the officer has to do is point and shoot. The Marksman is useful, to officers and highway engineers alike. It downloads complete traffic data surveys via standard serial port and Speed Stay" software, to a separate laptop computer, in reports including all statistical data and time /date groupings. The Marksman gets results. Nothing is more effective in quickly measuring speed and distance than a laser. Speed measurements are more selective and accurate, and thanks to the laser's reput- ation for unbeatable accuracy, they hold up better in court if they ever get that far. The Marksman is proven. Results in the courtroom speak for themselves, with judicial notice already served in hundreds of jurisdictions. Laser Technology has been the pioneer in establishing laser speed enforcement in the courtroom and the laboratory. No other gun has received the level of unrestricted independent testing approval we have, both here and abroad. The Marksman simply makes a tough job easier. Nothing makes line -of- sight speed measurement readings more quickly, quietly or accurately. Technolog- ical advances like outstanding range and accuracy through glass, auto - capture, and the versatility of full - function traffic survey make the.Marksman the standard by which all laser speed control devices are judged. It is the intelligent answer to today's most complex demands of highway safety. Laser Technology revolutionized speed enforce- ment with the 1990 introduction of the world's first laser speed detection system, the LTI 20 -20 Marksman. Now, this same technological advancement is available to C. accident investigators with QuickMap, a laser -based accident investigation and data collection package. / QuickMap combines reflectorless laser range / measurement with elec / tronic field data collection, and PC based office pro- cessing. The result is, per- haps, the fastest, safest, most convenient accident inves- tigation system ever produced for the law enforcement officer. _ 4 With QuickMap, you work the acci- dent scene just like you're used to doing. You still take baseline /offset or range/ triangulation measurements that will ultimately be used to position critical features. You also record descriptive notes about the feature points. The difference is that QuickMap lets you do it all electronically. Instead of QirickMap's Baseline Method walking off each measurement by hand you use your laser to "shoot" to the target. It is faster and safer, because it lets you avoid stepping into dangerous traffic. A handheld data collector replaces the pen and clipboard. All descriptive note are entered and stored digitally. QuickMap is flexible, and accurate. The user can choose either mapping method for investigating the scene. If a laser isn't handy, QuickMap can store and process manually entered range measurements Information integrity will improve due tc u QuickMap's on- screen review, editing functions, anc all - digital process. .' Once the data is entered, QuickMap does the hard work. Position coordinates are computed anc displayed automatically. Point -to -point calculation , are available at the touch of a key stroke. Morc advanced formulas can also be incorporated anc 4 are completely user programmable. In addition to robust field capabilities QuickMap provides a suite of office processinc utilities. The user can print coordinate text sum ' maries, plot coordinate files, or download ASCi files for use with other PC based software 0 QuickMap also includes a handy. utilit that con vents ASCII QuickMap files to DXF format for us( with the operators favorite CAD or GIS package. The best testament to the potential time sav ing benefits of a laser -based accident investiga tion system come from existing laser users. Indc studies have shown that using the lase pendent QuickMap can compi.ite coordinate data and reconstnect the accident entirely from measurements taken at the scene. QulckMa.p's Trtangulatioil Method POINT 4 X 51.67 Y 33.88 NOTE VH 1 SKID ST. I PRCL] PSTO. DOWN, I PLOT I PRIN I DELE PT 3 TO PT 4 INVERSE N 1- 5'23'44 "W AZ : 344 °36' 16" DIST: 71.57 ® ® ®M®® can cut the time involved in clearing an acc dent scene by as much as 66 %. Now with QwckMap's automated data proces: ing capabilities, officers will not only investigat and clear incidents even faster, they will also sav time back in the office getting the data in to tl, proper administrative reports or analysis program Technological advances like QuickMap an the LTI 20 -20 Marksman can help you meet tt. challenge of today's speed control and incidei management requirements. They represent intE ligent answers to the most complex demands highway safety. i i .v, i QulckMa.p's Trtangulatioil Method POINT 4 X 51.67 Y 33.88 NOTE VH 1 SKID ST. I PRCL] PSTO. DOWN, I PLOT I PRIN I DELE PT 3 TO PT 4 INVERSE N 1- 5'23'44 "W AZ : 344 °36' 16" DIST: 71.57 ® ® ®M®® can cut the time involved in clearing an acc dent scene by as much as 66 %. Now with QwckMap's automated data proces: ing capabilities, officers will not only investigat and clear incidents even faster, they will also sav time back in the office getting the data in to tl, proper administrative reports or analysis program Technological advances like QuickMap an the LTI 20 -20 Marksman can help you meet tt. challenge of today's speed control and incidei management requirements. They represent intE ligent answers to the most complex demands highway safety. The QuickMap Package:_ Data Collector, Case & Manual I • I I I I I ■ Field Software _ J ( I ■ P.C. Utilities Suite File Transfer Utility Print /Plot Utility Basic DXF Utility - ■ Set of (3) Data Cables __ - ■ Attachment Bracket ■ QuickMap Users Manual optional Accessories • Infrared Printer I I I I • Mono Pod I I I 1 • Advanced ASCII to DXF Software I I I I Specifications: Marksman Range Measurement Operational Distance: 30' to 3500' (15' option available) • Accuracy ± 6 Inches • Acquisition Time: .3 Seconds Data Collector ■ 4 AAA Batteries ■ Over 1500 points of data storage ■ Full user programmability for separate formula calculations ■ RS232 serial communication The LTI Marksman 20120 is sold separately QuickMap Software • Range - triangulation and baseline -of fset method support • Range data entry - electronic or manual • On- screen point review • On- screen plot review • 24 character descriptor capacity • Point -to -point inversing • Printer support • Portable infrared • P.C. printers with print /plot utility • File Output ■ ASCII, comma delimited X,Y files ■ DXF (with conversion utility) Optional Infrared Printer Y. = 80.25 Y = 32.75 QuickMap files are easily transferred to a variety of CAD packages. n &- Ou7ckMap "O System Software Card o Field Data Collector Battery Pack Call for a Demonstration L f�E R c 7070 S. Tucson Way ■ Englewood, Colorado 80112 TECI- inOLOGY Telephone (303) 649 -1000 ■ Fax (303) 649 -971( CASE 856 POINT LIST Number x y Note 1 0.00 0.00 CP1 2 107.00 0.00 CP2 3 53.50 -51.12 DFTIRE 4 39.67 -50.22 DRTIRE 5 39.67 -50.22 PRTIRE 6 39.56 -56.53 DFVH2E 7 40.49 -67.83 DRVH2 8 45.37 -68.31 PRVH2 9 46.73 -88.41 SKVH2 START 10 11.44 -43.52 SKVD1 START 11 10.06 -54.07 CURB ST. 12 24.52 -54.76 CURB LN. 13 35.55 -62.61 CURB LN. 14 38.64 -75.71 CURB END 15 66.96 -71.56 STOP SIGN n &- Ou7ckMap "O System Software Card o Field Data Collector Battery Pack Call for a Demonstration L f�E R c 7070 S. Tucson Way ■ Englewood, Colorado 80112 TECI- inOLOGY Telephone (303) 649 -1000 ■ Fax (303) 649 -971( BICYCLE PATROL Conventional methods of patrolling - vehicles, motorcycles, and foot beats do not meet all the needs of today's changing environment. There is a need for new and innovative patrol methods. Mountain bicycles were chosen for this task because of their versatility, durability and mobility. Bicycle patrols have proven to be one of the most effective methods in combating and preventing criminal activities. The City of Seattle, Washington started a bicycle patrol in 1987 and there are now currently over an estimated 1,000 police bicycle patrols in the United States. Agencies have found advantages that include cost effectiveness, increased arrests and overwhelming positive public response. The positive response comes from increased public interaction, high visibility and a more approachable policing style the patrols offer. The bicycles fit in well with community policing where the bicycle is used as a tool to promote police work and increase community contact. An effective bicycle patrol unit is comprised of two deputies riding together in parks, shopping centers, school campuses, high density housing complexes and other congested areas. The deputies will utilize a patrol car equipped with a bicycle rack to transport their equipment to-the areas where they are needed. The bicycles are equipped with lighting devices for night time use, storage bags, locks and repair equipment. Each deputies will wear a safety helmet and full duty belt. The deputy will also wear a distinctively marked polo shirt and bicycle shorts. Communications will be by use of the standard hand -held portable radio. Assignment to this unit will be voluntary and will be selected based on their interest, experience and physical abilities. The selection will be made by the West Side Station Command Staff. Each deputy will satisfactorily complete a 24 -hour training class. This class will either be taught by qualified Sheriff's instructors or by attendance at classes put on by other law enforcement agencies. Deputies will be paid at the overtime rate to complete this training. Each deputy will provide their own uniform to include the required shirt, pants, and shoes. The department will provide the bicycle and related equipment as well as all safety equipment including helmet, gloves and jacket. Deputies will be paid at the overtime rate when assigned to this unit as it will be in addition to their regular assignments. This will allow the bicycle patrol unit to be assigned at various times and areas as needed. This unit will be utilized for special events including Halloween, Celebrate Saratoga, Blossom Festival, Christmas Open House, Fourth of July Picnic and The Great Race. They will also be used in the Village during Christmas, weekend evenings and other times of heavy use. The unit can be used in an area that is experiencing an increase in a particular category of crime such as burglaries, vandalism or graffiti. Saratoga will pay to train two deputies and purchase two fully equipped bicycles. The cost of the in -house instructors will be on a 75/25 split between Cupertino and Saratoga. Cupertino will 75% because they will be training six deputies. Costs: Purchase of two bicycles and equipment $2283.93 (Includes all equipment listed below) Training of deputies through a P.O.S.T. program (locally) 2 deputies X 24 hours = 48 hours X $49.67 $2384.16 Two instructors for in house training program 2 X 24 hours = 48 hours X $49.67 = $2384.16 Cost of Instructors 2384.16X.25 $ 596.04 Total Start-up Costs $ 5264.13 Bicycle Patrol Time (581 hours @ $50.82/hour) $29459.00 Total Program Cost $34786.13 Bicycle Costs Bicycle Trek Patrol Unit with front shocks $756.00 Trek Rear Rack Storage Bag 75.00 Mr Tuffy Tire Liners 16.95 Water Bottle Cage 6.95 Water Bottle 3.95 Trek Helmet 34.95 Bicycle Mounted Tire Pump 24.95 Spare Tube 3.95 Repair Patch Kit 3.95 Trek Gloves 12.95 Tire Levers 3.95 Trunk Mounted Bicycle Rack 55.95 U -lock (Kryptonite) 34.95 Front Light (Cats Eye Halogen) 39.95 Rear Light 10.95 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Price per bicylcel including accessories $1085.35 2 Bicycles /Accessories (minus 1 bike rack- $55.95) $2114.75 PRELIMINARY ALCOHOL SCREENING DEVICE (Alco- Sensor IV) Due to the increased use of alcohol by juveniles at school and at social events, measures must be taken to stress zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means zero blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in anyone under the age of 21 years. During the 1995 school semester, Prospect High School caught eight students either intoxicated on campus or drinking on campus. Additionally, one student was found intoxicated at a school dance . Several of the schools in Saratoga have approached the School Resource Officers requesting assistance in identifying students who may be under the influence of alcohol. For the past two years the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office has been using the preliminary alcohol screening devices to assist in making accurate assessments of persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. The use of the Preliminary Alcohol Screening device has been very successful because it gives immediate results. The Alco- Sensor IV is a hand held breath testing device designed to analyze blood alcohol concentrations of breath samples. The device is used as a field sobriety test to obtain a preliminary indication of a subject's blood alcohol concentration. The Alco- Sensor IV is a reliable instrument capable of accuracy comparable to that of evidentiary breath testing instruments. The result of the analysis is automatically displayed first with a two digit approximation and moments later in three digits as a final reading. The Preliminary Alcohol Screening devices will be kept at each middle and high school, available to school deans and to the deputies called to the schools. The devices will also be used at after school activities such as school dances and sporting events. The use of the devices will be at the discretion of the school officials but they are not intended to be used on every student, only those suspected of being under the influence. As with any investigative device, this method can remove suspicion from those who have not consumed alcohol as much as prove the suspicion of those who have. The Preliminary Alcohol Screening devices will be checked for calibration regularly by the deputy currently maintaining the devices for Westside Patrol Division. It will be the responsibility of the beat deputy to pick up the device from the school for calibration. All deputies, who will be using the device, will be trained by the Westside Traffic Investigator. The school deans, who will be using the Preliminary Alcohol Screening device, will be trained by any beat deputy with prior training. There is no cost for this training. COST 3 Preliminary Alcohol Screening devices (Alco- Sensor IV) $690.00 each 1000 mouthpieces Total Program Cost 25 each $2,070.00 250.00 $2,320.00 Preliminary Alcohol Screening Devise ALCO- SENSOR IV MULTIMEDIA COMPUTER AND DIGITAL CAMERA PROGRAM Making classroom presentations is an important part of the duties of School Resource Officer. Simply standing and talking in front of a class of students who have been raised on a diet of video and computers is not enough. Today's student needs to be entertained while learning. There is a need to enhance presentations with various forms of audio- visual aids. Many of the presentations that the School Resource Officer is called upon to make require ingenuity for making these enhancements. Often there are no existing materials available as many of the presentations are unique and written for a specific class or audience. Multimedia presentations are easy to produce, can be shown to an audience in a number of forms and can be produced utilizing many different sources of material. Image Processing has joined data processing and word processing. A study by the Wharton Business School concluded that visual communications (slides and overhead transparencies) significantly improve how the presenter is perceived by the audience. The presenter with visuals was rated as significantly better prepared, more professional, more persuasive, more credible and more interesting. It is possible to take input from video cameras,-video recorders, digital cameras, photographs, CD -ROMs, 35 mm slides, music CDs and music cassettes and transform it into videos, slides, transparencies, color prints, computer animation (shown with an overhead projector or a computer screen), 35 mm slides or a combination of these. The hardware necessary for producing CD -ROMs is even rapidly becoming affordable. The heart of this system is a multimedia computer. Various peripherals are needed for input and output, as is presentation software. Some of this equipment is already available. The West Side has an overhead projector and lap top computers that can be used for presentations and the Detective Bureau has the LCD adapter for the overhead projector that allows a computer output to be displayed on a large screen. This kind of work requires a lot of RAM, a large monitor, a CD -ROM drive, a video capture board, a high capacity hard drive and a fast processor The necessary peripherals include a color scanner, a color printer and a digital camera. Much of the necessary software is already available or comes with the computer and peripherals, but the addition of CorelDraw 6 should make it a complete package. This comprehensive graphics program allows one to create precise illustrations, draw free- form artwork, edit digital photographs, represent data in charts, assemble simple presentations, and construct animated sequences. This system would be used for other presentations such as parent groups, fairs, council and commission meetings, departmental training and public safety days. Besides the educational benefits of this system, there are numerous enforcement and crime prevention uses. Including the color scanner and printer as part of the system, provide the ability to immediately produce color fliers for missing or wanted persons. The digital camera makes it possible to get color photos of accident and crime scenes without waiting for or paying the cost of developing. These pictures would be available to the deputy while writing their report and copies can be provided to detectives without the usual 2 -4 week delay. The digital camera makes it possible to crop or enlarge photos without using a photo lab and to quickly produce visual aids for court testimony. This camera is more versatile and eliminates the high cost of film when compared to a 35mm or Polaroid. An example of this capability is in the battle against graffiti. Currently Polaroid photographs are taken of graffiti and attached to a copy of the incident report. There is no easy way of filing and keeping the work of one tagger together. The use of the digital camera would enable the photographs to be stored in a computer file. Examples of one tagger's work can be put together on one page and distributed to schools in the area. School officials and teachers often see graffiti in notebooks and on backpacks but don't realize the significance of it. One recent tagger in Saratoga was identified using a similar method. If the person is identified, all similar photos can be printed together on one document and sent to the court for prosecution on all cases at once. The cameras would be kept at City Hall and also be available for use by the Community Service Officers. Cost Compaq Presario 4704 Multimedia Computer $2711.41 (Compaq 14 inch monitor, 1.6GB HD, expanded RAM, 6X CD -ROM drive, 3 year on -site warranty) Epson Stylus Color II ink jet printer $ 290.59 Hewlett Packard Scanjet 4C color scanner (see attached) Printer Cable $ 4.90 Hewlett- Packard Scanjet 4C Color Scanner $ 902.00 Corel Draw 6.0 for Windows Graphic Software Suite $ 440.63 Training for Corel Draw 6 $ 290.00 (12 hour course for one deputy 3 Extra black printer cartridges ($17.96 each) $ 53.91 3 Extra color printer cartridges ($29.45 each) $ 88.35 High Resolution Paper $ 17.00 Total System Cost $4798.79 One half of system cost (Saratoga's share) $2399.40 2 Epson PC Digital Cameras ($481.82 each) $ 963.64 (For use in Saratoga) Total Program Cost $3363.03 Night Vision Proposal for the City of Saratoga The patrol officers require night vision scopes for use in detecting criminal activity during hours of darkness. These devices will also be helpful in locating subjects that flee and hide from officers during night time hours. The City of Saratoga had a total auto burglary rate of 112 incidents for the period of 7/95 to 6/96. Approximately 90 percent of these occurred during night time hours. In addition, there were 23 reported auto thefts and 166 reported acts of vandalism. The majority of these crimes also occurred during the hours of darkness. The deputies assigned during these hours use a variety of techniques to prevent and detect these crimes including the use of visible directed patrol, unmarked cars and fixed post positions. These techniques have limited applications in darkened areas where most of these crimes will occur. Currently, police and sheriff s agencies in the area have had positive results with night vision devices. This equipment is used to in conjunction with current techniques to increase effectiveness in nighttime hours. These night vision scopes have come down in price making them affordable to local government. Use of this equipment has resulted increased arrests and resulted in safer conditions for front line law enforcement personnel involved in searching for suspects in dangerous nighttime conditions. Night vision equipment works by collecting available light that you can see and other available light that cannot be seen by the human eye. This light is focused on a image intensifier inside the scope. The intensifier absorbs the light energy and converts it into electrons. The electrons then are transferred to a phosphor screen. The screen emits the light in exactly the same pattern and degrees of intensity as it is collected. This allows a bright nighttime image that corresponds to what is there but cannot be seen with the unaided eye. There is no cost of training for this program This proposal is for 4 units to outfit the swing and midnight patrol units in Saratoga. Cost 4 ITT Night Vision Viewer ($1695 each) $6780.00 (Includes case, magnification lens) Night Vision Viewer VIDEO RECORDING PROGRAM Insurance companies often require documentation when claims are made for loss due to theft or a major calamity. Video taped documentation of possessions will aid residents and their insurance companies in settling claims. Video taped documentation of stolen items may also assist in returning items to the victims of theft. A color, to scale image, of the lost or stolen items would be of great assistance in the preparation of all associated reports. Making the equipment available at City Hall for residents to check out and use to document their possessions is a pro- active crime prevention technique. The citizen merely checks out the video equipment from the staff at City Hall and uses it to video record their valuables. The citizen can then dub the original video onto their own VCR utilizing the cable supplied with the unit. When the citizen is through with the equipment they return it to the staff at the City Hall. The citizen will retain their own copy of the video tape. Cost Minolta C -561 VHS Camcorder C Camcorder $529.95 Hard Carrying Case 69.95 5 Year Extended Warranty 159.95 Total 759.85 Total for two units 1519.70 50 VHS C Tapes ($12.00 each) 600.00 Total 2119.70 Sales Tax 169.57 Total Program Price 2289.27 MAJOR SELLING POINTS Other Features Animation - Records in 114. 1/2. or 1- second segments every time the record 'tan/stop button is pressed. Can be used to produce the illusion Of movement in Otherwise stationary Objects or scenes. Available with remote Control only Tirnelapse - Allows automatic sequential on/off recording in 1/4. 12. or 1 -second segments at pre -set time intervals (every 15.30.60. or 300 seconds) over an extended period. Can be used for motion studies. bloorning flowers. etc. Available with remote control only. Cinema Mode - Masks the top and bottom of the image frame to produce a cinema -like wide - screen effect. Fader - For professional - looking scene transitions, this control produces smooth fade -in or fade -out effects to a black screen. Apra 1996 STANDARD ACCESSORIES DESCRIPTION AC Adapter/Charger VAC-65OU Battery Pack VBP -630 Shoulder Stra VSS -600 assette Adapter VAD -4 OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES ITEM N DESCRIPTION 7892-820 AC Adapter/Charger VAC -6000 7893 -520 AC Adapter/Charger VAC -630U 7819 -710 Car Battery Cord VBC -600 7839410 Battery Pack VBP -601 7839 -710 Battery Pack VBP-830 7818 -820 Wired Remote Controller VIR -6000 7825 -310 Cassette Adapter VAD -3 7804 -510 Gamera Bag VCB -600 MINOLTA Item nurbers and specdiatio subject n change wiarculnctice- MASTER C -561 & C -560C _ Palm -size, full- featured VHS -C camcorders with high -power optical zoom, programmed AE with scene select dial, and simple operation. M INOLT/\ Model C -560C also features a color viewfinder. SPECIFICATIONS Type: Compact VHS (VHS -C) camera/recorder. Tape Formal: VHSL. Image Sensor. 1/4' CCO. 270.000 total pixels. Video Signal System: VHS NTSC standard; 525 lines. 60 fields standard. Signal Format NTSC type color signal. Video Recording System: Luminance: FM recalling cola; converteo sub-carriar direct recording. Head Configuration: 4 video heads plus I flying erase head. Drum Diameter: 4Imm. Record/Playback Mode: (SP) 3135 nvNsec; (EP) 11.12 mm/sec. Maximum Recording Time: 90 minutes (with TC -30 in EP mode). FF/Rewind Time: Approx. 3 minutes (win TC -20). Shuttle Search Speed: (SP) approx. 3 times: (EP) approx. 7 Imes. Ouick Review: Approx. 2 sec. Lens: (C -561): f/1.2. f = 4 1 to 57.4mm. 14:1 optical power zoom lens, (C- 560C): UL6.1= 4.2 to 50.4mm. 12:1 optical power zoom lens. Filler diameter 46mm. Auto iris and macro control. ' Focusing: Full -range autdocus: focus lock switchable. Minimum focus distance at wideargle: 0.6 in.: at telephoto: 39 4 in. Zoom Speed: Variable. Iris: Auloma:ic. White Balance: Autos —nuat adjustment. Wrizontal Resolution: More than 330 lines, Minimum Illumination: 3111, (at 30 IRE). Video SR4 Ratio: Mcrethan 41 db. Jitter: Less than 0.3 us. HO: White clip UP. O.E., YNR Audio line Output (RCA pin lack):.8dBs, low impedance. Wow 8 Flutter (monaural): (SP) less than 0.25% WRl.IS: (EP) less than 0.3% WRMS, Enhancer: Horizontal and Vertical. Viewfinder:(C-561):0.5'electronic black&white CRT. (C- 5600):0.55 electronic color LCO. Microphone: Built -in monaural type. Power Requirement: OC 6V. Power Consumption: (C- 561):5.7 VL: (C- 560C): 5.9W. Operating Temperature: 32'1` to 104F. Operating Humidity: 35% to 80% Storage Temperature: d'F to 122'F. Dimensions: (C-561):4-5116 x 4 -12 x 8 -15x16 in.; (C-560CY 4.5116 x 442 x 8 -12 in. Weight: (C -561): Apwcox 1.7 tos.: (C- 5600): Approx. 1.6lbs. NOTE: Spe lrafins a,a based on the West info, n_on available at me time of printing and are subiec: to c: arV • :+tndut •rotice. MASTER C -561 & C -560C (model C -561 shown) CONTROL PANEL m Lens Recording McdeTTape LengthlCounter Button — istment 1 r Eyelet Manual White Balance Button Dphone Button Button Button Button act Dial y Lamp to Jack Lens u Control Power Battery Electror Recordii Audio O RF DC C Strap Ey Battery I Video Oi Power S Grto Sir: i. Edit Button Rewind/Retake R Button Fast Forward/ Retake F Button MAJOR SELLING POINTS Variable Speed Power Zoom Lens (14x - C -561), (12x - C -560C) The Minolta Master C -561 features a 14x, f/1.2 zoom lens and the C -5600 features a 12x, 1/1.6 zoom lens. Both models provide a powerful and extensive local length coverage with variable -speed zoom control. Zoom speed ranges It= as fast as 2 seconds to a smooth 14 seconds: the harder the user presses the zoom control, the faster the zoom speed. Full -Range Autofocus The improved full -range autofocusing system is quicker and more accurate than ever. Using 4 focusing areas, the AF system can maintain precise focus on the subject even it the subject is not in the center of -- the image frame. 2 -Speed Manual Focus For the rare instances when autofoousing cannot be confirmed. manual focusing is possible with a fast (3 second) speed. and a slow (8.4 second) speed. The last speed can be used for major focusing adjustments. and the slow speed for fine- tuning. Electronic Color LCD Viewfinder (C -560C only) The C- 560i color LCD viewfinder provides an accurate reproduction of what the camcorder sees. Besides being pleasing to the eye, this is especially helpful when lighting conditions are questionable or color balance is critical. Viewfinder controls let the user adjust color. brightness, and tint. (Model C -561 uses a standard black S white CRT viewfinder.) Programmed Autoexposure with Scene Select Dial In addition to fully automatic programmed exposure, a variety of creative shooting effects are accessible with the scene select dial. The user can select an effect or program best suited for the type of subject. Auto Mode Lock- Locks the camcorder in full auto mode and disengages cinema, fader, focus. exposure, display, titles, and manual white balance buttons. Ideal for use when asking someone unfamiliar with the camcorder to do the shooting. Auto Mode Release - Re- activates the controls that were inactive in auto mode. Sports - Uses high shutter speeds (1/250 to 1/500 sec.) to clearly capture sports or other last action with less blur. Clarity is especially noticeable during still or slow- motion playback on a VCR. Sepia - Records the scene in monochrome (sepia tone). making it look like an old movie. When used in combination with cinema mode, the user can recreate the look of an authentic Hollywood classic. Twilight- Makes dusk and twilight scenery. fireworks, city lights, etc. took more natural and dramatic. ND Filter- Functions as a neutral density filter, to compensate for overt' bright areas or glare. Fog- Adds a soh, misty-white effect evenly across the whole frame, simu- lating a foggy atmosphere. High -Speed Shutter - Sets the shutter speed to 112000 sec. to clearly capture very last action such as a golf swing, etc. Sell -Amer - Delays start of recording to 15 seconds after the record starlstop button is pressed. Date/Time/Character Sail — Tracking Buttons Data 8 Time Set/Character SeVR.A Edit In/Out Buttons (no RA. for C -5600) — R.A. Edit Button (not on C -5600) R.A. Edit Cancel Button (not on C -5600) — Play/Pause Button Stop Button 8- Segment Random Assemble Editing (C -561 only) R.A. Edit controls on the C -561 allow the user to pre - select up to eight scenes tot automatic editing from camcorder to VCR, in any desired order. 18- Character Generator The built -in character generator a!lows the user to input an original mes. sage up to 18 characters long. The eight additional characters over pre- vious models permit a wider range of message possibilities. Instant Titles In addition to the built -in character generator, eight pre -set titles are stored in memory. Titles include HAPPY BIRTHDAY, OUR VACATION, MERRY CHRISTMAS. A SPECIAL DAY, HAPPY HOLIDAYS, OUR NEW BABY, WEDDING DAY, and CONGRATULATIONS. Intelligent Function Control with Viewfinder/LCD Panel Readout This new design feature groups numerous functions into 3 groups - accessible by 3 simple buttons. With centrally - located buttons, the user has no problem finding the button he or she needs. This makes cam- corder operation quicker, easier, and more enjoyable. Function selection is confirmed by viewfinder and LCD panel indications. Automatic Head Cleaner A built -in head cleaner keeps the video heads and head drum clean for long -term picture qualiy. Improvements in mounting angle, rotational movement, and head cleaner material enable a more thorough cleaning. Lomatic White Balance The automatic white balance system uses image data from the lens and IR sensor to maintain accurate white balance and accurate color rendi- tion. 3 selectable presets and a manual while balance adjustment are also provided. Improved Tape Transport Mechanism An improved high - precision tape - transport mechanism allows a further reduction in camcorder size while providing greater stability for higher quality images, and a faster windirg speed with quicker stop- to-play response. Optional Wired Remote Control Available as an optional accessory is the Remote Control VIR -6000 which provides timelapse and animation functions plus AV dubbing. audio-only dubbing, and video -0 rr / dubbing functions. Comfortable Handling Minolta's Master C -5600 and C -561 camcorders are very comfortable to handle and operate. A straight line of sight from subject to lens to CCD to eye enables accurate pointing and shooting, and the precision grip balance offers maximum stability cecause the user has a firm hold on the lens barrel at all times. Selling Pants Continued On Back City of Saratoga Interoffice Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Jennifer Britton, Assistant -to the City-Manage SUBJECT: Modification to COPS Funding Proposal DATE: September 16, 1996 Enclosed please find some replacement and additional pages to your Council report (Item 6B "Public Hearing on Use of COPS Funding Program) for your consideration at Wednesday evening's Council meeting. We have all been rushing to get the information in and we realized there needed to be some clarification about some of the information as well as the addition of a program component which will be described below. The "bottom line" of these changes is that there is NO CHANGE in the total dollar figure ($67,221.45). There are two minor changes: First, the inclusion of a radar statistics package for the City's radar trailer at a cost of $3,595. A description of the statistics package is enclosed with this memo. Second, there is an off - setting decrease in the Bicycle Patrol Time from 581 to 515 hours. The Sheriff's Department is confident that the bicycle patrol will function very well at this level and that there is benefit to be gained from the inclusion of the radar trailer statistical package for various traffic concerns in our community. Please refer to the revised pages attached to this memo.for further detail.. attachments • � eAnl 3 rd ra.�e 6- RECAP sly s refo rt PROGRAM TOTAL Bicycle Safety Program $ 8,813.12 Light Detection and Ranging Device Equipment $ 5,293.00 Training $ 3,576.90 $ 8,869.90 Bicycle Patrol Equipment $ 2,283.93 Training $ 2;953.20 Patrol Time $ 26,154.00 $ 31,391.13 Radar Statistics Package $ 3,395.00 Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device $ 2,320.00 Multimedia Computer System $ 3,363.03 Night Vision Scopes $ 6,780.00 Video Recording Program $ 2,289.27 TOTAL $ 67,221.45 • New 2dPa 9 e-�r Saratoga will pay to train two deputies and purchase two fully equipped bicycles. The cost of the in -house instructors will be on a 75/25 split between Cupertino and Saratoga. �� n Cupertino will 75% because they will be training six deputies. Costs: Purchase of two bicycles and equipment (Includes all equipment listed below) Training of deputies through a P.O.S.T. program (locally) 2 deputies X 24 hours = 48 hours X $49.67 Two instructors for in house training program 2 X 24 hours = 48 hours X $49.67 = $2384.16 Cost of Instructors 2384.16 X .25 Total Start-up Costs Bicycle Patrol Time (515 hours @ $50.82/hour) Total Program Cost Bicycle Costs $2283.93 $2384.16 $ -596.04 $ 5264.13 $26154.00 $31391.00 Bicycle Trek Patrol Unit with front shocks $756.00 Trek Rear Rack Storage Bag 75.00 Mr Tuffy Tire Liners 16.95 Water Bottle Cage 6.95 Water Bottle 3.95 Trek Helmet 34.95 Bicycle Mounted Tire Pump 24.95 Spare Tube 3.95 Repair Patch Kit 3.95 Trek Gloves 12.95 Tire Levers 3.95 Trunk Mounted Bicycle Rack 55.95 U -lock (Kryptonite) 34.95 Front Light (Cats Eye Halogen) 39.95 Rear Light 10.95 Total Price per bicycle including accessories $1085.35 2 Bicycles /Accessories (minus 1 bike rack- $55.95) $2114.75 N e q Faodes — RADAR STATISTICS PACKAGE F (ace- c-f en4 of ,tee part This package of software and hardware is an add -on package to the radar trailer already owned by the city. This package makes it possible to record traffic data while the radar trailer is set -up on a street. The number of vehicles vs. the time of day, vehicle speed vs. the time of day and vehicle speed vs. the number of vehicles can be recorded. The data can be graphed, printed or and down loaded to another computer system or storage - media.. Peak speed, low speed, total number of vehicles, 50th percentile and 85th percentile are all calculated automatically. Cost Smart RadarStat System $3595.00 News about enhancements and accessories for Knetom products. 1st Q ?Q 1996 Statistics Packages for Kustom Radar and Laser Now Available A, complete line of Statis cs Packages are now available from Kustom Signals for the following products: •ProLaser lI Traffic Safety Lidar esilvei EAGLE Traffic Safety Radar *Golden EAGLE Traffic Safety Radar •PRO- 1000ns Traffic Safety Radar •SMART Radar Trailer The "LaserStat" package enhances the laser unit, and the "RadarStat" package enhances the SMART and radar units, making them tools for both speed enforcement and data collection. The packages include: - Software diskette* - Interface cable - Operating manual *A miniature Palm -top computer— complete with the operating software installed —is optional. The RadarStat package for the SMART trailer includes: - Computer with operating software installed - Protective computer encasement -Interface cables - Operating manual Using a RadarStat or LaserStat package, an operator can compute and graph the - number of vehicles vs. time of day •vehicle speed vs. time of day *vehicle speed vs. number of vehicles The collected data can then be plotted in either a bar or line graph. With Kustom's statistics packages, peak speed, low speed, total number of vehicles, 500% percentile, and 850` percentile, are all calculated automatically. [conrd next page...] Data collection is easy... 1. Plug one end of the- interface cable to the radar or laser unit, and the other end into the soft- ware- resident computer. 2. Power up, then go through the menu selections, filling id the location, ruxa type, direction of traffic, weather conditions, and posted speed limit 3. Aim towards traffic. The rest is automatic. Every time a new vehicle's speed is displayed, the vehicle count is increased and the speed is stored. The data will include... *vehicle count and average speed in 15 minute intervals, *total vehicle count, •minimum speed, • maximum speed, • average speed, •50''' percentile, •8501 percentile, • ten mile pace, and the •number of vehicles recorded for each mile per hour recorded. After the data is collected.. An operator may • display one of many options of graphs,'.. • printshe graphs, -print a hard copy of the collected data, or • download the files to another compubm system of storage media. t The benefits... Kustom Signals was the first to develop a traffic statistics package in 1977 for the KR -11 radar unit. For nearly 20 years, we've built on that experience and time tested the technology, adding many new operator - oriented features along the way. The current packages provide the ability to set the collection date and time, and to display and print graFhg •„rl All collected data. The results: tremen- dous time sayings for an officer who must .gathei speed data for street surveys and for compliance. with speed limits for Highway Safety funds. Because data can be saved on a floppy disk or hard drive, officers can compare data collected before enforcement is made in a trouble area, and then after as well to determine the impact of their effort. For agencies with the original SMART and statistics computer in operation... All cables and tubes from the original computer system are compatible with the new SMART RadarStat. Because the new SMART RadatSbt is designed to download to a larger computer system, no trailer- mounted printer is necessary. Availability... February 111, 1996. Please allow up to 30 days for delivery. • Pricing... ` N • L t : r • • RadarStat S 695 La•esStat 695 • Patantop computer with • installed software .995 SMART RadarStat Or 3,595 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� AGENDA ITEM ��[ MEETING DATE: September 18, 1996 CITY MGR./[ ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT: 1996/97 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolutions amending the Fiscal Year 1996/97 Budgets for Capital Project No. 953 - Pierce Road Bridge. Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1996/97 Budget to increase revenues and appropriations for Project No. 953 - Pierce Road Bridge. Also included with the resolution are Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheets and Resolutions Approved schedule. The first item, amends the Gas Tax Fund revenue and appropriations budget to supplement the final retention amount owed on the project in the amount of $27,740. 800, or $22,192, of the supplement qualifies for federal reimbursement. The local match of 200, or $5,548, is recommended to be transferred from within existing budgetary authority for Program 3033 - Traffic Control in the Gas Tax Fund. There is no impact to fund balance as a result of this amendment. A supporting memorandum regarding this matter has been prepared by the Public Works Director. Fiscal Impact: Overall revenues and expenditures increase by $22,192. Specific changes by Fund are as follows: Fund Revenues Expenditures Transfers 14 -Gas Tax $22,192 $22,192 $0 The unaudited fund balances as of 7131196 were: 14 -Gas Tax $246,700 Follow Up Actions: Post entries to system. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Final payment to contractor will not be made. Attachments c: \execsumm \exsm0912.96 1