The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-20-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-666 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December Jq 1995 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE SUBJECT: 1995/96 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolution amending the Fiscal Year 1995/96 Budget. Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1995/96 Budget for the following two specific items: 1) Packard Foundation Grant for the Volunteer Program and 2) Nelson Gardens Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Also included with the resolution are a Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule for consideration. Attached are explanatory memorandums from the Recreation and Community Development Directors for the budget amendments. There is no overall impact to the General Fund balance as a result of these amendments because appropriations are offset by new revenues. Fiscal Impacts: Overall revenues increase by $43,540.00. Overall expenditures increase by $43,540.00. The Packard Grant totals $20,000.00, however, budget amendments address current fiscal year requirements only, i.e. FY 1995/96. Accordingly, only $10,000.00 is included in this resolution. The remaining $10,000.00 will be programmed into the 1996/97 Budget during budget deliberations. Specific changes by Fund are as follows: Fund Revenues Expenditures 01- General Fund $33,540.00 $33,540.00 40- Recreation $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Follow Up Actions: None. Consequences of .Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Grant funded volunteer program will not implemented and Nelson Gardens EIR work will not be completed. Attachments 1 c: \execsumm\exsml215.95 TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: DIRECTOR OF RECREATION SUBJECT: PACKARD FOUNDATION GRANT FOR THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1995 As you know the City of Saratoga's Volunteer Program has been awarded a one year grant of $20,000 from the Lucille and David Packard Foundation for the purpose of enhancing the existing program. The money has been received by the city and the consultants will begin work in January with a completion date of November 30, 1996. Please prepare the budget amendment of resolution for City Council's approval. If you need additional information, please let me know. Attachments 1. Approval letter from Packard Foundation. 2. Activity Goals, Objectives and Planned Performance. 4 . THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION September 11, 1995 Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga . 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Grant #95 -1198 Dear Mr. Peacock: P-, Er E sw 9 4 05 CITY uF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE It is a pleasure to inform you that the Board of Trustees of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation has approved a grant in the amount of. $20,000 to the City of Saratoga. This grant is support for the Volunteers for the City Project, as described in your letter and proposal dated June 13, 1995. Enclosed are two copies of this Award Letter and Agreement. Please sign and date one of these sets, and return it to us. Funds will.not be released prior to the receipt of the signed Agreement Form. You may keep the other set for your files. In all correspondence with us, please refer to the above grant number. In addition, we ask that you inform us if there are changes in agency personnel who are important to the administration of the grant, if there are significant difficulties in making use of the funds for the purposes described in your grant proposal, or if the grant funds cannot be expended in the time period set forth in your grant proposal. You may not use the funds in any way other than as referred to in the first paragraph of this letter and in the attachment unless you receive written permission from the Foundation. Any portion of the grant funds not committed to the purposes described herein will be returned to the Foundation. The Foundation will include information on this grant in its periodic public reports and may also refer to the grant in a press release. If you wish to make a public announcement, please consult with the Foundation before doing so. Your grant is scheduled to be paid as follows: Reports have been scheduled as follows: September 1995 $20,000 Final November 30, 1996 If the payment or reporting schedules present any significant difficulties for you, please contact your Program Officer as soon as possible. The Foundation Trustees, Hugh Burroughs and I are pleased to be able to assist you in this project. We wish you success and look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, Colbum S. Wilbur44 Executive Director CSW /mr Enclosures: Award Letter and Agreement 300 Second Street, Suite 200 Los Altos, California 94022 (415) 948 -7658 1 THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION CONDITIONS OF GRANT This Agreement refers to and incorporates the grant Award Letter dated September 11, 1995 from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. As conditions to the receipt of the grant funds announced in the Award Letter, the undersigned agency certifies that its status for tax purposes is that of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and that it is not a private foundation as defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 509. The-Foundation may include information on this grant in its periodic public reports and may also refer to the grant in a press release. By accepting these grant funds, the grantee agrees to such disclosure. The undersigned agency agrees that it will: I. Submit full and complete reports on the manner in which the funds are spent based upon the program budget submitted, and the progress made in accomplishing the purpose of the grant, such reports to be made as set forth in the Award Letter. II. Maintain books and records as required by Internal Revenue Service regulations and be prepared to make such books and records available to The David and Lucile Packard Foundation if requested within a reasonable time. III. Not use any of our funds: A. To carry on propaganda or otherwise to attempt to influence legislation within the meaning of Internal Revenue Service Code Section 4945(d)(1); B. To influence the outcome of any specific public election or to carry on, directly or indirectly, any voter registration drive within the meaning of Internal Revenue Service Code Section 4945(d)(2); C. For any grant which does not comply with the requirements of Internal Revenue Service Code 4945(d)(4) (relating to grants to organizations other than public charities); D. For any purpose other than religious, charitable, scientific, or educational, within the meaning of Internal Revenue Service Code Section 170(c)(2)(B). E. For purposes other than those stated in the Award Letter. IV. Advise the Foundation immediately if the federal government gives notification that the undersigned agency's tax status has been changed. V. Return any funds not expended or committed for the purposes of the grant within the grant period or for any extension of the grant period. Read and agreed to by: City of Saratoga/Grant #95 -1198 By: ll Z- Date 7 - - pr ef (Signature)) Printed Name: Title: 300 Second Street, Suite 200 Los Altos, California 94022 (415) 948 -7658 i It PROGRAM TITLE: Community Services DEPARTMENT: Recreation ACTIVITY TITLE: Packard Grant - Volunteer Services PROGRAM CODE: 4046 ACTIVITY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PLANNED PERFORMANCE: To hire a consultant who will design a forefront program that can function in the face of cutbacks and create a unique, strongly motivated staff willing to support and use volunteers W"th the goO r�f creating the ultimate smell city volunteer program. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MELSURES: 1. Provide a written report assessing the following: the volunteer program, staff and management support and usage of volunteers, recruitment practices, overall support of agency and identification of present and potential volunteer population. 2. Prepare a written report detailing the strategy for implemPz'.iny a one year plan targeting areas for improvement following consultation with of Volunteer Program and City Manager. 3. Prepare, facilitate and train each department; fallowing initial training meet with each department one -three times to resolve problems and promote use of volunteers. 4. Design and /or update and revise existing policies, procedures, forms, etc. 5. Create and design new and unique uses of volunteers; and train staff to be creative in job development. BUDGET SUN04ARY PROGRAM TITLE: Community Services DEPARTMENT: Recreation ACTIVITY TITLE: Packard Grant- Volunteer Services PROGRAM CODE: 4046 FUND 1995 1996 1997 40 RECREATION 0 10,000 10,000 TOTAL RESOURCES 0 10,000 10,000 EXPENDITURE DETAILS ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED ADOPTED ADOPTED FY 92 -93 FY 93 -94 FY 94 -95 95 -96 96 -97 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET BUDGET 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 FUND 1995 1996 1997 40 RECREATION 0 10,000 10,000 TOTAL RESOURCES 0 10,000 10,000 TOTAL EXPENSE 0 10,000 10,000 EXPENDITURE DETAILS EXPENDITURE AREA 1995 1996 1997 Personnel 0 0 0 Materials & Operations 0 10,000 10,000 Capital Equipment 0 0 0 General Government 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSE 0 10,000 10,000 f ft EXPENDITURE DETAIL PROGRAM TITLE: Community Services DEPARTMENT: Recreation ACTIVITY TITLE: Packard Grant - Volunteer Services PROGRAMCODE: 4046 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED ADOPTED ADOPTED FY 94 -95 95-96 96 -97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPENDITURE BUDGET BUDGET 3010 WAGES, PART -TIME PERMANENT 0 0 0 3020 WAGFC, PART -TIME TEMPORARY 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERS ONNEL TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 0 4100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 0 0 4120 DEPT. SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT 0 .0 0 4123 RECOGNITION EXPENSE 0 0 0 4510 GENERAL CONTRACTS 0 10,000 10,000 5312 POSTAGE 0 0 0 5320 ADVERTISING 0 0 0 5330 PRINTINGBINDING 0 0 0 5470 MILEAGE 0 0 0 5582 MEMBERSHIP 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MATERIALS & OPERATIONS TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 10,000 10,000 - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPITAL EQUIPMENT TOTAL 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- GENERAL GOVERNMENT 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL EXPENSE 0 10,000 10,000 BUDGET BACKUP MATERIAL 1995 -1997 PROGRAM TITLE: Community Services DEPARTMENT: Recreation 0 ACTIVITY TITLE: Packard Grant - Volunteer Services PROGRAM CODE: 4046 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20,000 EST CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED OBJECT CODE/NAME EXPENSE 95 -96 96 -97 4100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 0 0 4120 DEPT. SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 4123 RECOGNITION EXPENSE 0 0 0 4510 GENERAL CONTRACI'S 0 10,000 10,000 Consultant to volunteer program funded by Packard Foundation 5312 POSTAGE 0 0 0 5320 ADVERTISING 5330 PRINTING /BINDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 5470 MILEAGE 0 0 0 5582 MEMBERSHIP 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20,000 10,000 10,000 - - - - -- E U on W 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Thomas Fil, Finance Director COUNCIL MEMBERS: f�(/FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director DATE: December 14, 1995 SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment - .Nelson Gardens EIR Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gil lian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe We have received payment for the''preparation.of the Environmental Impact Report for the Nelson .Gardens project. In this case, the applicant pays for'the EIR (payment made .to the City). and the City then pays the EIR consultant for the work. The consultant is paid from Account No. 4510 (Consultant Services) . However, since staff cannot predict future applications, the budget doesn't include these costs. An EIR preparation fee (Planning 'Fees) of #34,815.00 was paid. This included the actual_ consultant fee of ,$27,950.00 plus $6,865.00 administrative and overhead costs.' I am requesting the following budget transfer in the amount of $33,540.00: From Revenue Account #0001 9000 9514. To Expenditure Account #0001 2023 4510 This amount will cover the consultant costs plus a 201W contingency for y additional' that may required resulting from Planning Commission and City Council public hearings on the project. Printed on recycled paper SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1995 CITY MGR.: ., ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: +'. SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of Performance Standards for Storm Water Management Program Recommended Motion(s): 1. Review and comment on the Draft Performance Standards for the Industrial/ Commercial Discharger Inspection Program and the Illicit Connection /Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Program. 2. Move to adopt both Performance Standards for the City and authorize staff to submit them to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Report Summary: Background: The new five year storm water (NPDES) permit issued in August by the Regional Water Quality Control Board requires each co- permittee to develop, adopt and incorporate performance standards for specific storm water pollution control measures identified in the permit. Between January 1 and December 31 of next year, performance standards for the highest priority control measures must be developed and submitted to the RWQCB according to the following schedule set forth in the permit: 1/1/96 - Industrial /Commercial Discharger Inspection Program Illicit Connection /Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities 3/1/96 - Storm Drain System Operations and Maintenance Activities Public Information and Participation Activities 7/1/96 - Water Utility Operations and Maintenance Activities 9/1/96 - New Development and Construction Activities 12/1/96 - Public Streets, Roads, and Highways Operations and Maintenance Activities Local Standards: Rather than struggle through the process of developing performance standards through the 15 member countywide nonpoint source pollution control program, the four West Valley Cities (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno & Saratoga) have opted to develop performance standards of their own, better suited to the needs of the four cities and the common issues concerning water pollution from urban runoff that we face. Attached to this report are draft copies of the first two performance standards which need to be adopted by the City and submitted to the RWQCB by January 1. These are the performance standards for the Industrial /Commercial Discharger Inspection Program, and the Illicit Connection and Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities. Because the permit obligates the City to develop the Performance Standards through a process which includes, among other things, opportunities for public participation, the Performance Standards will be placed on City Council agendas for consideration and adoption. In the future however, I will endeavor to place these on the agendas of Adjourned Regular Meetings as these are better suited to the kind of discussion I would expect the issue of storm water management Performance Standards to generate. Each of the Performance Standards are fairly technical and are drafted to meet the stated criteria in the permit for Performance Standards which is to define the level of implementation necessary to demonstrate the control of pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, factors such as applicability, cost and technical feasibility are considered when determining the level at which a particular Performance Standard should be implemented. Industrial/ Commercial Inspection Program: Briefly, the Performance Standard for the Industrial /Commercial Inspection Program for Saratoga envisions incorporating nonpoint source inspections of targeted facilities (gas stations, dry cleaners, restaurants) with the annual fire code inspections of these establishments conducted by Saratoga Fire District personnel. Other existing inspection programs carried out within the City such as Source Control inspections by POTW personnel, Health Dept. inspections of restaurants, and Haz -Mat and Haz -Waste inspections performed by the County, will serve to supplement the primary NPS inspections. The City will retain responsibility for following up on any violations noted during the NPS inspections using enforcement mechanisms existing within the Municipal Code. IC /ID Identification & Elimination Activities: For Illicit Connection /Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities, the proposed Performance Standard contemplates IC /ID identification and elimination occurring during the routine storm drain cleaning and maintenance work performed by the West Valley Sanitation District, and whenever discharge or dumping incidents are reported to the City. Based on pilot studies performed by the countywide NPS program, and the compilation of data from previous efforts undertaken in Saratoga, it does not appear to be necessary to implement an active program of searching for illicit connections to the storm drain system. At your meeting, the Coordinator for the West Valley Cities Storm Water Management Program (Kelly Carroll) will be on hand to review the draft Performance Standards in greater detail and to answer whatever specific questions might arise. Ms. Carroll will also be able to explain how the West Valley Cities Performance Standards will be implemented differently by each of the four cities, and the similarities and differences between the West Valley Performance Standards and the countywide Standards. Future Performance Standards which the City is required to adopt will also be previewed at your meeting. Fiscal Impacts• There are no direct fiscal impacts as a result of adopting the two Performance Standards. While there are certainly costs associated with implementation of the Performance Standards, it is difficult to quantify what those costs are. Since the Performance Standards are built on successfully carrying out other storm water management activities, (i.e. inspection programs, storm drain maintenance activities, discharge response programs, educational efforts, etc.) , it is the combined costs of those activities which will determine the cost of the Performance Standards. In any event, there are sufficient funds programmed in the adopted budget in Activity 28 (Storm Water Management) to implement the various storm water management activities at the projected levels necessary to adhere to the proposed Performance Standards. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The countywide program staff is aware of the West Valley Cities' efforts. A copy of the Industrial /Commercial Inspection Program Performance Standard has been provided to the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Performance Standard(s) will not be adopted and /or staff will not be authorized to submit the Performance Standard(s) to the RWQCB. Follow Up Actions: Both Performance Standards will be finalized and submitted to the RWQCB by January 1. Attachments: 1. Draft Performance Standard for Industrial/ Commercial Discharger Inspection Program. 2. Draft Performance Standard for Illicit Connection /Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities. 3. Extracts from NPDES Permit. 4. Compliance Schedule for NPDES Permit requirements for West Valley Cities. West Valley NPS Program Performance Standards Introduction: • General Format for Performance Standard Packet • Community Specific Background For each Control Measure: • Criteria for Implementation • Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) • Method of Performance Verification • Annual Report and Certification Form • Community Specific Application Status: Draft Print Date: December 9, 1995 Participating Municipalities and Contact Persons City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos Bill Helms, Environmental Services Scott R. Baker, Director of Building v Manager and Engineering Services (408) 866 -2150 (408) 354 -6885 City of Monte Sereno City of Saratoga Robert R. Shook, City Engineer Larry I. Perlin, Director of Public (408) 354 -7635 Works (408) 867 -3438 Prepared on behalf of the West Valley Cities by: Kelly J. Carroll, West Valley NPS Program Coordinator In Cooperation with West Valley Sanitation District West Valley Cities Performance Standards How to use this booklet This booklet is a compilation of Performance Standards (PSs) which are required by NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region on August 23, 1995). A Performance Standard is a guide to ensure that an adequate level of effort (also called inaximum extent practicable or MEP) is given to the level of effort invested by a City/Town in carrying out specified storm water pollution prevention activities (also called control measures).1 This booklet is organized so that all required PSs are formatted alike. The General Format for Performance Standard Packets is described on Page iii."Each control measure (CM) which requires a PS is described in separate chapters of this booklet. Each chapter is comprised of two components: 1) the Control Measure Performance Standard (outline) and 2) Community Specific Application which describes how the PS is achieved by the City /Town. All components are formatted alike for cross - reference purposes. Subsections are created by using the chapter number (whole number) and a decimal number. The whole number refers to the CM and the decimal number refers to the corresponding General Format for Performance Standard Packet requirement, as numbered on Page iii. Further subdivisions are designated by a capital letter and represent specific requirements for that CM. In general, the established level of effort for a CM is highly associated with overall land area, geographic location and features, demographics, typical land use and municipal service capabilities. First, the City/Town strives to balance and integrate the storm water pollution program with other municipal services and programs. Second, within the storm water program, the City/Town balances and prioritizes various storm water pollution CMs in order to create an efficient and cost - effective program. The Specific applicability of a PS is based upon general municipal information presented in the Introduction to this booklet gives an overview of the City/Town's overall land area, geographic location and features, demographics, land use characteristics and municipal services. Additional information which is pertinent to a particular CM is included within the relevant Community Specific Application component. 1 Note: For purposes of clarity the following assumptions are made: 1) Control Measures (CM) are defined to be specific programs which are intended to address a particular source of pollution and are the basic components of a Municipal Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP); 2) Best Management Practice (BMP) are defined to be tasks, management practices, policies, protocols, etc. which, when employed, accomplishes the reduction or elimination of a pollutant. A CM is comprised of or utilizes one or more BMPs, and BMPs may be tailored to fit specific incidents or situations. 12/9/95 intro.pfs kjc ii West Valley Cities Performance Standards General Format for Performance Standard Packet Performance Standards (PSs) are required by Municipal NPDES Permit, No. CAS029718, issued by Regional Water Quality Control Board, SF Bay Region, on August 23, 1995. In addition to the requirements summarized below, the Permit also requires that PSs be "developed through a process which includes opportunities for public participation" (Provision C.2.b. ). A Performance Standard is defined as the level of implementation necessary to demonstrate the control of pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. 0.1 Criteria for Implementation A PS may be implemented at various levels of implementation. The criteria used to establish the level of implementation includes applicability, economic and technical feasibility, design, operation, maintenance and otherwise implementation of a control measure (CM), to achieve pollutant reduction or pollution prevention benefits, to the maximum extent practicable. The level of implementation is said to be maximum extent practicable (MEP) when the following factors are addressed:' l) Effectiveness: Will the CM address a pollutant of concern? 2) Regulatory Compliance: Is the CM in compliance with storm water regulations as well as other environmental regulations? 3) Public acceptance: Does the CM have public support? 4) Cost: Will the cost of implementing the CM have a reasonable relationship to the pollution control benefits to be achieved? 5) Technical Feasibility: Is the CM technically feasible considering soils, geography, water resources, etc.? 0.2 Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) The PS is comprised of baseline components which are key parts of a CM. Baseline components typically are tasks or tools such as SOPs or protocols (also called best management practices or BMPs). It is not the intention of this section to give details of BMPs, but rather to reference them as a part of the implementation of baseline components. 0.3 Method of Performance Verification Performance verification is achieved through documentation and record keeping. In some cases periodic auditing of the CM may also be employed. 0.4 Annual Report and Certification Form Certification that conformance with the PS has been maintained, as is described in Community Specific Application; to be submitted in fulfillment of Annual Report on tasks.2 Community Specific Application ' Describes how the PS is achieved by the municipality; addresses each of the sections above. ` Memo (dated Feb 11, 1993) written by Elizabeth M. Jennings, Senior Staff Council, State Water Resources Control Board and Memo (dated Nov 30, 1992) written by Robert L. Falk, Legal Council, Santa Clara Valley Non -point Source Program. z NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Adopted August 23, 1995), Provision C.3.a. 12/9/95 intro.pfs kjc iii ATTACHREOT West Valley Cities Performance Standards 1.0 Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program 1.0 Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program 12/9/95 indcom.pi's kjc 1.0-0 City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos City of Monte Sereno City of Saratoga Approved Submitted to RWQCB Revisions: 12/9/95 indcom.pi's kjc 1.0-0 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 1.0 Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program 1.0 Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program The purpose of the Industrial/Commercial NPS Inspection Program is to reduce storm water pollution from industrial and commercial facilities. 1.1 Criteria for Implementation A. Applicability • Identified Sources of Concerns - Municipal landfills (operating or closed)2 - Hazardous waste treatment, disposal or recovery facilities - Facilities subject to SARA Title III (superfund sites) - Other facilities identified by the municipality as contributing a substantial pollutant loading to the municipal storm drain system • Identified Pollutants of Concern3 - Certain heavy metals - Sediment from erosion - Petroleum hydrocarbons - Microbial pathogens of domestic sewage origin - Certain pesticides B. Economic and 'Pechnical Feasibility • Authority to conduct inspections, enforce municipal ordinances and protect municipal facilities (storm drain system) • Impact to the facilities being inspected Consideration of the facility's obligation to meet storm water and other regulations which have the same or similar goal of eliminating illegal discharges. This includes addressing the number of required inspections which are imposed on the facility. • Otherwise implementation. . . so as to achieve pollutant reduction or pollution prevention benefits to the maximum extent practicable. Consideration of required resources for implementation, obligations to meet other regulations, other NPSs CMs and other existing programs which have the same or similar goal of eliminating illegal discharges from industrial/commercial sources. t Guidance Manual for the preparation of part 2 of the NPDES Permit applications for Discharges from Municipal separate storm sewer systems. EPA, 1990. 2 Excluded are properly closed landfills that now function as a different land use (e.g., park, golf course, etc.,), NPDES General Permit for Discharges associated with industrial activities. 3 NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (adopted August 23, 1995), Finding 3 12/9/95 indcom.pfs kjc 1.0- 1 West Valley Cities Performance Standards C. Design, Operation and Maintenance 1.0 Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program • The design of an Industrial Inspection Program is its structure and administration. It should include Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) and method(s) of communication; may be via intra- agency arrangements (between agency staff /departments), inter - agency agreements (between separate agencies) and/or contracts for services. • The operation of an Industrial Inspection Program consists of the implementation of the Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD). • The maintenance of an Industrial Inspection Program is what it takes to keep it functioning. This may be accomplished through annual evaluations, re- affirmation of agreements, renewal of contract, etc. May include modifications or adjustments to BMPs required to improve efficiency of the program (determined through annual evaluations) and/or based upon actual field conditions. 1.2 Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) A. Administration • Authority for Inspection and Enforcement • Designation of CM contact, Inspection and Enforcement entities • Designation of Facilities to be Inspected and Inspection Frequency • Referral (including complaints) and Enforcement Protocols • Documentation Tools (checklists /forms, database information, etc.) B. Staff Awareness Annual distribution of staff targeted information on the detection of illegal discharges to the storm drain system; may be achieved through existing training programs and/or through direction given during staff meetings. C. Implementation Occurring during each NPS inspection (may include follow -up inspections): • Determination of illegal discharges • Determination and assurance of compliance with local NPS ordinance and other applicable storm water regulations • Distribution of Public Education and Information about NPS issues • Completion of Inspection Documentation and Notification of deficiencies (to facility) • Referral of noted deficiencies to applicable agency for follow -up action D. Items of Inspection Checklist • Administrative Section: Facility information, including but not limited to the name, address, telephone number, type of facility, name of facility representative receiving inspection report, and occupancy; inspecting entity /Inspector information; date of inspection 12/9/95 indcom.pfs kjc 1.0-2 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 1.0 Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program • Procedural Section: For items being inspected. Including, but not limited to, visual observation of the facility site which is exposed to rainfall, outdoor storage and process areas, catch basins, storm drain inlets and adjacent water bodies. • Follow -up /Referral Section • Comments/Remarks Section • Copy for Facility E. Follow -up Inspection and Enforcement Action • Referrals to appropriate parties, document as appropriate • Follow -up Inspection Action per protocol, as applicable • Distribute of Public Education and Information about NPS issues, as appropriate • Enforcement Action per protocol, as applicable 1.3 Method of Performance Verification A. Record Keeping • File copy of contracts, agreements, renewals, etc., as applicable • File copy of completed forms, as applicable • Track number of facilities inspected, re- inspected and enforcement actions • File copy of follow -up reports, as applicable B. Annual Evaluation • Are the Inspectors aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? • What types of deficiencies are most commonly observed during the inspections? • Do the facilities receiving inspections appear to be notable contributors or potential contributors to storm water pollution? • Are the facilities aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? • Do the facilities appear to be (generally) in compliance with storm water regulations? • Is the facility representative receptive to NPS Inspections and NPS issues? • Are there additional facilities or activities which appear to need more NPS information or requires an NPS inspection? 1.4 Annual Report and Certification Form , See Exhibit A. Include date of PS adoption and incorporation into SWMP by municipalities (also revision dates, as applicable); implies RWQCB approval4 A status report on the implementation of any revisions should be included as an attachment. 4 NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.2.b., C.2.b.ii., C.9. 12/9/95 indcom.pfs kjc 1.0-3 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 1.0 Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program -F.5 Appen >Ix an Reference Exhibit A Industrial Inspection Program Annual Report Submittal and Certification Form (NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.2.b.i.a., C.3., SWMP IND -2) 7 0 Performance of Industrial Inspection Program has been maintained in conformance with the established Performance Standard (Section 1.2), as described in the IF NO, Community Specific Application component for (adopted on then see and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San attached Francisco Bay Region on , effective date: ); 0 0 Plus approved modifications/updates. See Community Specific Application, Section 1.5 Appendix and References for modifications and respective adoption dates. Updates, modifications and/or revisions to the Performance Standard or Community Specific Application were /are proposed through the Work plan. Incorporation and implementation of such changes will be effective July 1 of the year FY subsequent to the Work plan, unless otherwise noted and/or by RWQCB request. Signature, Title Date Results from field level analysis Number of sites inspected (list attached)* Number of sites with NPS violations ** Status: / Resolved/Pendina Unresolved * ** * for facility types see Community Specific Application, Section 1.2 Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) ** for definition of NPS violation, see Introduction * ** explanation attached Effectiveness Evaluation (based upon Section 1.3.B. Annual Evaluation) Are the Inspectors aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? What types of deficiencies are most commonly observed during the inspections? Do the facilities receiving inspections appear to be notable contributors or potential contributors to storm water pollution? Are the facilities aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? Do the facilities appear to be (generally) in compliance with storm water regulations'? Is the facility representative receptive to NPS Inspections and NPS issues? Are there additional facilities or activities which appear to need more NPS awareness or an NPS inspection'? 12/9/95 indcom.pfs kjc 1.0-4 West Valley Cities Exhibit B Performance Standards Supplemental Industrial Inspection Program Annual Report Submittal and Certification Form (NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.2.b.i.a., C.3., SWMP IND -2) If the implementation of a PS has been revised or not maintained or not implemented as previously described, then indicate the status for each of the Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD). For Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) which are modified or not met, indicate why. A. Administration • Authority for Inspection and Enforcement • Designation of CM contact, Inspection and Enforcement entities • Designation of Facilities to be Inspected and Inspection Frequency • Referral (including complaints) and Enforcement Protocols • Documentation Tools (checklists/forms, database information, etc.) B. Staff Awareness Annual distribution of staff targeted information on the detection of illegal discharges to the storm drain system: may be achieved through existing training programs and/or through direction given during staff meetings. C. Implementation Occurring during each NPS inspection (may include follow -up inspections): • Determination of illegal discharges • Determination and assurance of compliance with local NPS ordinance and other applicable storm water regulations • Distribution of Public Education and Information about NPS issues • Completion of Inspection Documentation and Notification of deficiencies (to facility) • Referral of noted deficiencies to applicable agency for follow -up action D. Items of Inspection Checklist • Administrative Section: Facility information, including but not limited to the name, address, telephone number, type of facility, name of facility representative receiving inspection report, and occupancy; inspecting entity/Inspector information; date of inspection • Procedural Section: For items being inspected. Including, but not limited to, visual observation of the facility site which is exposed to rainfall, outdoor storage and process areas, catch basins, storm drain inlets and adjacent water bodies. • Follow- up/Referral Section • Comments/Remarks Section • Copy for Facility E. Follow -up Inspection and Enforcement Action • Referrals to appropriate parties, document as appropriate • Follow -up Inspection Action per protocol, as applicable • Distribute of Public Education and Information about NPS issues, as appropriate • Enforcement Action per protocol, as applicable 12/9/95 indcom.pfs kjc 1.0-5 West Valley Cities Performance Standards IAA Community Specific Application Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program LOA Community Specific Application: NPS Inspection Program The West Valley Cities/Town of Campbell, Los Gatos and Saratoga have established a NPS Inspection Program which is intended to supplement existing discharge inspection programs. The purpose of the NPS Inspection Program is to control non -storm water discharges from industrial/commercial facilities, to determine compliance with local storm water ordinances and to supplement an existing discharge inspection programs. NPS issues include non - hazardous, low threat and low volume types of discharges that are not currently regulated by existing inspection programs. The NPS Inspection Program targets identified facilities and key activities which are recognized as significant sources of storm water pollution. The City of Monte Sereno is a participant in the West Valley NPS Program, however because there are no industrial or commercial facilities within the jurisdiction an Industrial Inspection Program and Performance Standard is not an applicable NPDES Permit requirement. 1.1 Criteria for Implementation A. Applicability There are no active municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal or recovery facilities, or superfund sites/facilities within the West Valley Cities. There are identified industrial types of facilities /activities which contribute to storm water pollution, but are limited in variety and number. Identified `types of facilities /activities' likely to be significant contributors to storm water pollution is based upon recommendations by the SCV NPS Program, RWQCB and SWRCB.1 Such identified facilities and activities were then cross referenced to typical industrial/commercial facilities actually located within the municipality (i.e., by business license and zoning criteria), illegal dumping and incident response history over the past three to four years and information collected through storm drain inlet and line cleaning over the past three to four years, and with the help of the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, cross references were made to facilities which are included in the Hazardous Materials database (Campbell and Los Gatos only). All databases are dynamic and may vary slightly from year to year, however the nature and general distribution of facility and activity types should not vary. Under these assumptions, the Industrial Inspection program will use this information as the basis for the building the baseline components of the inspection program. Table 1.1 lists the identified target facilities for the NPS Inspection Program for the WV Cities. The majority of businesses located within the municipalities are retail, office, and consulting services. For the City/Town of Campbell and Los Gatos, the Hazardous Materials Inspections Program cover the broadest range of facilities which may contribute to storm water pollution. Typical facilities which fall under the HazMat Storage Inspections includes, but is not limited to auto repair /related shops, machine shops, photo /processing shops, dry cleaners, nurseries, t SCV NPS Source Identification and Control Report. Woodward Clyde, Dec. 1, 1992; RWQCB letter (dated July 2, 1995) from K. Moghbel to SCV NPS Program's Industrial Sub - committee; General Permit for discharges of storm water associated with industrial activities. 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc 1.OA - 1 West Valley Cities Performance Standards LOA Community Specific Application Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program exterminators, corporation yards, institutional (schools, colleges, medical) facilities. In Saratoga, restaurants are recognized as the most significant contributor to storm water pollution, and the majority of the restaurants are concentrated in the Village (downtown) area. . Table 1.1: Identified Facility Type and Facility Activity Identified Industrial/ Commercial City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos City to City of Saratoga Sources of Storm Water Pollution 4400 bus. licenses# 2360 bus. licenses# 1010 bus. licenses* Sereno Municipal Code: Chapter 14.02 Sereno N/A Restaurants/ Food Services 160(3.64%) 124(5.25%) - 51(5.05%) Vehicle Repair/Related 210(4.77%) 50(2.12%) - 10(0.99%) Targeted Facilities for NPS Inspect., 243(5.52%) 95(4.02%) based upon HazMat Storage dBase t based upon Campbell business license list (Nov. 1994) and CFPD HazMat proposal (Apr 1995) $ based upon Los Gatos business license list (Nov. 1994) and CFPD HazMat proposal (Apr 1995) * based upon Saratoga business license list (Nov. 1994) The main identified pollutants of concern are 1) Hazardous Materials - liquid, solids, gases in storage or waste form. This includes, but is not limited to chemicals, pesticides, (used) motor oil, vehicle fluids, corrosives, petroleum products, paints, and solvents; 2) Grease - includes but not limited to food oils, grease, food waste; 3) Sanitary and other wastewaters - includes but not limited to industrial pre- treated discharges which are intended for disposal to the sanitary sewer system, washwaters from food establishments, vehicle and equipment washing; and 4) Solid waste /garbage and other stored material and equipment exposed to rainfall or storm water runoff (non - hazardous). B. Economic and Technical Feasibility Authority to conduct inspections, enforce municipal ordinances and protect municipal facilities (storm drain system) is through Ordinance/Municipal Code, as summarized below. Table 1.2: Applicable Regulatory Authority to Conduct Inspections, Enforcement and Protection of Storm Drain System Also a factor in determining feasibility of the NPS inspection program is S131082, which requires that the number of existing inspection programs be streamlined and/or combined in an effort to reduce regulatory impacts to businesses (although still under development, SB 1082 is recognized as a very real objective and supported by business/industry). 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 2 City of City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos Monte City of Saratoga Sereno Municipal Code: Chapter 14.02 Ordinance 19-40 N/A Municipal Code: Chapters 6- 15.070, 6- 15.080, Ordi nce ?2 7 -05, 7 -10, 7-45, 8 -05, 16- 71.030 Also a factor in determining feasibility of the NPS inspection program is S131082, which requires that the number of existing inspection programs be streamlined and/or combined in an effort to reduce regulatory impacts to businesses (although still under development, SB 1082 is recognized as a very real objective and supported by business/industry). 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 2 West Valley Cities Performance Standards` LOA Community Specific Application Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program In addition to regular inspection programs, there are other programs which promote proper disposal and recycling of solid waste, hazardous waste /materials and construction debris. There is a county -wide program targeting small business who generate and must properly dispose of low volumes of hazardous waste (SQG - small quantity generators). Internal NPS programs (other CMs) which complement the NPS Inspection Program are the Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Program and Storm Drain System Operations and Maintenance Program. (See Table i on page iv) Table 1.3: Existing Inspection Programs Given the above conditions, three levels of service (LOS) for implementation were considered. • LOS 1: response driven program, based upon current staff levels Such a program is projected to be moderately effective due to existing inspection programs and because of the limited number of facilities who would be inspected for NPS purposes. Potential prevention of storm water pollution would be minimal since the facility is contacted only after an illegal discharge has been released; effectiveness may be increased through follow -up site visits, which include all similar facilities within the area of discharge. This LOS does not address the situation of multiple or un- coordinated inspection routines. Cost of program would vary with number and types of incidents which are reported. • LOS2: routine inspections at identified facilities of concern, by utilizing a) existing/ expanding municipal staffing or b) contract services Currently there are existing inspection programs in place which regulate illegal discharges from industrial/commercial facilities. Many of these programs are conducted independently from the municipality (not contract services). Table 1.3 summarizes existing inspection programs. 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 3 Typical Inspection Program Primary Inspecting/Enforcement Agency Inspection Frequency Hazardous Materials Storage Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District al Santa Clara County Health Dept., Div. of Toxics ? Public Health: Food Services, Public Pools, Santa Clara County Health Dept. Annual Septic Tanks _ Industrial Wastewater Dischargers Santa Clara/San Jose POTW (including 12 -24 mos. 2 restaurants /grease generators) Hazardous Waste Generation/disposal Santa Clara County Health Dept., Div. of Toxics r ? Fire Code Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District nnual Saratoga Fire District Annual NPS Inspection San Jose Environmental Services Department As determined Building Permits (plumbing, electrical, Municipality: Building Department As occurs mechanical, etc.) Given the above conditions, three levels of service (LOS) for implementation were considered. • LOS 1: response driven program, based upon current staff levels Such a program is projected to be moderately effective due to existing inspection programs and because of the limited number of facilities who would be inspected for NPS purposes. Potential prevention of storm water pollution would be minimal since the facility is contacted only after an illegal discharge has been released; effectiveness may be increased through follow -up site visits, which include all similar facilities within the area of discharge. This LOS does not address the situation of multiple or un- coordinated inspection routines. Cost of program would vary with number and types of incidents which are reported. • LOS2: routine inspections at identified facilities of concern, by utilizing a) existing/ expanding municipal staffing or b) contract services Currently there are existing inspection programs in place which regulate illegal discharges from industrial/commercial facilities. Many of these programs are conducted independently from the municipality (not contract services). Table 1.3 summarizes existing inspection programs. 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 3 West Valley Cities Performance Standards LOA Community Specific Application Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program Currently none of the WV Cities have established inspection programs which routinely visit or inspect existing facilities. Therefore the use of established programs appears to be the most cost - effective method of conducting NPS inspections. Utilization of existing programs builds upon established relationships and encourages compliance by emphasizing the inter - relationship between the inspection programs. Projected effectiveness is high because this promotes consistency with other protocols for determining illegal discharges, referrals, enforcement, etc. Cost of program would be focused on addressing the most problematic /significant contributors to storm water pollution. • LOS3: routine inspections at all facilities within jurisdiction Many of the businesses within the community are not significant contributors to storm water pollution and so cost of program would not be focused on addressing the most problematic /significant contributors to storm water pollution. In areas where facilities are identified to be less significant contributors adequate control of pollutants is maintained through street sweeping and storm drain maintenance, as well as through targeted informational material which is distributed to all applicable businesses. These CMs better address the more prevalent concern regarding pollutants originating from �hicular traffic in those areas. The WV cities will implement at LOS2, for reasons stated above. Consideration was given to integrated NPS inspection services with several entities. For Campbell and Los Gatos it appears that an integrated NPS inspection program with Hazardous Materials Storage Inspections is the best alternative based upon cost, practicality and similar inspection and enforcement policies. For the City of Saratoga, the Saratoga Fire District was selected as the best alternative for integrated NPS and Fire Code (and building code) inspections based upon opportunity, practicality and similar inspection and enforcement policies. C. Design, Operation and Maintenance The City/Town of Campbell and Los Gatos have develpp and are executing contract services with Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection Dis"irict for integrated HazMat/NPS inspections for designated facilities. The initial contract is to be approved by respective Council/Boards and implementation to occur in fiscal year 1995 -96. Renewal and modifications, as necessary, to reflect changes in NPS issues and field conditions are to occur annually, by written mutual agreement of all parties. 'Fable 1A Design of NPS Inspection Program Design Options City of Town of City of Monte City of Campbell Los Gatos Sereno Saratoga Contract Service with Central Fire Protection District for X X NA combined HazMat/NPS Inspections —' 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 4 West Valley Cities LOA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program Table 1A Design of NPS Inspection Program The City of Saratoga has an established relationship with the Saratoga Fire District (separate entities). Through a series of meetings and by mutual agreement, Saratoga Fire District will integrate NPS inspections into a combined NPS/Building/Fire Code inspection program for designated facilities. Saratoga Fire District's jurisdiction covers about 50% of Saratoga, including the Village (downtown) area where the majority of the restaurants are located. There are a few facilities which fall outside of the Saratoga Fire District jurisdiction and at this time will not be addressed by this agreement. These facilities represent a very small number and little significance to overall contributions to storm water pollution. These facilities are, however, inspected regularly under other existing inspection programs (See Table 1.3) and the areas are included in Saratoga's regular storm drain maintenance, street sweeping and ICID response programs (See Table i, p.iv). Such facilities may be covered under separate specific NPS cooperative agreements in the future, however it is noted that even at this time such existing inspection programs are being educated and enlisted to integrate NPS issues into their programs. 1.2 Baseline Components A. Administration See See Table 1.2 for the summary of regulatory authority to conduct inspections, enforcement and protection of storm drain systems. Below Table 1.5 and Table 1.6 summarize the inspecting and enforcing agencies and the designated facilities to be inspected. Table 1.5: Inspection / Enforcement Entities Citv of Town of City of City of Design Options Campbell Los Gatos Monte Saratoga Inspection: Santa Clara County Central Santa Clara County Central Sereno Saratoga Fire District Cooperative Agreement for Service with Saratoga Fire Fire Protection District Fire Protection District District for combined Fire Code/ Building Code/ NPS _ �, X Inspections City: Dept. of P.W. Town: Bldg./Eng Services NA City: Dept. of P.W. Cooperative Agreement through SCV NPS Program for (for NPS violations only) (for NPS violations only) (for NPS violations only) Service with SCCounty Health Depart. for combined Health X X NA X & Safety/NPS Inspections for restaurants The City of Saratoga has an established relationship with the Saratoga Fire District (separate entities). Through a series of meetings and by mutual agreement, Saratoga Fire District will integrate NPS inspections into a combined NPS/Building/Fire Code inspection program for designated facilities. Saratoga Fire District's jurisdiction covers about 50% of Saratoga, including the Village (downtown) area where the majority of the restaurants are located. There are a few facilities which fall outside of the Saratoga Fire District jurisdiction and at this time will not be addressed by this agreement. These facilities represent a very small number and little significance to overall contributions to storm water pollution. These facilities are, however, inspected regularly under other existing inspection programs (See Table 1.3) and the areas are included in Saratoga's regular storm drain maintenance, street sweeping and ICID response programs (See Table i, p.iv). Such facilities may be covered under separate specific NPS cooperative agreements in the future, however it is noted that even at this time such existing inspection programs are being educated and enlisted to integrate NPS issues into their programs. 1.2 Baseline Components A. Administration See See Table 1.2 for the summary of regulatory authority to conduct inspections, enforcement and protection of storm drain systems. Below Table 1.5 and Table 1.6 summarize the inspecting and enforcing agencies and the designated facilities to be inspected. Table 1.5: Inspection / Enforcement Entities 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 5 City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos City of Monte City of Saratoga Contact: B. Helms Contact: S. Baker Sereno Contact: L. Perlin Inspection: Santa Clara County Central Santa Clara County Central NA Saratoga Fire District Designated Fire Protection District Fire Protection District facilitiest City: Dept. of P.W. Town: Bldg./Eng Services NA City: Dept. of P.W. tf: (for NPS violations only) (for NPS violations only) (for NPS violations only) 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 5 West Valley Cities Performance Standards LOA Community Specific Application Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program Table 1.5: Inspection / Enforcement Entities t For Campbell and Los Gatos, per contract agreement, 1995; For Saratoga per verbal agreement, 1995. # Through arrangements established by the SCV NPS Program, 1993. Table 1.5: Designated Facility Types (for targeted NPS inspections) Facility /Activity Descriptions t City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos City of Monte City of Saratoga Contact: B. Helms Contact: S. Baker Sereno Contact: L. Perlin Inspection: Santa Clara County Health Santa Clara County Health NA Santa Clara County Health Restaurant/ Dept. Dept. Dept. Food facilities# X X NA ! " X Enforcement: City: Dept. of P.W. Town: Bldg./End Services NA City: Dept. of P.W. repair metallic parts (for NPS violations only) (for NPS violations only) (for NPS violations only t For Campbell and Los Gatos, per contract agreement, 1995; For Saratoga per verbal agreement, 1995. # Through arrangements established by the SCV NPS Program, 1993. Table 1.5: Designated Facility Types (for targeted NPS inspections) Facility /Activity Descriptions t City of Campbell Town of Los City of Monte City of Saratoga Gatos Sereno Facilities which: install, modify, clean, X X NA X repair or replace motor vehicles chassis, body or parts Facilities which: clean fabric X X NA ! " X Facilities which: manufacture, modify or X X NA repair metallic parts Facilities which: apply, distribute, package X X NA ? or sell paint Facilities which: apply, distribute, package X X NA or sell pesticides Facilities which: develop, process or X X NA produce photo /print Facilities which: generate hazardous waste, X X NA discharge to sanitary sewer or POTW, underground storage tank sites Restaurant/food service facilities X X NA X t All facilities will receive annual inspections, in conjunction with the 'parent" inspection program. $ Includes identified facilities which are within the Saratoga Fire District's jurisdiction. For Camp ell and Los Gatos ecessary forms and protocols for inter / intra- agency communication (i.e., referrals, documentation, etc.) are established through the contract and by mutual agreement between the inspecting and enforcing agencies. City/Town protocols for 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc 1.OA - 6 West Valley Cities Performance Standards LOA Community Specific Application Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program NPS violation enforcement actions are per NPS ordinance and as outlined in municipal spill response plans (as applicable). Due to limited staffing and the long - standing, established relationship between the City of Saratoga and the Saratoga Fire District, most communication occurs verbally. B. Staff Awareness Information on the detection of illegal discharges to the storm drain system usually is achieved through direction given to municipal staff during staff meetings. Municipal staff and contract inspectors will be encouraged to participate in the anticipated SCV NPS Program Industrial Inspector Training Workshop(s). Information regarding NPS issues will be passed along to contract agencies (as well as municipal staff) annually through re- stocking and distribution of NPS brochures or other informational material. Municipal staff (and contracting inspectors) may participate in SCV NPS Program subcommittee (pertinent issues). C. Implementation Typically NPS inspections will be scheduled and routine. They may however, occur during any scheduled, unscheduled, follow -up or response to complaints, spill reports, etc., which prompts an inspection. During each NPS inspection a determination of illegal discharges will be made through verification of valid permits, licenses and applicable documents. Determination and assurance of compliance with local ordinance and other applicable storm water regulations will be accomplished through visual observation of exposed portions of the facility site, including but not limited to outdoor storage areas, process areas, catch basins storm drains and adjacent water bodies. Each inspection will be documented and a copy left with the facility subsequent to the inspection, with notation of any deficiencies. A copy will be retained by the inspecting agency and referrals distributed appropriately. Public education and information about NPS issues will be disseminated either verbally or in written form. Examples are copies of local NPS Ordinance (as applicable), SCV NPS produced literature (related to NPS pollution and BMPs), and copies of inspection forms. D. Items of Inspection Checklist See Attachment E. Follow -up Inspection and Enforcement Action Follow -up inspections may occur or be prompted by a referral which originates from an inspecting agency (contract or not), another internal department or from an outside party, such as a complaint or incident report. Follow -up inspections will be conducted by the most appropriate enforcement agency. Follow - up inspections will have similar characteristics as to those described in the Implementation Section above, as warranted by the situation. The primary focus of a follow -up inspection will be to ensure that compliance with local NPS regulations has been achieved. Enforcement actions will be per protocol, as applicable. 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 7 West Valley Cities LOA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: NPS Inspection Program 1.3 Method of Performance Verification A. Record Keeping A record, for all inspection which are completed will be kept with the inspecting agency. A copy of completed forms for designated NPS facilities, with notation of facility deficiencies and referrals (as applicable) will be retained by the enforcing agency. Tracking of designated facilities which are inspected, re- inspected and required enforcement actions will be retained by the enforcing agency. information regarding NPS inspections will be available (upon request) from the municipal contact person for this CM, as listed in Table 1.5. B. Annual Evaluation The City/Town of Campbell and Los Gatos have included a contract provision for internal evaluation and reconciliation with the inspecting agency. Although minor modifications to the NPS inspections may be implemented upon mutual agreement by all parties, most adjustments will occur during the annual evaluation and contract renewal process. Updates, modifications or other changes to either the Performance Standard or the Community Specific Application will be include in the WV Cities' Work plan which is submitted to the RWQCB in March of each year. See Section 1.4 Annual Report Submittal and Certification Form 1.4 Annual Report Submittal and Certification Form See "Exhibit A" on page 1.0 -4. To be completed and submitted per NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.3.a. k5 pen ix' - md7Referenees- 12/9/95 indcom_a.pfs kjc LOA - 8 ATTACHHO"4 i Z- West Valley Cities Performance Standards 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Program Response Program 12/9/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2- 1 City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos City of Monte Sereno City of Saratoga Approved Submitted to RWQCB Revisions: 12/9/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2- 1 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Program Response Program The purpose of the Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Program Program (ICAD) Program is to reduce storm water pollution through education of potential violators, elimination of illegal and accidental discharges (response driven) and elimination of illicit connections to the storm drain system. 2.1 Criteria for Implementation A. Applicability • Identified Sources of Concerns - Residential - Commercial/Light Industrial Facilities - Older Businesses and Heavy Industrial Areas • Identified Pollutants of Concern 2 - Certain heavy metals - Sediment from erosion - Petroleum hydrocarbons - Microbial pathogens of domestic sewage origin - Certain pesticides B. Economic and Technical Feasibility • Authority to conduct investigations, enforce municipal ordinances and protect municipal facilities (storm drain system) • Otherwise implementation. . . so as to achieve pollutant reduction or pollution prevention benefits to the maximum extent practicable. Consideration must be given to the required resources for implementation, obligations to meet other regulations and other CMs or programs which have the same or similar goal of eliminating pollution. C. Design, Operation and Maintenance • The design of an IC /ID Program is its structure and administration. It should include Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) and method(s) of communication; may be via intra - agency arrangements (between agency staff /department<s), inter - agency agreements (between separate agencies) and/or contracts for services. 1 NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.2.b.i.g., SWMP ICID Element 2 NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Finding 3 12/9/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2.0-2 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program The operation of the ICAD Program consists of the implementation of the Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD). The maintenance of the ICAD Program is what it takes to keep it functioning. It may be accomplished through public education efforts, staff education efforts, annual storm water program evaluation and re- affirmation or renewal of contracts, agreements, etc. May include modifications or adjustments required to improve efficiency of the program (determined through annual evaluations) and/or based upon actual field conditions. .2 seline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) ncl des how complaints, reports of incidents and determination of illicit connections are to be received and responded to by the municipality; via telephone referral, inspection, in- person report, written report, A. Administration • Authority for Non -Storm Water Discharge Prohibition and Enforcement • Designation of Investigation and Enforcement entities • Advertised Incident Reporting Procedures • Response, Referral, Follow -up and Enforcement Protocols • Regular IC Detection and Suspected or Targeted IC Detection Protocol • Documentation Tools (i.e., Forms) B. Staff Awareness Minimum annual distribution of staff targeted information on the detection of illegal discharges to the storm drain system; may be achieved through existing training programs and/or through direction given during staff meetings. C. Implementation Regularly Occurring Activities • Distribute NPS information and advertise methods for reporting NPS incidents • Distribute and advertise alternatives to NPS polluting activities Occurring with each Response Driven NPS investigation • Timely response to site, as applicable • Follow Response, Referral, Follow -up and Enforcement Protocols, as applicable • Complete appropriate documentation at incident site as much as possible • Distribute Public Education and Information about NPS issues • Violator notification of deficiencies, as applicable Occurring with each routine NPS investigation. • Follow Regular IC Detection and Suspected or Targeted IC Detection Protocol • Distribute Public Education and Information about NPS issues 12/9/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2.0-3 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program • Violator notification of deficiencies, as applicable D. Follow -up Inspection and Enforcement Action • Referrals to appropriate parties, document as appropriate • Follow -up Action per protocol, as applicable • Distribute of Public Education and Information about NPS issues, as appropriate • Enforcement Action per protocol, as applicable 2.3 Method of Performance Verification A. Record Keeping • File copy(s) of contracts, agreements, ordinances, etc. • File copy of completed forms, with site visit documentation, notation of violation, violator, referrals (as applicable) and follow -up reports, as applicable • Track number of NPS incidents responded to, illicit connections detected and enforcement actions B. Annual Evaluation • Is the advertised method of incident reporting being utilized? • Are response personnel (including the person(s) receiving initial incident reports) aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations'? • What types of discharges are most commonly reported and/or observed? • Does there appear to be a notable contributor or particular area suspectable to IC /ID incidents? • Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? • Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be willing to comply (in the future) with storm water regulations? • Can an increase /decrease in reported incidents from last/past year(s) be directly related to a specific activity or situation? 2.4 Annual Report and Certification Form See Exhibit A. Include date of PS adoption and incorporation into SWMP by municipalities (also revision dates, as applicable); implies RWQCB approval.3 A status report on the implementation of any revisions should be included as an attachment. 2.5,Appe.ndiat_and- Refere ecn 3 NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.2.b., C.2.b.ii., C.9. 12/9/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2.0-4 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program Exhibit A Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Program Annual Report Submittal and Certification Form (NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.2.b.i.g., C.3., SWMP ICID) 0 Performance of Industrial Inspection Program has been maintained in conformance with the established Performance Standard (Section 1.2), as described in the IF NO, Community Specific Application component for (adopted on then see and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San attached Francisco Bay Region on , effective date: ); 0 0 Plus approved modifications /updates. See Community Specific Application, Section 1.5 Appendix and References for modifications and respective adoption dates. Updates, modifications and/or revisions to the Performance Standard or Community Specific Application were /are proposed through the Work plan. Incorporation and implementation of such changes will be effective July 1 of the year FY subsequent to the Work plan, unless otherwise noted and/or by RWQCB request. Signature, Title Date 12/9/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2.0-5 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program Exhibit B Supplemental Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Program Annual Report Submittal and Certification Form (NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Aug. 23, 1995), Provision C.2.b.i.g., C.3., SWMP ICID) If the implementation of a PS has been revised or not maintained or not implemented as previously described, then indicate the status for each of the Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD). For Baseline Components (PERFORMANCE STANDARD) which are modified or not met, indicate why. A. Administration • Authority for Non -Storm Water Discharge Prohibition and Enforcement • Designation of Investigation and Enforcement entities • Advertised Incident Reporting Procedures • Response, Referral, Follow -up and Enforcement Protocols • Regular IC Detection and Suspected or Targeted IC Detection Protocol • Documentation Tools (i.e.. Forms) B. Staff Awareness Minimum annual distribution of staff targeted information on the detection of illegal discharges to the storm drain system; may be achieved through existing training programs and/or through direction given during staff meetings. C. Implementation Regularly Occurring Activities • Distribute NPS information and advertise methods for reporting NPS incidents • Distribute and advertise alternatives to NPS polluting activities Occurring with each Response Driven NPS investigation • Timely response to site, as applicable • Follow Response, Referral, Follow -up and Enforcement Protocols, as applicable • Complete appropriate documentation at incident site as much as possible • Distribute Public Education and Information about NPS issues • Violator notification of deficiencies, as applicable Occurring with each routine NPS investigation. • Follow Regular IC Detection and Suspected or Targeted IC Detection Protocol • Distribute Public Education and Information about NPS issues • Violator notification of deficiencies, as applicable D. Follow -up Inspection and Enforcement Action • Referrals to appropriate parties, document as appropriate • Follow -up Action per protocol, as applicable • Distribute of Public Education and Information about NPS issues. as appropriate • Enforcement Action per protocol, as applicable 12/9/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2.0-7 West Valley Cities Performance Standards 2.0 Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program Exhibit A (Continued) Results from field level analysis Number of NPS incidents responded to Number of ICs detected Status of NPS violations* Resolved/Pending Unresolved ** * for definition of NPS violation, see Introduction ** includes incidents where no violator could be determined. Clean -up of discharge was accomplished Effectiveness Evaluation (based upon PS Section 2.3.B. Annual Evaluation) Is the advertised method of incident reporting being utilized? Are response personnel (including the person(s) receiving initial incident reports) aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? What types of discharges are most commonly reported and/or observed? Does there appear to be a notable contributor or particular area susceptible to IC/ID incidents? Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be willing to comply (in the future) with storm water regulations? , Can an increase or decrease in reported incidents from last/past year(s) be directly related to a specific activity or situation? 12/15/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2.0-6 Typical locations: (May occur simultaneously) Residential Area Comm/Indus Area (ROW) Comm/Indus Establishment Typical violations: (May occur simultaneously) Chemical, HazMaterial Related VehicleNehicle Fluids Related Pool, Wash, Irrigation waters Construction Activity/Materials Yard Waste, Leaves General Garbage, Trash Misc other /unknown In Creek, Channel In CB, Manhole, Outfall Construction Zone /Site Other Effectiveness Evaluation (based upon PS Section 2.3.B. Annual Evaluation) Is the advertised method of incident reporting being utilized? Are response personnel (including the person(s) receiving initial incident reports) aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? What types of discharges are most commonly reported and/or observed? Does there appear to be a notable contributor or particular area susceptible to IC/ID incidents? Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be willing to comply (in the future) with storm water regulations? , Can an increase or decrease in reported incidents from last/past year(s) be directly related to a specific activity or situation? 12/15/95 icid_pgm.pfs kjc 2.0-6 q 1 i 14� West Valley Cities 2.OA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program 2.OA Community Specific Application: Illegal Dumping/Illicit Connection Response Program The WV Cities/Town of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga have established an Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Program Program which is intended to reduce storm water pollution due to illegal or accidental discharges to the storm drain system. Primarily, this CM is response driven and supplements other existing response programs (i.e., Hazardous Material Spills) and other NPS CMs. This CM focuses on discharges which actually reach or poses a significant and direct threat to the storm drain system. 2.1 Criteria for Implementation A. Applicability Identified Sources of Concern by the SCV NPS Program are residential areas, commercial/ light industrial facilities, older businesses and heavy industrial areas.' There are no heavy industrial facilities, and only limited commercial/light industrial types of facilities within the West Valley Cities. Table 2.1: Typical locations of Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Programs Identified Sources of Storm Water Pollutiont City of Campbell (pop 36,600)* Town of Los Gatos (pop 27,800)' City of Monte Sereno (pop 3,220) City of Saratoga (pop 28,150)tt Residential/General Public 100% Downtown (commercial/ restaurants) - Auto Repair/Related (incl. detailers) - Construction Activities - Mobile businesses - Other - t based upon response program data, 1992 -94: storm drain cleaning pilot study conducted by W VSD for Campbell, Los Gatos and Monte Sereno, 1991 -93 and Saratoga, 1993 -94. $ based upon Campbell census data (1990) * based upon Los Gatos census data 199Q) based tt based upon Saratoga census data (1990) The main pollutants of concern which have been identified in the WV Cities are hazardous materials (which may be either in storage or waste form), grease, sanitary and other wastewaters, non - hazardous solid waste /garbage and other outdoor- stored material exposed to rainfall or storm water runoff. Examples of the above categories includes, but is not limited to: chemicals, pesticides, (used) motor oil, vehicle fluids, corrosives, petroleum products, paints, and solvents, food oils, grease, food waste, industrial pre - treated discharges which are intended SCV NPS Program Source Identification and Control Report. Woodward Clyde, Nov. 1990. 12/9/95 kjc 2.OA - 1 icid_a.pfs West Valley Cities 2.OA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program for disposal to the sanitary sewer system, washwaters from food establishments, vehicle and equipment washing. Most of these pollutants are currently regulated by other agencies and spills of significance are responded to through applicable response programs (See Table 2.2). Table 2.2: Existing Response Programs Response Program Primary Responding/Enforcement Agency Reporting City of Saratoga Municipal Code: Method Hazardous Materials Spills Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District 9 , Improper Disposal of Hazardous Materials Santa Clara County Health Dept., Div. of Toxics 08 299 -6930 State Office of Emergency Services 6 -4.03, 6 -4.05, 6 -6.01 Grease Trap overflows (restaurants) Santa Clara/San Jose POTW �/ 408 945 -5307 Santa Clara County Health Dept. 408 299 -6930 West Valley Sanitation District I 408 378 -2407 Industrial Wastewater Discharges Santa Clara/San Jose POTW 408 945 -5307 Septic Tanks Santa Clara County Health Dept. I 408 299 -6930 Discharge or spill in a Creek, Stream or Other Santa Clara Valley Water District 408 927 -0710 Water Body Dept. of Fish & Game 707 944 -5512 Sanitary overflows West Valley Sanitation District 1 408 378 -2407 General report of discharge or spill Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District '', 911 Saratoga Fire District 911 Santa Clara Valley NPS Program X00 794 -2482 ICID incidents which are not typically regulated by an existing program and have been identified as typical NPS incidents are small quantities/spills with regards to vehicle fluids, paints, grease solid wastes (garbage, yard waste) and discharges associated with construction activities/materials, and commercial washwaters. B. Economic and Technical Feasibility Authority to conduct investigations, enforce municipal ordinances and protect municipal facilities (storm drain system) is through ordinance /municipal code, as summarized below in Table 2.3. Table 2.3: Applicable Regulatory Authority for Protection of Storm Drain System City of Campbell Town of Los Gatos City of Monte Sereno City of Saratoga Municipal Code: Ordinance -40, Municipal Code: Sections Municipal Code: Sections Section 14.02 Ordinanc 1- 1.01,4 -13, 5 -5.03, 6 -2.04, 6- 15.070, 6- 15.080, 7 -05, 7- C� (2, 21-D 6 -4.03, 6 -4.05, 6 -6.01 10, 7-45, 8 -05, 16 -71.03 In addition to regular incident responses, there are other programs which promote proper disposal and recycling of solid waste, hazardous waste /materials and construction debris. There is a county -wide program targeting small business who generate and must properly dispose of 12/9/95 icid_a.pfs kjc 2.OA - 2 C' 1 i i� West Valley Cities 2.OA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program low volumes of hazardous waste (SQG - small quantity generators). Internal NPS programs (other CMs) which complement the NPS Inspection Program are the Industrial Inspection Program and Storm Drain System Operations and Maintenance Program. (See Table i on page iv) A basic discharge response program is an applicable CM for all the WV Cities because accidental or other illegal dumping types of discharges do occur, however the types of incidents is typically un- varied due to the limited land use characteristics (Table A, on page v,). In order to support an efficient IC/ID program which utilizes existing resources (such as existing response programs), the WV Cities implement a basic "report and respond" type of program which directs all reports of incidents to call 9 -1 -1 (this initiates the IC/ID response process). It appears that illicit connections (ICs) to the storm drain system are not a major concern nor probable based upon typical land use characteristics (See Table A, on page v) and pilot IC investigation studies conducted by WVSD in the WV Cities. Although ICs have been identified as being a low priority source of storm water pollution, routine detection for ICs i_� conducted through integration with the Storm Drain O &M and Cleaning Program (except in Monte Sereno, see C. Design, Operation and Maintenance below). C. Design, Operation and Maintenance Each agency has prepared and implements a response plan to illegal dumping, which provides protocols for responding to reports of illegal discharges into the storm drain system and public right of way.2 The WV Cities contract with WVSD for response /clean -up of spills which enter a storm drain (in addition to regular storm drain cleaning). Three WV Cities (Monte Sereno is the exception) contract with WVSD to conduct routine storm drain maintenance and illicit connection detection. Monte Sereno, due to its size, land use characteristics and simple storm drain system characteristics, has found it more economical to contract with a separate contractor for storm drain cleaning (labor) and rely on its WVSD contract for maintenance and IC detection on an as needed basis. All contracts have been in place since 1992, are renewed annually, and have reached a stable implementation level. 2.2 Baseline Components A. Administration See Table 2.3 for the summary of regulatory authority to conduct inspections, investigations, enforcement and protection of storm drain systems. The WV Cities advertise and encourage the use of 9 -1 -1 as the "incident reporting method ". Once an incident is reported, protocols provided in the municipal response plan initiate appropriate response, referral and follow -up processes. Designation of investigation and enforcement entities are dependant on the actual incident itself, and occurs at the time an incident is responded to. Typically only incidents which do not involve hazardous materials or fall under another enforcement agency's authority will be enforced through the NPS Ordinance. (see Figure) 2 SCV NPS Program Semi - annual Report to RWQCB, March 1, 1994. 12/9/95 icid_a.pfs kjc 2.OA - 3 West Valley Cities 2.OA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program un1L+tdV'� j\ fo ' �J > Figure 2.1 Spill/Illegal Flow Chart of Incident Response Plan Dumping Incident 9 -1 -1 (Communications / Dispatch) Fire Department /Hazardous ' Material or Public Safety concern? Fire Department/ HazMat oversees clean -up Fire Dept / HazMat follow own protocols for clean -up B. Staff Awareness Report Incident: t General Public . Municipal Staff Other NO Public Works cleans spills or hires contractor Notify NPS City/Town 41 1v c1p�YZ,�rirJ bL ..._. ...\ t j ?„ Aj P _5 Fah NO W 11 Public Works oversees clean - up/Disposal party known? NO party willing/ able/ qualified for clean- up ?, of NPS violation (for Responsible enforcement or party cleans follow -up, as spill (or hires necessary, including contractor) cost recovery and PIP distribution). Information on the detection of illegal discharges to the storm drain system usually is achieved through direction given to municipal staff during staff meetings. Municipal staff and contract inspectors will be encouraged to participate in the anticipated SCV NPS Program Industrial Inspector Training Workshop(s). Information regarding NPS issues will be passed along to contract agencies (as well as municipal staff) annually through re- stocking and distribution of 12/15/95 icid_a.pfs kjc 2.OA - 4 West Valley Cities 2.OA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program C. Implementation Typically illicit connection (IC) investigations will be scheduled/routine through the storm drain maintenance and operations procedures. Further investigations of ICs will be pursued when a reasonable suspicion or data exists which indicate the existence of an IC. Investigation methods will be dependant on the nature and location of the suspected connection. Typically illegal dumping (ID) responses will be dependant upon actual incidents which occur. The communications /dispatcher role is to forward calls in a timely manner to the Fire Department based upon given information, current dispatch status and protocols contained in the municipality's Spill Response Plan. The Fire Department is responsible for determination of a hazardous materials or public safety hazard situations. Information relayed back to the communications/dispatch helps to determine the next steps and further referrals or contacts to be made. Public education and information about NPS issues will be disseminated either verbally or in written form. Examples are copies of local (NPS) Ordinance (as applicable), SCV NPS produced literature (related to NPS pollution and BMPs), and copies of violation/notification forms (as applicable). D. Follow -up Inspection and Enforcement Action Typically follow -up and enforcement actions will be conducted by the most appropriate enforcement agency. The primary focus of a follow -up inspection will be to ensure that compliance with local NPS regulations has been achieved. Enforcement action will be per protocol, as applicable. 2.3 Method of Performance Verification A. Record Keeping A record for all investigations /responses which are completed will be kept with the inspecting agency. A copy of completed forms for designated NPS violations, follow -up information (as applicable) will be retained by the enforcing agency. Tracking of NPS violations will be kept with the enforcing agency. Information regarding NPS inspections will be available (upon request) from the municipal contact person for this CM, as listed in the municipality's Spill Response Plan. B. Annual Evaluation • Is the advertised method of incident reporting being utilized? • Are response personnel (including the person(s) receiving initial incident reports) aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? • What types of discharges are most commonly observed or reported? • Does there appear to be a notable contributor or particular area susceptible to ICAD incidents? • Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be aware of storm water pollution issues and regulations? 12/15/95 icid_a.pfs kjc 2.OA - 5 West Valley Cities 2.OA Community Specific Application Performance Standards Control Measure: Illicit Connection/ Illegal Dumping Response Program • Do the violators (as applicable) tend to be willing to comply (in the future) with storm water regulations? • Can an increase or decrease in reported incidents from last year be directly related to a specific activity or situation? 2.4 Annual Report and Certification Form See Appendix, Exhibit A Certification of conformance with the PS. Includes the date of PS adoption and incorporation into SWMP by municipalities; implies RWQCB approval. Also included, as applicable, are revision dates. At the time of revision, a summary of the revisions will be included as an attachment. -.3 A.ppen es 12/15/95 icid_a.pfs kjc 2:OA - 6 GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLE SERVICE FACILITIES Changing Oil and Other Fluids KAMM PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY BAY AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FUNDED IN PART U 111E ^I 11 (WNIA IN'I'I?t RA "I'I:U 1VASI'I; RIANAf,IT91 {N "I' ItttAltlt GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLE SERVICE FACILITIES `.' Keeping a Clean Shop Vehicle Shop Practices for a Cleaner Bay PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY 13AY AREA WASI'EIVA "1'ER "I'RI:A'1'MEN "I' I'IAN "1'S AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLE SERVICE FACILITIES Tips for Managers of Vehicle Service Facilities Vehicle Shop Practices for a Cleaner Bay PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY BAY AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PIANTS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENTAGENCIES GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLE SERVICE FACILITIES Body Work Vehicle Shop Practices for a Cleaner Bay PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY 13AY AREA \VASI'I:WA "l'ER "IKEA 1'MI:NT PIAN "15 AND STORMWXFER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLE SERVICE FACILITIES Engine & Parts Cleaning & Radiator Flushing Vehicle Shop Practices for a Cleaner Bay PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED 13Y 13AY AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN'T'S AND STORMWA"TER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLE SERVICE FACILITIES Washing Cars and Other Vehicles Vehicle Shop Practices for a Cleaner Bay PRODUCED AND DISI'RIRUTED 13Y 13AY AREA 1t ;1STEIVA "11?R "I RL:A "fM1;NT PIANTS. AND SI'OIZAI,VA "I IiR MANAGI?MEN "I' AGENCIES 7 What vehicle service shops can do to protect water quality in the Bay and Delta Blu(epn.'*nt for a Clean Bay Best Management Practices to Prevent Stormwater Pollution from construction - Related Activities �• -� _. -. -.- � _--- -_ .� -- '- -___._ 1{i ifs 'l.\1 u��A �` 13 A S M A A _7r! iv Ji JY 4 l Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program The Bav Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), a consortium of Bav Area municipalities from Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, and Solano Counties, has developed this booklet as a resource for all general contractors, home builders, and subcontractors working on construction sites. on Santa Clara Valley P Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program NAH.: 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 951 18 rro EX ON.): 6489 Camden Avemte, San Jose, CA 95120 (408) 927 -0710 FAX (408) 268 -7687 August 1994 To: Owners and Managers of Restaurants, Grocery stores, Delicatessens, Cafeterias and Bakeries in Santa Clara County This manual and poster have been developed by the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (Program). The Program is a coalition of local public agencies that includes the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Santa Clara County, and all of the cities in the County whose stormwater drains through a storm drain system to San Francisco Bay. The purpose of the Program is to reduce pollutants in area creeks and in the Bay. You have seen one of the Program's projects if you have noticed the stencil, along the curb at the storm drain inlets, that reads "No Dumping! Flows to Bay." The Program is working with several different types of businesses who may be routinely discharging wastewater or washwater to street gutters or into parking lots -- polluted water that ultimately ends up flowing into the storm drains. Anything that flows into a storm drain flows directly into our creeks, and then on to the Bay, without any type of treatment or cleaning. This simple fact is not widely known. The many discharges that happen every day throughout our County are now understood to be a threat to the quality of the water in our County, the wildlife in our creeks, and the general health of the Bay. Please take the time to read this manual. You may discover that you need to make some changes in the way that you do business to be sure that your establislunent is not contributing to water pollution. Educating your employees and contractors about these issues is important. We are providing this poster and the brochure originals in the back pocket of this manual to help you to convey this message to your employees and contractors. If you have any questions about the information contained in the manual or would like more manuals. posters, or brochure originals, please call the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program at (800) 794 -2482. We appreciate your cooperation. Thank You, od Diri on, Chairperson Board of Supervisors Santa Clara Countv James J. Lenihan, Chairman Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Water District PROD WI PARTICIPANTS: Campbell Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Ilills, Los Claws, Nilpitas. Nonte Sereno. Mountain I'.tlo ;Alto, San Josc, Santa Clara. Saratoga, S"nnVAvalc, COMM ul 1111 the Santa Clara Valle 11' 11cl District 1i S� rt r j �j, v. Kj s ✓ r ^ , `r J. .r 3� L .,� ! li' .y` � ,'fps �,., �,; a a, .r, i' `�' a y.fi»rfr 1�. �'�� ( ... ,. ... � ''• . mil:• ( PRATIFS TO 'PROTECT OiJR'CREEKS AND $AYE A. A j.. "' :1 � 0.•l. }, *' a 4?-+�' l GiU1IDELINES FOR 1 1. -�• TA o�t RES URANTS n r �• ' "ti ,.,.; GROCERY STORES l + a ' r :•� .f J �r'� S�v:N CAFETERIAS fit - '. i. _fir•, t C . B A K E R I E S DELICATESSENS � . #r. 4 iy�`L�'Jt 1-4 .,�s t yt''�-�+'� � Y. � 47+a '�"w' ,(�. 4 �(( YG� , ^ � S%• }. � .t. j`. l !! �J.I(. I � }�'�. �"•F �„��yyi .N ''trt��7�,. ,1.. T �- •1 rJt ��, Vr � (' M ,� '• ..dA rl"' .k Y ^r it. ( ail 'f•Ifi: A k, 4 . �� '� -..L � � .. r7AYf�•1' .lYj_M1�r'y�'�n.�i%�,�.il ,��,c r ._r ,� ueax -.. v:;+e:_r '�"'Exy;lf . "�% c.�s� �^ir ,k:. •vA .,n. • t 1 a .F"`� � -�• 'a;4 •c ; ;�59 a'' ;� ,�. 'mot ..i` �'.�y . ._3, ?•�1 PI`S} .T >< .y - � ./._: � � .k � " 1t �...�.; �,(,Sh''•'�74;� _ ' •3,'"';':s g.4: � !i 9�t .:� �i f +��..u,{�..�,u Jc 3' ILL �. •' T. 4'� -`.Y i. i ; i3.. :i 4'S. +Ir Y1 :.S t 66 x 1 •� ."AI _ ni Tu_ a g. y�j� .a• A: fry � q �'- a � ^,,' _ � ��I �. •.J�, • �t�,:T zc �- y-IV. q47• 3b-•► W F..• av � � _ „�,; "."Rd .^� '.,� -'�� e,i:: S:. �j'^(. °l ��'�� 15 '�.a4,, �{ `yk �� - L. e¢+, t.1 s x"a h. t ��A Y' .A. •:.�:: �.�•S,e- -: g, i� '': f.?b. er ,;;y.., ��• ;."� A . ;,5.. m -��' '=�`.� t 4. � • °.” �2 y r,�.� s -_ Y .y� ,.ni''�''v�:.� Wit. � - �t t .nf. sy -;c IS iX :.5 ,� . ;At,.R '„ "'. z 12:; i iYss- 'r.:•� ,.k •s:� 3 t. ,.� * .# �,% - fi �`. � ;�°i -':vA � .:� �,._ er` .rr., � $y.' +� =s=-� .�SP^q'� Y „3a .* � �,; W'`�"� �.�;.,i -•. r 3 ./A tt t' �� i� ,max � �.;��,�r�- j�„'- �``b� �•.,, a '� N�.`�t'` f a:e Fz f� tOO' y� �� `fit •>a .s. u� _ K x c r ►`f'a� r � � � 4 r pY� Rg Ali r _fin I Mobile Cleaner BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES for Waste Water Runoff Presented by Cleaning Equipment T. Al 1, Trade Association 2535 Pilot Knob Road • Suite 105 St. Paul, Minnesota 55120 Phone: 1 -800- 441 -0111 or 612- 686 -7086 Fax: 612- 686 -7088 September 23, 1994 California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks Construction Activity Best Management Practice Handbook Munii Best Management Prc Hand 100 Industrial /Commercial Best Management Practice 1111 Handbook Iill L. al j March, 1993 Woodward -Clyde W AM Consultants 50012th Street. Suite 100 • Oakland. CA 946074014 • (510) 893 -3600 • Fax (510) 874.3268 INDUSTRIAL STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMPLIANCE A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE BOOK FOR FEDERAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION RESOURCES PREPARED BY Santa Clara Valley nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District ATTACHME"T- 5JAIg OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON. Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 2101 WEBSTER STREET, Suite 500 OAKLAND, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 286 -1255 FAX: (510) 286 -1380 September 12, 1995 File No. 1538.00 (KM) Mr. David Drury, Acting Program Manager Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Subject: I ansmitfal of Order 95 -180, Adopted NPDES Pemit for SANTA CZARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, QTY OF CAMPBELL, QTY OF CUPERIINO, QTY OF LOS ALTOS, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS I LL4, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MK21TAS, QTY OF MONTE SFIRENOI QTY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF PALO ALTOS QTY OF SAN JOSE, QTY OF SANTA C ARA, QTY OF SARATOGA, AND CITY OF SUNNYVALE, which have joined together to form the SANTA CLARA VALLEY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM Dear Mr. Drury: This letter transmits Order 95 -180, the NPDES permit for the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (the Program), which was reissued on August 23, 1995. This permit requires implementation of the Program's Storm Water Management Plan (the Plan) and endorses and expands upon the process established by the Plan within which the Plan will be evaluated and improved at least annually. Specifically, it requires establishment of performance standards for the effective implementation of actions identified in or by the Plan or by the permit. It also maintains a focus established by the first permit on the prevention and control of specific metal pollutants in storm water discharges. Please call Keyvan Moghbel of my staff at (510) 286 -0429 if you have any questions about the Order. . Sincerely, Bruce H. Wolfe ; Senior Engineer Order 95 -180 August 23, 1995 to ensure compliance with Discharge Prohibitions A.1 and A.2 and Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2. 2. Storm Water Management Plan and Performance Standards a. The Dischargers shall implement control measures and best management practices to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The Program's Storm Water Management Plan shall serve as the framework for identification, assignment, and implementation of such control measures. The Dischargers shall begin implementing forthwith the Program's Storm Water Management Plan as submitted on December 20, 1994 and revised on June 30, 1995, and shall subsequently demonstrate its effectiveness and provide for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable and as required by Provisions C.1 through C.9 of this Order. b. The Storm Water Management Plan shall be revised to adopt and incorporate Performance Standards developed by the Dischargers. Performance Standards are defined as the level of implementation necessary to demonstrate the control of pollutants in storm water to. the maximum extent practicable. Performance Standards shall be established for implementing control measures and best management practices contained in the Implementation Plan chapter of the Storm Water Management Plan. Performance Standards shall be developed through a process which includes opportunities for public participation and include appropriate criteria for the applicability, economic feasibility, design, operation, and maintenance or otherwise implementation of a control measure or best management practice so as to achieve pollutant reduction or pollution prevention benefits to the maximum extent practicable. Performance Standards may be based upon special studies or other activities conducted by the Dischargers, literature review, or special studies conducted by other programs or dischargers. Performance Standards shall include the baseline components to be accomplished and the method to be used to verify that the Performance Standard has been achieved. Following the addition of a Performance Standard, acceptable to the Executive Officer, to the Storm Water Management Plan, all Dischargers for which the Performance Standard is applicable shall adhere to its implementation. i. The following Performance Standards shall be the highest priority and shall be developed during Fiscal Year 1995 -1996 or otherwise in accordance with the stated schedule: . - a) Industrial /Commercial Discharger Inspection Program - A Performance Standard for conducting the Industrial /Commercial Inspection Program shall be developed *and submitted to the Executive Officer by January 1, 1996. The Performance Standard shall include the baseline activities and items of an inspection check list. Order 95 -180 9' August 23, 1995 b) Municipal Separate Storm Drain System Operations and Maintenance - A Performance Standard for conducting routine operations and maintenance.of the Dischargers' municipal storm drain systems to reduce pollutants ixy discharges, including inlet and line maintenance, solid waste management, and opportunities for structural retrofit shall be developed and submitted to the Executive Officer by March 1, 1996. c) Water Utility Operations and Maintenance - A Performance Standard for discharges associated with water utility operations, including management of chlorine, biocides, and algaecides and prevention of erosion and sedimentation, shall be developed and submitted to the Executive Officer by July 1, 1996. Discharges associated with water utility operations owned or operated by the Dischargers are authorized and permitted by this Order, to the extent they are in accordance with the conditions of this provision and Provision C.5 of this Order and the Dischargers' Storm Water Management Plan. d) New Development and Construction - Performance Standards for planning procedures and construction inspections shall be developed and submitted to the Executive Officer by September 1, 1996. e) Public Streets, Roads, and Highways Performance Standards for control measures and practices for operating and maintaining public streets, roads, and highways identified in the Storm Water Management Plan for reducing pollutants in discharges from municipal storm drain systems shall be developed and submitted to the Executive Officer by December 1, 1996. f) Public Information and Participation A Public Information and Participation strategy and plan, addressing general outreach, targeted outreach, education programs, and citizens participation, including Performance Standards for their implementation, shall be developed and submitted to the Executive Officer by March 1, 1996. g) Illicit Connection and Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities Performance Standards for implementing Illicit Connection and Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities, including residential illegal discharge elimination, illegal discharge elimination for commercial and light industrial facilities, and illegal discharge elimination for older businesses and Order 95 -180 10 August 23, 1995 heavy industrial areas shall be developed and submitted to the Executive Officer by January 1, 1996. ii. Beginning in September of 1996, the Dischargers shall incorporate newly developed or updated Performance Standards, acceptable to the Executive Officer, in each annual revision to the Storm Water Management Plan. The draft Annual Workplan required in Provision C.3 shall identify those Performance Standards which will be developed for the upcoming fiscal year. Performance Standards shall be established for all appropriate control measures or best management practices identified in the Storm Water Management Plan by September 1, 1997, or otherwise, a proposed schedule for completing or omitting the establishment of Performance Standards with justification acceptable to the Executive Officer must be submitted by September 1, 1997. Such time schedules shall not extend beyond the term of this permit: c. The Dischargers shall revise the Storm Water Management Plan (Plan) by September 1, 1997 for approval by the Regional Board. This approval shall be done in accordance with the NPDES permit regulations. L The revised Storm Water Management Plan shall be developed through a process which includes opportunities for public participation, and shall provide clear and concise identification, assignment, and time schedule for implementation of appropriate control measures and best management practices, including performance standards for their implementation,. sufficient to demonstrate the reduction of pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable. ii. The revised Storm Water Management Plan shall include a summary or checklist of all actions, activities, and tasks and time schedules pertinent to implementation of control measures and best management practices, which shall be presented in a concise format suitable for incorporation or attachment to this permit. iii. The revised Storm Water Management Plan shall include consideration of comments received from the Executive Officer, and other interested parties, on the current Plan submitted on December 20, 1994 and revised on June 30, 1995 and any subsequent revisions to the Plan in the interim. iv. The submittal of annual workplans on March 1, 1996 and March 1, 1997 and an annual report on September 1, 1996, and any interim revisions to the Storm Water Management Plan, as required and described by Provisions C.3 or C.9 of this Order, shall be considered demonstrations of progress towards compliance with this provision, and may be used in fulfillment of this Provision. v. The Regional Board will consider amendment of this permit subsequent to submittal of the revised Storm Water Management Plan on September 1, 1997 to include specific requirements for implementation of control measures and best management practices and further revisions to the Storm Water Management Plan WVComphance Schedule NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 Ref. Beg Date Time to complete (days) Due/End Date Compliance Task, Deliverable and Required Components Steps necessary to complete task (intermediate milestones) Comments C.2.b.i.a. Submit Perf Stand: Industrial/Commercial Discharger Inspection Program: Invite Public comments MS = NA 10/30/95 3 11/2/95 a. baseline activities Research and justification for activities Because of short timeframe to develop this Perf 10 11/12/95 b. items of an inspection checklist Writing and documentation Standard, due to the late adoption of the Permit 3 11/15/95 Fo tting and Processing of documents (Aug 23, 1995). and due to the late and 2 11/17/95 Submittal of draft report for release to public comment approval ty WV Cities (technical analysis) unsatisfactory product released by the SCV Program, little time is afforded for a public 5 1 1/22/95 Public comment period, including SCV Prog comment period, however public comments were 3 11/25/95 Revisions based upon WV Cities direction considered through input given to the SCV NPS 7 12/2/95 Municipality approval Program. Actual adoption by the municipality will 30 1/1/96 Submittal to RWQCB not occur until after submittal to the RWQCB. 1/31/96 Municipality adoption C.2.b.i.g. Submit Perf Stand: Elicit Connection and Illegal Dumping Identification and Elimination Activities: Invite Public comments 10/30/95 3 11/2/95 a. residential illegal discharge elimin Research and justification for activities Because of short timeframe to develop this Perf 10 11/12/95 b. illegal discharge elim for commercial and light indust facilities Writing and documentation Standard, due to the late adoption of the Permit (Aug 23, 1995) and due to the late and 3 11/15/95 c. illegal discharge elimin for older businesses and heavy Indust areas Formatting and Processing of documents unsatisfactory product released by the SCV Program little time is afforded fora public 2 11/17/95 Submittal of draft report for release to public comment approval ty WV Cities (technical analysis) comment period, however public comments were considered through input given to the SCV NPS 5 11/22/95 Public comment period, including SCV Prog Program. Actual adoption by the municipality will 3 11/25/95 Revisions based upon WV Cities direction not occur until after submittal to the RWQCB. 7 12/2/95 Municipality apprdval 30 1/1/96 1 Submittal to RWQCB 1/31/96 IMunicipality adoption DUEDATFSMS 0 Page 1 Z WVCompliance Schedule NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 Ref. Beg Date Time to complete (days) Due/End Date Compliance Task, Deliverable and Required Components Steps necessary to complete task (intermediate milestones) I Comments C.2.b.i.b. Submit Perf Stand: Municipal Separate Storm Drain System Operations and Maintenance: Invite Public comments 12/29/95 3 1/1/96 a. inlet and line maintenance Research and justification for activities Because of short timeframe to develo p this Perf 10 1/11/96 b. solid waste management Writing and documentation Standard, due to the late adoption of the Permit (Aug 23, 1995) and due to the late and 3 1/14/96 c. opportunities for structural retrofit Formatting and Processing of documents unsatisfactory product released by the SCV Program, little time is afforded fora public 2 1/16/96 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) comment period, however public comments were considered through input given to the SCV NPS 5 1/21/96 Public comment period, including SCV Prog Program. Actual adoption by the municipality will 3 1/24/96 Revisions based upon WV Cities direction not occur until after submittal to the RWQCB. 7 1/31/96 Municipality approval 30 3/1/961 Submittal to RWQCB C.2.b.i.f. Perf Stand: Public Information and Participation: Invite Public comments 1/28/96 3 1/31/96 Strategy and Plan: each includes a Perf Stand for implementation Research and justification for activities 10 2/10/96 a. general outreach Writing and documentation 3 2/13/96 b. targeted outreach Formatting and Processing of documents 2 2/15/96 c. educating programs Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 2/20/96 d. citizen participation Public comment period, including SCV Pro 3 2/23/96 Revisions based upon WV Cities direction 7 3/1/96 IMunicipality approval 3/1/961 1 Submittal to RWQCB DUEDATES.XIS Page 2 WVCompliance Schedule NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 Ref. Beg Date Time to complete (days) Dde/End Date Compliance Task, Deliverable and Required Components Steps necessary to complete task I (intermediate milestones) Comments C.6. ISubmit a Metals Control Measure Workplan: Invite Public comments For all metals C.6. 1/28/96 3 1/31/96 Notify RWQCB of intent to submit a report justifying removal of 304(1) metal from Metal Control Measures Plan. Research and justification for activities 10 2/10/96 Writing and documentation 3 2/13/96 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 2/15/96 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 2/20/96 Public comment period, including SCV Prog 3 2/23/96 Revisions based upon WV Cities direction 7 3/1/961 Municipality approval 3/1/96 Submittal to RWQCB C.2.b.i.c. NA 7/1/96 Submit Perf Stand: Water Utility Operations and Maintenance WV Cities will encourage private and public utility entities to use and implement SCV Program BMPs a. management of chlorine, biocides, al eacides b. prevention of erosion and sedimentation C.6. 7/1/96 365 7/1/97 Provide implementation (during FYI) of workplan and revised Metals Control Measures Plan (see 3/1/96 and 9/1/96 entries) C.2.b.i.d. Submit Perf Stand: NDC Planning Procedures Invite Public comments 7/30/96 3 8/2/96 Research and justification for activities 10 8/12/96 Writing and documentation 3 8/15/96 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 8/17/96 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 8/22/96 Public comment period, including SCV Pro 3 8/25/96 Revisions based u W n V Cities direction 7 9/1/96 Municipality approval 9/1/96 Submittal to RWQCB DUEDATES.XM Page 3 WVCompliance Schedule NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 Ref. Beg Date Time to complete (days) Due/End Date Compliance Task, Deliverable and Required Components Steps necessary to complete task ( (intermediate milestones) Comments C.2.b.i.d Submit Perf Stand: NDC Construction Inspections Invite Public comments 7/30/96 3 8/2/96 Research and justification for activities 10 8/12/96 Writing and documentation 3 8/15/96 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 8/17/96 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 8/22/96 Public comment period, including SCV Prog 3 8/25/96 Revisions based upon WV Cities direction 7 9/1/96 Municipality approval 9/l/96 Submittal to RWQCB C.2.b.ii. 7/30/96 3 8/2/96 Begin, then Annually, incorporate newly developed or updated Perf Stands Research and justification for activities 10 8/12/96 Writing and documentation 3 8/15/96 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 8117/96 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 8/22/96 Public comment period, including SCV Pro 3 8/25/96 Revisions based upon W V Cities direction 7 9/1/96 Municipality approval 9/1/96 Submittal to RWQCB C.3.a. 7/30196 3 8/2/96 Submit Annual Report (Begin, then Annually) Research and justification for activities 10 8/12/96 Writing and documentation 3 8/15/96 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 8/17/96 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 8/22/96 Public comment period, including SCV Pro 3 8/25/96 Revisions based upon WV Cities direction 7 9/1/96 Municipality approval 9/1196 Submittal to RWQCB DUEDATESAIS Page 4 WVComphance Schedule NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 Ref. I Beg Date Time to complete (days) Due/End Date Compliance Task, Deliverable and Required Components Steps necessary to complete task (intermediate milestones) Comments C.6. Submit a revised Metals Control Measures Plan: 7/30/96 3 10 8/2/96 8/12/96 OPTION: Submit REPORT that provides evidence which justifies removal from Metals Control Measures Plan (must notify RWQCB by June 1 1996 of intent to include list of exempted metals) Research and Justification for activities Writing and documentation Formatting and Processing of documents Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) Public comment period, including SCV Pro 3 8/15/96 2 5 8/17/96 8/22/96 3 7 8/25/96 9/1/96 Revisions based u W n V Cities direction Munici i approval Submittal to RWOCB Invite Public comments Research and justification for activities Writing and documentation and Processing of documents C.2.b.i.e. 10/29/96 3 9/1/96 11/1/96 Submit Perf Stand: Public Streets, Roads, Highways: a. For control measures and practices for operating and maintaining public streets, roads and highways identified in SWMP. (i.e. Street Sweeping) 10 3 11/11/96 11/14/96 2 11/16/96 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 11/21/96 Public comment pgi4 including SCV Pro ]J7 11/24 /96 12/1/96 Revisions based upon W V Cities direction Municipality approval Submittal to RW B 1211/96 C.3.b. 20 1/10/97 Submit Draft Workplans (Begin, then Annually) Writing and documentation 5 1/15/97 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 1/17/97 Feb mt 2/1/97 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) Public comment period, including SCV Prog Revisions based upon WV Cities direction DUEDATES.)MS Page 5 WVCompliance Schedule NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 Ref. Beg Date Time to complete (days) Due/End Date Compliance Task, Deliverable and Required Components Steps necessary to complete task (intermediate milestones) Comments Feb mt Municipality approval 3/1/97 Submittal to RWQCB C.2.b.ii. Submit Perf Stand: Invite Public comments 7/30/97 3 8/2/97 . a. For all cm/BMP identified in SWMP Research and justification for activities 10 8/12/97 b. OR a proposed schedule for completing or omitting establishment of certain Perf Stands Writing and documentation 3 8/15/97 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 8/17/97 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 3 8/22/97 8/25/97 Public comment period, including SCV Prog Revisions based upon WV Cities direction 7 9/1/97 IMunicipality approval 9/1/97 1 Submittal to RWQCB C.2.c.; C.2.c.iv. Submit Revised SWMP (may include Mar 1996, Sept 1996 and Mar 1997 revisions): Invite Public comments 7/30/97 3 8/2/97 a. Includes the revision of Watershed Management Measures element Research and justification for activities 10 8/12/97 Writing and documentation 3 8/15/97 Formatting and Processing of documents 2 8/17/97 Submittal of draft report for approval by WV Cities (technical analysis) 5 8/22/97 Public comment period, including SCV Pro 3 8/25/97 Revisions based upon W V Cities direction 7 9/1/97 Mumcipality approval 9/inp-11 Submittal to RWQCB DUEDATESAIS Page 6 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. S AGENDA IT] MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1995 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEA1 SUBJECT: Ordinance revising speed zone designations on portions of Quito Road and Saratoga Avenue Recommended Motion(s): Move to introduce the Ordinance waiving further reading. Report Summary: Every five years, the City must update its Speed Zone Survey to continue to be able to enforce-the established speed limits along City streets through the use of radar. The survey is filed with the Traffic Court and provides the basis for the established speed limits on streets throughout the City. In the most recent Speed Survey conducted earlier this year, it is recommended that the established speed limits at three locations in the City be changed. These recommended changes are summarized as follows: 1. Saratoga Ave. from Fruitvale Ave. to Cox Ave.: Decrease the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 40 mph. This recommendation is made because of a decrease in the observed critical (85th %ile) speed attributed to the new freeway interchange, the additional traffic signals, and the increased traffic volumes along this segment of road. 2. Quito Rd. from the southerly City limits to San Tomas Aquino Creek south of Bicknell Rd.: Increase the posted speed limit from 25 mph to 30 mph. This recommendation is made because of an increase in the observed critical speed attributed to the two new widened bridges in this location, and a decrease in traffic volumes on this segment of road. 3. Quito Rd. between Pollard Rd. and Allendale Ave.: Increase the posted speed limit from 25 mph to 30 mph. This recommendation is made because of an increase in the observed critical speed attributed to a decrease in traffic volumes along this segment of road. As the City. Code (Articles 9 -50 and 9 -60) sets forth the prima - facie speed limits for City streets, it is necessary to pass an ordinance to establish new or change existing speed limits. The attached Ordinance, if adopted, will make the three recommended changes described above, and it is recommended that the Council adopt the Ordinance as presented. Fiscal Impacts• Few, if any. If the Ordinance is adopted, it will ensure that the City's speed zones can be enforced via radar which will prevent tickets from being dismissed by the Traffic Court and thus not resulting in any loss of revenues from traffic fines. The cost to change existing speed signs is estimated to be $500. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional beyond what was approved by the Council at your previous meeting. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Ordinance will not be introduced. Until such time as the Ordinance is adopted, the existing established speed limits will remain in place. Follow Up Actions: The Ordinance will be agendized for second reading and adoption on January 3. Attachments: 1. Ordinance amending certain speed zone designations. 2. Extracts from 1995 Speed Zone Survey. DEC- 1.5 -95 FRI 13:18 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P,02/02 ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 9 -30.050 and 9- 30.060 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS Recitals WHEREAS, the City Council has determined upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, that the speed limit for certain public streets must be modified to a speed that is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and that is reasonable and safe, on said streets; and, WHEREAS, the herein below set forth revised speed limits are found to be the most appropriate speed limits to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and are reasonable and safe. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 9- 30.050, which establishes a uniform 25 mph speed limit for listed streets is amended to delete therefrom reference to "Quito Road. From Allendale Avenue to Pollard Road ". Section 2. Section 9- 30.060, which establishes prima facie speed limits for listed streets, based upon a current engineering and traffic survey, is amended by modifying the following subsections, as follows: • Section 9- 30.060(a), establishing a 25 mph speed limit is amended with regard to Quito Road, to read: "Quito Road. Pollard Road to its intefeeetiefl the center of San Tomas Aquino Qreek. out erty of Bicknell Road. • Section 9- 30.060(b), establishing a 30 mph speed limit, is amended by adding reference to Quito Road, to read: "Quito Road From its intersection with-the southerly city limit line to-the center of San Tomas Aquino Creek. � utherly of-Bicknell Road, and from Allendale Avenue to Pollard Road." DEC -15 -95 FRI 11:27 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX NO 510 351 4481 P.03/04 • Section 9 -30.060(d), establishing a 40 mph speed limit, is amended by adding reference to Saratoga Avenue, to read: "Baratoga Avenge From its intersection with Fruitvale Avenue to its intersection with Cox Avenue." • Section 9- 30.060(e), establishing a 45 mph speed limit, is amended with regard to Saratoga Avenue, to read: "Saratoga Avenue. From FFURYale Cox Avenue to its intersection with the easterly city limit line, exclusive of that portion of said street contiguous to any school building or grounds which shall still be subject to a 25 mph prima facie speed in accord with, and at the time specified by, Section 22352(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code." Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. 2 DEC -15 -95 FRI 11:27 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX NO 510 351 4481 P,04/04 The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk MSR:dsp Dbcember 15, 1995 J_ \WP D \MNRSW\273 \OR D \SPEEDLMT. W61 MAYOR 3 SPEED ZONE STUDY FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE 256 E. HAMILTON AVE., SUITE K CAMPBELL, CA 95008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Conducting the Radar Surveys .........................1 Analysis of data ....... ..............................1 Driving the Streets .... ..............................2 AccidentReview ........ ..............................2 Speed Limit Recommendation Philosophy ................2 Special Notes and Recommendations ....................3,4 SpeedStudy Summary ... ..............................5 Appendix A: Spot Speed Study Data CONDUCTING THE RADAR SURVEYS In the State of California, if a Public Agency is going to use radar for enforcement of speed zones, they must conduct a radar speed study on all regional streets once every five years to facilitate enforcement. The theory behind this required proce- dure is to insure that all speed zones are reasonable. Traffic Data Service conducted City wide radar speed surveys during the month of March in the year 1995 to comply with those regulations. Exact locations were determined by the City. All surveys were done in accordance with the State of California Traffic Manual and the State of California Vehicle Code. Radar surveys were made on selected street sections in which the traffic speeds, the traffic volumes, the street width or other significant factors were different from an adjacent section. Thus, an important arterial may require speed surveys at several locations to account for changes in these factors whereas a less important street with consistency in these areas may be suffi- ciently surveyed with just one check. Each of the 38 radar speed surveys was made from an inconspicuously parked, unmarked vehicle utilizing a TDS technician certified in the use of radar equip- ment. An effort was made to insure that the presence of the vehicle in no way affected the speed of the traffic being sur- veyed. In order to obtain a significant sample, wherever possi- ble, the speeds of at least 50 vehicles were recorded utilizing accepted survey techniques. On lighter volume streets where the 50 vehicle sample could not be obtained, a time limit constraint of 3 hours minimum was established. ANALYSIS OF DATA Calculated values include the 50th percentile speed, the 85th percentile speed, the 10 mph pace speed, and the percent of vehicles observed within the 10 mph pace speed. An explanation of these terms follows. The 50th percentile is the speed above and below which 50 percent of the sample speeds lie. This is also known as the median or middle speed. The 85th percentile speed is that speed at or below which 85 percent of the observed vehicles are traveling. It is a well recognized fact among traffic engineers that most drivers are able to drive at reasonable speeds without the bene- fit of any speed limits, speed signs, or enforcement. The behav- ior of traffic is a good indication of the appropriate speed zone which.should apply on a particular highway section. It is gener- ally felt that at least 85 percent of the drivers operate at speeds which are reasonable and prudent for the conditions per- taining to each situation. Therefore, the 85th percentile speed of'a spot speed survey is the primary indicator of a speed limit which might.be imposed subject to the secondary factors of acci- dent experience, traffic volumes, road features or other special situations. 1 The pace is the 10 miles per hour increment of observed speeds which contains the greatest number of vehicles. In nearly all cases, the 85th percentile speed and the recommended speed lie somewhere within the pace, frequently in the middle to upper ranges. It is another indicator that traffic engineers use to determine appropriate speed limits. The percent of vehicles in the pace speed is an indication of the bunching of vehicular speeds. Ideally, if all vehicles would be traveling at or about the same speed, there would be a reduced likelihood of traffic collisions. In speed limit analysis, the higher the percent of vehicles within the pace speed the better the speed distribution. The percent in the pace often is between 60 and 80. The percent of vehicles over and under the pace speed is the group of vehi- cles above or below the group within the 10 mph pace speed. DRIVING THE STREETS A final field check of great significance involves an experienced TDS technician driving each street surveyed while "floating" with prevailing traffic to determine the speed of traffic which is reasonable from the driver's viewpoint. The driver evaluates the appropriateness of the 85th percentile and adds the perspective of human judgment to the speed limit setting process. Such factors as roadside development, driveways, parked vehicles, emergency shoulder areas, schools and playgrounds, areas fre- quented by pedestrians, horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway, intersection visibility and control and numerous other less tangible factors all go into the judgment, producing a final recommended limit. ACCIDENT REVIEW Accidents are a factor of some importance in speed limit estab- lishment. The location and severity of all reported traffic accidents for the 2 year period of 1993 and 1994 were reviewed to confirm. that the limit suggested by the radar survey is also appropriate in light of accident history. SPEED LIMIT RECOMMENDATION PHILOSOPHY With all of the dry statistics inherent in the speed survey process, there is a great deal of judgment required, and to a certain extent a philosophy implied during the establishment of speed limits. Speed limits should be reasonable and realistic regardless of what the numbers indicate. Reasonable limits are ones at which drivers would drive without enforcement and without any signing. One cannot rely totally on this philosophy, howev- er, as motorists tend to drive somewhat faster in residential districts away from their homes than residents of the streets would prefer. In other words, motorists tend to be more con- cerned about speeds near their own homes and less concerned 2 elsewhere. This is-not so much a tendency to willfully break the law or to drive unsafely but rather a reflection of human behav- ior. For this reason, speed limits on two -lane local residential streets tend to be somewhat further removed from the critical 85th percentile speed than those on multi -lane arterial and collector streets. General conditions aside, there are some very specific guidelines established in the State of California Traffic Planning Manual to assist the engineer in making recommendations for appropriate speed zones, these include: 1) Unless there are conditions that the reasonable and prudent driver would not be aware of the speed limit should be set within 5 mph plus or minus of the observed critical speed. If there are conditions such as accident experience, roadway geometry, high pedestrian volumes, asphalt surface, or limited visibility that make a speed limit other than 5 mph within the critical speed appropriate, the engineer should list those conditions. 2) The speed limit should be established the same for both direc- tions at a given point on a roadway. Thus the lower of the two critical speeds may be used to determine the overall segment limit. SPECIAL NOTES & RECOMMENDATIONS The following are locations where the existing speed limit dif- fers from the critical speed by more the 5 mph. Allendale Ave. btwn. Chester and Quito (Critical) EB /WB =35, (Pace) EB /WB =27 -36 Existing Limit =25 Recommendation: Retain existing 25 mph limit based upon roadway alignment, limited shoulder width, and narrow bridge. Herriman Ave. Btwn. Sar -S.V. Rd. and Beaumont (Critical) EB /WB =33 (Pace) EB WB =25 -34 Existing Limit =25 Recommendation: Retain existing 25 mph limit based upon proximity to Saratoga High School and associated pedestrian and vehicle volumes. Prospect Rd. Vicinity of Maria Ln. (Critical) EB /WB =32 (Pace) EB WB =24 -33 Existing Limit =25 Recommendation: Retain existing 25 mph limit based upon horizon- tal and vertical roadway curvature. The following are locations were the recommended speed limit differs from the existing speed limit. Quito Rd. btwn S'ly City Limits and Bicknell (Critical) NB /SB =34 (Pace) NB /SB =27 -36 Existing Limit =25 Recommendation: Raise existing 25 mph limit to a 30 mph limit based upon observed critical speeds. 3 Quito Rd. btwn Pollard and Allendale (Critical) NB /SB =35 (Pace) NB SB =28 -37 Existing Limit =25 Recommendation: Raise existing 25 mph limit to a 30 mph limit based upon observed critical speeds. Saratoga Ave. btwn Fruitvale and Dagmar (Critical) NB =46, SB =43 Pace NB= 38 -47, SB =34 -43 Existing Limit =45 Recommendation: Reduce existing 45 mph limit to a 40 mph limit based upon observed critical speeds. Saratoga Ave. ' btwn Vineyard and Cox (Critical) NB =41, SB =42 (Pace) NB= 32 -4, SB =33 -42 Existing Limit =45 Recommendation: Reduce existing 45 mph limit to a 40 mph limit based upon observed critical speeds. City accident records were reviewed for the years of 1993, 1994 and up to April 1995 to confirm all recommended speeds were appropriate with the accident history of the roadway. 4 CITY OF SARAIM SUMMARY LOC.0 STREET SECTION DIR. 503 SPEED 85z SPEED PACE SPEED EXIST. LIMIT NEW LD41T 1. Allendale Ave. (Fruitvale to Porbos) Both 32 35 27 -36 35 35 2. Allendale Ave. (Portos to Chester) Both 32 36 27 -36 35 35 3. Allendale Ave. (Chester to Quito) Both 32 35 27 -36 25 25 4 Beaucnamps Ln. (Prospect to S'ly- Crayside) Both 28 30 22 -31 25 25 5. Beaumont Ave. (Harriman to Glasgow) Both 28 30 23-32 25 25 6. Coot Ave. (Sara/SV to RR Tracks) Both 36 40 31-40 35 35 7. Coot Ave. (RR Tracy to Saratoga) Both 36 40 32-41 35 35 8. Fruitvale Ave. (Sar -L.6. to Burgundy) Both 36 39 31-40 35 35 9. Harriman Ave. (Sar-S.V. to Beaumont) Both 29 33 25-34 25 25 10. Harriman Ave. (Beaumont to Saratoga) Both 26 28 21 -30 25 25 11. JoFason Ave. (Prospect to N. City Limits) Both 36 39 31-40 35 35 12. McCoy Ave. (Quito to Villanova) Both 32 35 27 -36 30 30 13. Parker Ranch Rd. (Prospect to N'ly City Limits) Both 24 28 19-28 25 25 14. Prospect Rd. (Vicinity of Maria Ln.) Both 30 32 24-33 25 25 15. Prospect Rd. (Stelling to Sw- .S.V.) EB 35 39 30-39 35 35 NB 34 37 30--39 35 35 16. Prospect Rd. (Sar-S.V. to Blaney) EB . 37 40 32-41 40 40 NB 37 41 32 -41 40 40 17. Prospect Rd. (Blaney to (filler) EB 41 45 37-46 40 40 NB 40 45 36-45 40 40 18. Prospect Rd. (Miller to Johnson) EB 40 44 36-45 40 40 ie 39 44 35-44 40 40 19. Prospect Rd. (Johnson to Lyle) EB 41 44 36-45 40 40 iB 39 44 34-43 40 40 20. Prospect Rd. (Lyle to Lawrence Expwy) EB 36 41 32-41 40 40 NB 36 40 32 -41 40 40 21. Prospect Rd. (Lawrence Expwy to E'ly City Limits) EB 32 36 26-35 35 35 NB 31 36 26-35 35 35 22. Quito Rd. (S'ly City Limits to Bicknell) Bath 30 34 27 -36 25 30 23. Quito Rd. (Noodbank to Old Adobe) Both 28 30 23-32 25 25 24. Quito Rd. (Old Adobe to Pollard) Both 27 30 23-32 25 25 25. Quito Rd. (Pollard to Allendale) Both 32 35 28-37 25 30 26. Quito Rd. (Allendale to Yaicbon) Both 35 38 30..39 35 35 27. Quito Rd. (Yorkton to Baylor) Both 37 40 33-42 35 35 UNmOP 28. Saratoga Ave. (Fruitvale to Dagmar) NB 42 46 38-47 45 40 29. Saratoga Ave. (Vineyard to Cox) SB NB 38 37 43 41 34-43 32 -41 45 45 40 40 SB 38 42 33-42 45 40 5 Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program STREET ................ 1 Blk. Quito Rd. LIMITS ................ S'ly City Limits to Bicknell DIRECTION(S) ........... Both 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................30 DATE ..................3/28/95 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 34 TIME ..................3:25 PM 10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36 POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 25 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 83.2 PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............. 5.0 PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............ 11.9 CUM. RANGE OF SPEEDS .................22 to 40 SPEED NO. PCT. PCT. VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 101 AVERAGE SPEED ....................... 30.5 22 1 1.0 1.0 23 1 1.0 2.0 +--+----+----+---- +--- +--- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+ 24 3 3.0 5.0 100 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *100 25 4 4.0 8.9 - * - 26 3 3.0 11.9 90 * 90 27 6 5.9 17.8 C - * - 28 11 10.9 28.7 U 80 * 80 29 11 10.9 39.6 M - * - 30 12 11.9 51.5 70 70 31 10 9.9 61.4 P - - 32 12 11.9 73.3 E 60 * 60 33 9 8.9 82.2 R - - 34 4 4.0 86.1 C 50 * 50 35 5 5.0 91.1 E - - 36 4 4.0 95.0 N 40 * 40 37 3 3.0 98.0 T - - 38 0 0.0 98.0 S 30 * 30 39 1 1.0 99.0 - - 40 1 1.0 100.0 20 * 20 10 ** 10 0 * * * * * * * ** 0 +----+----+----+---- +--- +--- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+ 15 25 35 45 55 65 ---------------------- -- +--- ---------------- -_ - -+ 20 20 P 15 15 E - - R - - C E N 10 * * * ** 10 5 * * * * * ** * 5 +----+----+----+---- +---- +--- +---- +---- +--- - + - - -+ 15 25 35 45 55 65 SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program STREET ................ 4 Blk. Quito Rd. LIMITS ................ Pollard to Allendale DIRECTION(S) .......... Both DATE ..................3/29/95 TIME ..................3:21 PM POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 25 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED........... 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED...... "'•••32 10 MPH PACE SPEED.......... 28 . through . PERCENT IN PACE SPEED.......... 92.2 PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED..... 2 9 CUM. PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED......... ........ 4,g SPEED NO. PCT. PCT, RANGE OF SPEEDS .... .............25to 39 = = == = VEHICLES OBSERVED... 25 1 1.0 = =1.0 AVERAGE SPEED .......................32.0 102 .9 100 28 4 3.9 8.8 - * * * * * * ** *100 29 8 7.8 16.7 90 ** _ 30 15 14.7 31.4 C - * 90 31 14 13.7 45.1 U 80 * - 32 13 12.7 57.8 M - 80 33 14 13.7 71.6 70 * - 34 10 9.8 81.4 P - 70 35 6 5.9 87.3 E 60 * - 36 7 6.9 94.1 R - 60 37 3 2.9 97.1 C 50 - 38 2 2.0 99.0 E - * 50 39 1 1.0 100.0 N 40 - T - 40 S 30 * - - 30 20 - - * 20 10 * - - * 10 15 ++----+ -- --+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - ---+ 25 0 35 20+----+----+----+----+---- +---- +5--- +---- 55--- - + - - -65 - 20 P 15 * - E - * * 15 R - C - ** - E - N 10 - T - * * ** 10 S 5 15 25 25 35 45 55 65 SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program STREET......... . . • 1 Blk. Saratoga Ave. LIMITS ................ Fruitvale to Dagmar DIRECTION(S) .......... :NB DATE ..................3/28/95 TIME ..................12:51 PM POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 45 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,42 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................46 10 MPH PACE SPEED ...... ....38 through 47 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 85.3 PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED..........., 5 9 - CUM. PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED............ 8.8 SPEED NO. PCT. PCT. RANGE OF SPEEDS .................32 to 51 = 32======= = = =1.0 VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 102 AVERAGE SPEED 1.0 .......................42.1 34 00 00.0 .0 1.0 1.0 +---+----+---+---+----+----+----+----+----+---- 100 + 35 2 2.0 2.9 - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *100 36 3 2.9 5.9 90 * - 37 3 2.9 8.8 C - 90 38 4 3.9 12.7 U 80 ** - 39 9 8.8 21.6 M - 80 40 11 10.8 32.4 70 * - 41 10 9.8 42.2 P - 70 42 12 11.8 53.9 E 60 * - 43 12 11.8 65.7 R - 60 44 11 10,8 76.5 C 50 * - 45 8 7.8 84.3 E - 50 46 4 3.9 88.2 N 40 - 47 6 5.9 94.1 T - * 40 48 4 3.9 98.0 S 30 - 49 1 1.0 99.0 - * 30 50 0 0.0 99.0 20 - 51 1 1.0 100.0 - * 20 10 * * - - ** 10 +--- +---- +---- +---- + --- -+ 15 25 0 20 35 45 55 65 - 20 P 15 - E - 15 R - C - E N 10 - * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** ------------------------------------------------ 15 25 35 45 55 65 SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR STREET Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program ................ 1 Blk. Saratoga Ave. LIMITS ................ Fruitvale to Dagmar DIRECTION(S) DATE ..................3/28/95 .......... SB 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED.. ... ��• " " '• TIME •38 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED., ..................12 POSTED SPEED LIMIT....45 :20 PM 10 MPH PACE SPEED........ • .. "••••..43 ...34 43 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED.... 75.0 .through . PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............. •..• CUM. PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............ 13.5 SPEED -NO_ -PCT_- PCT. RANGE OF SPEEDS...... VEHICLES OBSERVED.. ••��" " " •28 to 51 ---- 28 - - - 1 - -- - 1.0 = - --- - 1.0 AVERAGE SPEED.. ............... 104 •••••••••••....., ..38.1 30 1 1.0 2.9 +----+----+---+--- 10p +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+ 31 2 1.9 4.8 - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *100 32* 4 3.8 8.7 90 ** _ 33 5 4.8 13.5 C - ** 90 34 8 7.7 21.2 U 80 - 35 9 8.7 29.8 M - ** 80 36 10 9.6 39.4 70 - 37 8 7.7 47.1 P - * 70 38 10 9.6 56.7 E 60 * - 39 8 7.7 64.4 R - 60 40 7 6.7 71.2 C 50 * - 41 7 6.7 77.9 E - 50 42 5 4.8 82.7 N 40 * - 43 6 5.8 88.5 T - * 40 44 4 3.8 92.3 S 30 - 45 1 1.0 93.3 - * 30 46 3 2.9 96.2 20 - 47 2 1.9 98.1 - * 20 48 1 1.0 99.0 10 * - 49 0 0.0 99.0 - * ** 10 50 0 0.0 99.0 p * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** - 51 1 1.0 100.0 +---- + - - - -+ 0 25 35 45 55 -- -- - - - +- ----------------- - 20 P 15 - E - 15 R - - C - - E - - N 10 * * - T - ** * 10 5 * * * * * * * * * ** 5 15 - -+ 25 + - 35-- +--- 45--- +--- +--- - + - - -+ 55 65 SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program STREET ................ 2 Blk. Saratoga Ave. LIMITS ................ Vineyard to Cox DIRECTION(S) .......... NB DATE ..................3/28/95 TIME ..................11:55 AM POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 45 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................37 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................41 10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 32 through 41 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 81.1 PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED .............12.3 - CUM. PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED............ 6.6 RANGE OF SPEEDS SPEED NO. PCT. PCT. .................29 to VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 106 46 =29 2 1.9 AVERAGE SPEED .......................37.2 30 31 2 3 1.9 2.8 3.8 6.6 100 + - - --+--- - +-- - - +- + 32 6 5.7 12.3 - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *100 33 6 5.7 17.9 90 * ** 34 6 5.7 23.6 C - 90 35 9 8.5 32.1 U 80 * 36 11 10.4 42.5 M - 80 37 11 10.4 52.8 70 * -70 38 11 10.4 63.2 P - 39 9 8.5 71.7 E 60 - 40 10 9.4 81.1 R - * 60 41 7 6._6 87.7 C 50 - 42 3 2.8 90.6 E - 50 43 4 3.8 94.3 N 40 * - 44 4 3.8 98.1 T - 40 45 1 0.9 99.1 S 30 * - 46 -1 0.9 100.0 - * 30 20 * - _ 20 10 * - _ ** 10 + 15 + 0 25 35 45 55 65 _ 20 P 15 - E _ 15 R - - C - - E - - N 10 * ** T 10 s * * * * * * * * ** 5 +---- +--- +---- +--- - + - - -+ 25 35 45 55 65 SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program STREET ................ 2 Blk. Saratoga Ave. LIMITS ................ Vineyard to Cox DIRECTION(S) .......... SB DATE ..................3 /28/95 TIME....... ...11:40 AM POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 45 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................38 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................42 10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 33 through 42' PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 80.9 PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED .............14.5 P 15 E - R - C - E - N 10 * * ** 10 T - * * * ** 5 +---- +---- + - - - -+ +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - - +- + 15 25 35 45 55 65 SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR 15 5 - CUM. PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED............ 4.5 RANGE OF SPEEDS SPEED N0. PCT. PCT. .................31 to 50 VEHICLES OBSERVED............ 31 3 2.7 - - -2.7 AVERAGE SPEED ... ....... 810 ....................3 32 2 1.8 4.5 . 33 7 6.4 10.9 ------------ 100 _+ + - - -- +- --- + - - - -+ + 34 6 5.5 16.4 - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *100 35 7 6.4 22.7 90 * * ** - 36 9 8.2 30.9 C - * 90 37 11 10.0 40.9 U 80 ** - 38 10 9.1 50.0 M - * 80 39 11 10.0 60.0 70 * 40 11 10.0 70.0 P - 70 41 11 10.0 80.0 E 60 * 42 6 5.5 85.5 R - 60 43 2 1._8 87.3 C 50 * - 44 4 3.6 90.9 E - 50 45 2 1.8 92.7 N 40 * - 46 2 1.8 94.5 T - 40 47 3 2.7 97.3 S 30 * - 48 0 0.0 97.3 - 30 49 2 1.8 99.1 20 * - 50 1 0.9 100.0 - * 20 10 * - _ ** 10 15 , +~ 25 + - - - +- 4 -- +---- 55--- - - -+ 0 35 5 + - 65 +---- +---- + - - - -+ 20 - 20 P 15 E - R - C - E - N 10 * * ** 10 T - * * * ** 5 +---- +---- + - - - -+ +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - - +- + 15 25 35 45 55 65 SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR 15 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. G- &S AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1995 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: S-8(7 SUBJECT: Summary vacation of excess right -of -way along Fruitvale Avenue Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Resolution summarily vacating excess street right -of -way along Fruitvale Avenue. Report Summary: The attached Resolution, if adopted, will summarily vacate excess street right -of -way along Fruitvale Avenue adjacent to the rear of the property located at 19495 Riesling Court. The owner of the property, Mr. Ronald Cohn, is requesting the City abandon this right -of -way so that he may extend his rear property line and fence to align with those of the adjacent four lot subdivision to the north off of Burgundy Way currently under construction. Specifically, the City would declare approximately 24 feet of the right -of -way along Fruitvale Avenue, or a total area of approximately 5,630 square feet, as excess right -of -way which would then revert back to Mr. Cohn's property. The City would retain approximately 46 feet of the 70 feet of total right -of -way along Fruitvale Avenue acquired in connection with the development of Tract No. 5011 in 1975 of which Mr. Cohn's lot is a part. In consideration for this vacation of right -of -way, Mr. Cohn will continue the improvements to Fruitvale Avenue along his property that are being installed by the owners of the Burgundy Way development. These improvements consist of roadway widening to accommodate a bicycle lane, and installation of a pedestrian path, landscaping and drainage improvements. Further, Mr. Cohn agrees to execute a landscape maintenance agreement to perpetuate the long term maintenance and care of the landscaping and which would be recorded against his property. As staff believes that the benefits of the public improvements proposed to be installed by Mr. Cohn more than outweigh the value of the unusable, undeveloped street right -of -way, it is recommended that the Council adopt the attached Resolution to effectuate the above described arrangement between Mr. Cohn and the City. Fiscal Impacts• Staff estimates the value of the public improvements proposed to be installed by Mr. Cohn at $25,000, not including the long term landscape maintenance costs. Completion of these improvements will also tend to decrease the City's street and storm drain maintenance costs by an unknown amount. The improvement plans and legal description attached to the Resolution were also both prepared by Mr. Cohn at his expense. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution would not be adopted and the Fruitvale Avenue right - of -way would remain 90 feet wide in this location, much wider than staff anticipates will ever be needed for public street purposes. Follow Up Actions: The Resolution will be recorded upon completion of the improvements by Mr. Cohn and execution of a Landscape Maintenance Agreement. Attachments: 1. Resolution of summary vacation of excess right -of -way. 2. Letter from Mr. Cohn dated December 13. 3. Resolution No. 36 -B -15. 4. Portions of Map of Tract No. 5011. F)(9 /23ST %%Ajl DESCRIPTION THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING A PORTION OF FRUITVALE AVENUE AS SHOWN TO BE DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF TRACT NO. 5011, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 339 OF MAPS AT PAGES 44 & 45, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT NO. 21, AS SHOWN UPON AFORE MENTIONED MAP OF TRACT NO. .5011. THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 21, N 0 °00'30" W 234.62 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 21, S 89 °33'40" W 24.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 24.08 FEET WESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 21, S 0 °00'30" E 234.61 FEET TO THE WESTERLY EXTENS ION OF THE SOUTHERLY L I NE OF S A I D LOT 21; THENCE ALONG SA I D AFORE MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, N 89 °35'30" E 24.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 5,630 SQ. FT. OF AREA. J.M.H. #3395 COHN AUGUST 29, 1995 JENNINGS - McDERMOTT - HEISS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING w z W 4' H r7 LL FARWELL AVENUE - 45 I P.O.B. CHANG PM. 370 M 22/23 I .. --s—of - TRACT NO. 5011 LOT 21 BK 339 P 44/45 RONALD COHN APN 397 -36 -006 MAJOR "� )T 4 Z4 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF FRUITVALE AVENUE ABANDONMENT CITY OF SARA700A Je nn i n s •McDermott • He iss, inc. civil engineers ond land planners SAN JOSE ama CAPITOLA -- CALIFORNIA SCALE: I" - 50' 1 AUGUST 1995 1 J.M.H. #3395 \1 o- 0 M 10 z 0 0 _ �o w �o W Z -- 0 M 1'o C-Jl (0 W Q� iI N N a Ja _� ; O U) oc a� z Oa o 0 Q H - 45 I P.O.B. CHANG PM. 370 M 22/23 I .. --s—of - TRACT NO. 5011 LOT 21 BK 339 P 44/45 RONALD COHN APN 397 -36 -006 MAJOR "� )T 4 Z4 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF FRUITVALE AVENUE ABANDONMENT CITY OF SARA700A Je nn i n s •McDermott • He iss, inc. civil engineers ond land planners SAN JOSE ama CAPITOLA -- CALIFORNIA SCALE: I" - 50' 1 AUGUST 1995 1 J.M.H. #3395 \1 December 13, 1995 Ronald S Cohn 19475 Riesling Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA Sirs: I request approval of the City Council for a plan developed with the Saratoga Engineering Dept. to beautify and make more functional the area between my property and Fruitvale Avenue. This plan will also solve the ongoing problem we have experienced of our land being flooded from the street run -off. As part of this plan my property line is to be moved so as to be contiguous with the property line approved for my new neighbors. This will allow for a straight fence line along Fruitvale. In return, I agree to pay for the road expansion to include a bicycle lane and the construction of a new pedestrian path. I will also be landscaping and maintaining the area consistent with the plan already approved for the area from my property line to Burgundy Way. I look forward to enhancing this area for both myself and the citizens of Saratoga. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Ronald S Cohn RESOLUTION NO. 36 -B- 15, RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS TRACT NO.5011 It appearing that on or about March 19, 1975 , the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivision map and on approved improvement plans therefor were completed and thereafter were maintained by the subdivider for a period of not' less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: 44 & Map of Tract No. 5011 recorded in Book 339 of Maps, at Pages 45 in the office of the Ccunty Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on May 9 , 1974 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby re- scinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California.. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby order- ed released: That certain Improvement Bond No. 8549 dated 4/4/74 , and issued by Surety Co. of the Pacific The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the 2nd day of June ' 19 76 , at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: . AYES: Councilmen Bridges, Kraus, Brigham, and Corr NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Matteoni MAYOR ATTES f: \ A TY CLERK a WIER'S CEF'TIF'ICArlE WE IZP -L'?Y CFR':iF'Y DIA 'AE PY-P ".1E Ox:°iFF- OF OP !W-l: cCv.r FI(lr, ',I"'..F OF P.":TTY- -c":' I!! AND :V1 iTir: SAL PIROPFFes' L'3CLU'?F: .::"�:TT: r:JIE FL'i?I IZ'ISIO!. SI'l1: ?i L'T'Qt: "!:IS i•'A i,.Rr :T7: C1I+ZY M—nn! -S b:'iOSF Cnr `:►-` _S ::I :C "�;A ^v -0 P� .-, A 72 :/ ►= '.'7F -- ':r ::AID P.F'AL PROPElyiY v' :;F IFF.I.1�v *Lcc• ^r ^TT 'AYT�:� p.iC FFCOPI`I':r. -AIP; !•i:P A;ir' f,,LBr IVI.`:,iO:': p.S .':i.'.E ;:OFi £P :.I'.T A► ! :ti:: E . °1'Y .`:.:'Ir:."S '!-) PL'.1.'C M ALL .S'i?'EI..; .:Cr:' }� .r+7:rF0. FE EY.�T...I'.:r. Pn ..F('!,.. �7.: ..AI. : FP ::. "`:_T.': ..�L. err. .1.. ?'?i:; ALSO IF:DICA' E = A ^El�.: r•,OR A'.'Y ANT A L PUBLIC LT.F': ?:?�i'r, ;.i'P ! '. F. ::AIi S':T:' i'"`' ANM SAID PORTII01.2 ':T -EPFOr. :+'E I•P.FFT'Y WT- ICA".F ".T PU'P.LIC ISF: FA.':I•:!r 'r MF PUBLIC 5ERVICE LF- ITLITI:. "::;:I , f?: rP .01,71' ' TIO,SE CFP':"AItl :':'PIPS Ov I.At.'D LYTNr, ':`.u•. S&ItEi LINES AND DASIEP LD.F-L DFSIMJA::vD "P.5.E." iPin "3:.IC SERVICE L':ILT.TY EASE; i:'J":5 :C' PF..� P'" OPE;! A,`1D ? OF n�'I.:.!ir A. "iD :�':In'CT< TTT ^F PIN .7. f:f.Mn LAWF;,Z FT1iCE`, IPTZ:rA- ..TCXJ LODES A`i^ L' ILI f C PAN-f S'"l?UMUMSS WE FURTHER 14EREP51 DEDICATE AWD RELINQUISH TO THE-CITY OF SARATOGA ANY' AND ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRES5 TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACROSS THE EASTERLY LINE OF FRUITVALE AVEWOE OU Wi 1 , 2 4 2i AS WIDENED IQ SHOWN OIJ THE HEREON MAP AWD DE51GWATED WE ALSO HEREBY DEDICATE EASEMEWTS FOR SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES DGSK&NATED S.S.E: (SAIJITARY SEWER EASEMENT) VMDER , ON OR OVER THOSE CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND LYIN& 9LTWEfiU THE LOT LINES AND DASHED LINES . SANITAQY.•. SEWER EASEMENTS TO BE KEPT OPEN AND FREE OF SUILDIN66 AUD STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND EXCEPT LAWFUL FEWCES .ySAWITARY 6EWEIZ FACILITIES PERMITTED WITHIN THEIR EASGWENTS ONLY. WE ALSO NGREBY DEDICATE EASEMENTS FOR 6TORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES DFf,IGNAT60 't.D.E. "(6TOQM VQAIWA6E EASFMC -WT) UNDER ON OR OVER TIIC►•SE CER:TA►N 5TQIPS OF LAUD AS SOWN ON THE He %t!CN MAP. 5�C!2M DRAINAGE EA5EMENTS TO BE KEPT OPEN AWD FREE OF BUILOIN65 AND STRUCTURES OF AWY KIND EXCEPT LAWFUL FGNCCs , •5TOEM DRAINAGE FACILITIES PERMITTED *'IrtilN - TNEIR: EASEMEWTS ONLY. 05TERLUND ENTERPR15E5 INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ; MWER G LTIGI!. :F'S C'. P'1'r:.LC;.'_'I•: I, JACK R KUZIA, i:::F DY CE!7"'IFY IMAT I A:'•: A ?I:CT "^T: l; CIl. ^,:. ElljrT!THE 77 ^}T OF CAiJ Fn, NIA , THAT 7I MS S MAP CL ISISTING OF WO COt'.RL• C;'L': JYIL'E3? !•IY SUPF :HVZSION Dl:RPIG AUG 1973 , '`tA'^ & �L --. I. AND AS SHOTN, MHA'T' ALL i•MR71 •FJ•l. Sf ?O:R: H72FFCV AC^,i'ALLY FES'" OP. 'TWILL iv Pl_M7 ::; i 23 AVO:? Sadc:7 It, fr, /,', - VC, JX a 17 20 Iri 3A V'j 41. 7 Le I A-3 Z37Z 0-4 10 KD 7 ;A'ay 4WO MAL 6; I/ "I" If -izg. xx -EflolW.44tW,4Y Y//.? Ae. 477- j.?V. 3Z ctlR�E -04T Iii -IN L T 6, 25 3 7 1!9 /4.1 9" -Y 7 Iii -IN SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 6 OF AGENDA ITEM 8 MEETING DATE: December 20, 1995 CITY MGR. ., ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office PREPARED BY: Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Cable Television Franchise - Request for Transfer of ownership Recommended Motion(s): Deny a request made by Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P. to assign and transfer the Saratoga cable television franchise. Report Summary: The City of Saratoga received formal notification on August 31, 1995 from Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P. which holds and operates the cable television franchise in Saratoga under the business name of "South Bay CableVision" of its intention to transfer its Saratoga cable system to TCI of Cleveland, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tele- Communications, Inc. ( "TCI") [Attachment I]. The Federal Cable Act requires franchising authorities such as the City of Saratoga to act (approve, deny, conditionally approve) on franchise transfer requests within 120 days of receipt of a complete transfer application. The deadline for the City of Saratoga to act . on the proposed transfer request is December 28, 1995. Staff has been analyzing the transfer documents provided by Brenmore in order to determine TCI- Cleveland's legal, technical and financial qualifications to assume responsibility for the City of Saratoga's cable television. franchise. Staff has also sought additional information from Brenmore seeking clarifications and support documentation regarding the transfer documents submitted to the City [Attachment II]. Following this, a response was provided by Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. on behalf of Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P. and TCI - Cleveland, Inc. As of this date, staff continues to have concerns regarding unresolved issues that leads us to recommend that the transfer request be denied. The responses provided by Brenmore and TCI - Cleveland in response to the City's first request for additional information are either incomplete, unclear or nonresponsive. Some of these include the following: * We .continue to be uncomfortable about the legality of Brenmore's transfer from Hernandez Communications, IncQ to InterMedia Partners. In the response letter to the City of Saratoga we learned that "the transfer of control from Hernandez Communications, Inc. to InterMedia Partners has not yet been consummated since the transfer request is still pending before the City of Santa Clara. It continues to be our belief that the effective date of the transfer was September 23, 1993, (date of our signed transfer agreement with Brenmore) and therefore that Brenmore is in violation of Section 617(a) of the 1992 Cable Act, absent a waiver of the applicability of the provision by the Federal Communications Commission under Section 617(d). * While Brenmore has filed FCC Form 394 with the City and certified that it "will use its best efforts to comply with the terms of the franchise and applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations, and to effect changes, as promptly as practicable, in the operation of the system, if any changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing," there has been no certified indication that Brenmore will require TCI - Cleveland, Inc. to unconditionally assume all the obligations, (past, present and future) of the current cable franchise which are stipulated in the City of Saratoga's cable television ordinance and existing franchise agreement with Brenmore. * Staff is concerned about compliance issues outstanding with other communities who have allocated more resources toward investigations of such issues. For example, several South Bay City franchising authorities have discovered that a high percentage of their service drops have not been grounded and are awaiting action to alleviate this problem at this time. * Staff continues to have concerns that TCI- Cleveland will apparently be a distant landlord for the Saratoga cable system with the day -to -day management of the system being the responsibility of TCI - California. TCI - Cleveland has not at this time provided the City of Saratoga a guarantee of TCI - California's performance as the manager of the Saratoga cable system. We still desire to have notification that TCI - Cleveland is certified to do business in California through TCI- California prior to any transfer of ownership.. * Staff has not found any evidence that TCI - Cleveland will have a contract between themselves and TCI - California relating to the management of the Saratoga cable system. As a result, TCI- Cleveland's ability to comply with the City's franchise will depend entirely on TCI California's willingness to comply with the City's franchise. We intend to request that TCI - California be willing to sign a franchise agreement and warrant that it would abide by and be bound by all of the franchise's provisions. Staff is seriously concerned about the undefined relationship between TCI- Cleveland and TCI- California. E While TCI- Cleveland claims to be financially, technically and legally qualified to be the City's cable franchisee, it appears that TCI- Cleveland will not commit the people or resources to this geographic area which would be required to comply with its franchise obligations in the City of Saratoga. Instead, its compliance appears to depend entirely on the abilities of TCI - California, a company which has not .provided the City with documentation demonstrating either a willingness or an ability to comply with the City's cable franchise. TCI - Cleveland has not provided to us the adequate assurances to address staff's concerns regarding TCI - California's compliance with the City's cable television franchise and how TCI - California will be held accountable for its actions as the manager of the Saratoga cable franchise. * We requested that TCI - Cleveland provide a listing of Board members and their individual signatures that they have never been convicted or held liable for acts involving moral turpitude, and have never had a judgement in an action of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation entered against it, her, him or them by any court of competent jurisdiction. Instead,' a Mr. Stephen M. Brett signed an "Officer's Certificate" on behalf of all those directors, officers and other persons currently having a legal or equitable interest in 25% or more of the Company's voting stock. * While the attorney for Brenmore and TCI - Cleveland clarified that the financial reports that were provided were in fact what is routinely prepared by the company, and therefore in compliance with the requirements of the Cable Act, staff believes that if the company is publicly held, then they must need to file according to generally accepted accounting principles. We believe that their annual financial report to the shareholders likely looks different that the reports routinely prepared for the franchise authorities. * Staff is still in the process of seeking information regarding acts and omissions of Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P. Until the investigation is complete, we cannot move ahead with the transfer agreement. * Staff is also interested in pursuing more detailed information regarding how the transfer will impact the subscribers rates and charges. * We asked Brenmore to seek information about whether TCI - Cleveland plans to conduct a cost -of- service or benchmark system for rate setting and they responded that they have "not prepared.any analysis of its proposed methodology with respect to rate regulation matters." This is unacceptable. * Finally, there are even more issues that have been discovered by either the staff or legal consultant from other cities who have contracts with Brenmore (Milpitas, Newark, Los Gatos, 3 Santa Clara County, Mountain View, Santa Clara) which cause staff concern. It would be our interest to seek additional information relating to the performance of the proposed transferee in these jurisdictions as such performance may reflect upon the probable performance of the transferee within the City of Saratoga. Again, given these vagaries and the need for further information from both Brenmore and TCI- Cleveland, staff recommends that the Council deny the transfer-of the cable franchise until such time that these issues can be adequately resolved. Fiscal Impacts• There would be no direct fiscal impact from this recommendation. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Posting of the agenda. Brenmore and TCI received copies of this report. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: If the Council does not take action to deny, the transfer will be assumed approved on December 28, 1995 and all the aforementioned issues will be unresolved and unaddressed by the parties involved. This would not be advised as that would establish a disadvantageous beginning with the new assignee of the cable television transfer. Follow Up Actions: Staff will send a letter encompassing those issues referenced above that remain outstanding. Attachments: I. Letter from Leo J. Hinderly of August 28, 1995 II. Letter to Leo Hinderly of November 20, 1995 III. Letter from Sherman & Howard L.L.C. of December 1, 1995 on behalf of Brenmore and TCI 4 Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. 235 Montgomery Street Suite 420 San Francisco, CA 94104 +U6 D 3 1 lyy� August 28, 1995 C! i 1 U` �d ;it ATUGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Mr. Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Transfer of Cable Television Franchise Dear Mr. Peacock: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that your local cable operator, Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. dba South Bay CableVision ( "Brenmor ") has entered into an agreement (the "- - "Transaction ") for the transfer of the assets of the cable television system, including the franchise to operate the cable system, serving the residents'of Saratoga to TCI of Cleveland, Inc. ("TCI - Cleveland"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tele- Communications, Inc. ( "TCI "). The cable system will be acquired by TCI - Cleveland for tax purposes and will be operated by TCI Cablevision of California, Inc., pursuant to a management agreement. As you may be aware, TCI is one of the major, multiple system cable operators within the country and is a recognized leader in the cable television industry. TCI's owned and operated systems include a wide variety of sizes and demographics. As one of the largest and fastest growing cable operators in the San Francisco Bay Area, TCI is leading the charge into the next era of advanced cable communications services. TCI is committed to continuing to provide quality cable service to the residents of Saratoga. As you may be aware, Section 617 of the 1992 Cable Act and Part J of the new FCC Cable Television Service Rules (See 47 C.F.R. 76.502) relating to the sale and transfer of cable television systems provides that a cable operator may not sell or otherwise transfer ownership in a cable system unless it has been owned more than three years, or unless the transaction qualifies for an exemption or waiver. Section 617 is commonly referred to as the "Anti- trafficking" rule. Under Section 76.502(i), cable operators seeking to transfer the ownership of a cable system after three years must submit FCC Form 394 to the local franchising authority if franchise authority approval is required by the terms of the franchise. In accordance with Section 76.502(d), this letter will serve as Brenmor's certification that the Transaction will not violate the "Anti- trafficking" rule since the System has been owned for over three years, since January 16, 1990. Further, Section 617(c)(1) states that any assignment or transfer of control of a cable system which is not subject to Federal income tax liability is exempt from the three -year holding requirement. Brenmor hereby provides the additional certification that this Transaction is exempt from the three year holding requirement because the Transaction is a tax exempt "like- kind" exchange as that term is defined by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, this Transaction falls within Section 617(c)(1.) of the 1992 Cable Act and is exempt from the three - year holding requirement. As the Transaction may require your consent, we are requesting your prompt attention to this matter and your consent thereto. The closing of the proposed Transaction is expected to occur by December 31, 1995, or sooner if all required regulatory approvals have been obtained. Bill Haggarty, General Manager of South Bay CableVision, will be in touch shortly to follow up on this request and to request that the City set the transfer for consideration on the next. available meeting date. Enclosed herewith, please find an original and two copies of FCC Form 394, including all exhibits required thereby. For your convenience, we have also enclosed the following documents for your review and use: (a) a draft transfer resolution, and (b) a "guide" to the rules pertaining to the transfer process. In addition, consistent with Section 4- 25.060(d)(4) of the City of Saratoga Ordinance No. 71 -127 dated September 15, 1993, enclosed please find a check for five thousand dollars ($5,000) representing the transfer fee. Upon receipt of this transfer request documentation, including the FCC Form 394, Section 76.502 states that the City will be provided a maximum of 120 days from the date of this submission to act upon this transfer request. Should the City choose not to act within 120 days, the request shall be deemed granted unless the City and Brenmor agree that additional time is appropriate. Should you have any questions or comments, please call Bill Haggarty at (408) 467 -5107, Bruce Stewart, General Counsel, at (415) 616 -4680, or Kristin Diamond, Counsel, at (415) 616- 4616. Please also feel free to call Valerie Castellana, TCI's representative in the Bay area, who can be reached by telephone at (510) 988 -8611. On behalf of Brenmor, TCI- Cleveland and TCI, we look forward to working cooperatively with you to meet the FCC imposed deadlines, to address your questions during the transfer process, and to insure a smooth transition to TCI. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, eo J. Hindery, Jr. Attorney -in -Fact On behalf of Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. AUG 3 1 1995 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT BY BRENMOR CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. TO TCI OF CLEVELAND, INC. OF THE FRANCHISE TO OPERATE A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership, dba South Bay CableVision ( "Franchisee "), owns, operates, and maintains a cable television system ( "System ") in the City of Saratoga, California ('franchise Authority "), pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated September 30, 1993 ( "Franchise ") and pursuant to City of Saratoga Ordinance 71 -127 (the "Ordinance "), and Franchisee is the current authorized holder of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, Franchisee proposes to assign and transfer all of the assets of the System (the "Transaction "), including all right, title, interest, and obligations of the Franchisee under the - Franchise, to TCI of Cleveland, Inc., a Tennessee corporation ( "TCI - Cleveland "), subject to, among other conditions, any required approval of the Franchise Authority with respect thereto; and WHEREAS, Franchisee and TCI - Cleveland have requested consent by the Franchise Authority to the assignment and transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of the System, including the Franchise, to TCI - Cleveland in accordance with the requirements of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, TCI - Cleveland has complied with the requirements of Sections 4.25.140(c)(d) and (e) providing for a security bond and a certificate of insurance in the amounts specified in the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the Franchise Authority has determined, upon due inquiry, that TCI- Cleveland has shown sufficient legal, technical and financial qualifications to comply with the terms of the Franchise. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the iCity of Saratoga as follows: SECTION 1. The Franchise Authority hereby consents to and approves the assignment and transfer by Franchisee to TCI- Cleveland, its successors and assigns, of all of the assets of the System, including all right, title, interest, and obligations under the Franchise, subject to applicable federal and state law, relating to the period from and after the closing of the Transaction (the "Closing "). SECTION 2. The consent of the Franchise Authority to the transfer of the Franchise and other assets of the System to TCI - Cleveland and the assumption by TCI - Cleveland of all rights and obligations under the Franchise with respect to the period from and after the Closing, subject to applicable federal and state law, shall be contingent upon and take effect only on and after the date of Closing. The consents and approvals hereby given do not constitute and shall not be construed to constitute a waiver of any rights or obligations of any Franchisee under the Franchise. SECTION 3. TCI - Cleveland may transfer the Franchise or control related thereto to any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with TCI - Cleveland upon notice to the Franchising Authority of any such transfer to an affiliated entity. SECTION 4. Subsequent to the Closing, Franchisee will provide its written acceptance of all'provisions, terms and conditions of the Franchise and will agree to comply with all provisions, terms and conditions of the Franchise from and after the Closing, subject to applicabld federal and state aw. SECTION 5. The Franchise Authority confirms that e u as pI Lch th e Franchise is valid and remains in full force and effect and expires' October of 2008, isee �( recognized as the present holder and owner of the Fr_nn (d) no actions or proceedings will be instituted against TCI - Clevelan of any I J-o 4,11 I'V,Ct -1-N acts or omissions of Franiihisee p p the date of &Closing; (e) the\Franchise.-supersedes all other agreements between Franchisee and the Franphise Authority; understanding of the parties and Franchisee has made no -2- �V e� represents the entire is and owes no obligations to qJ, the Franchise Authority other than those specifically stated in the Franchise; (g) Franchisee is materially in compliance with the provisions of the Franchise; and (h) there exists no known fact or circumstance which constitutes or which, with the passage of time or the giving of notice or both, would constitute a default or breach under the Franchise, or would allow the Franchise Authority to cancel or terminate the rights thereunder except upon the expiration of the full term thereof. Drily and lawfully PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the governing body of the City of Saratoga, California, this day of .1995. ATTEST: I, the undersigned, being the duly appointed, qualified and acting of the City of Saratoga, California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. is a true, correct and accurate copy as duly and lawfully passed and adopted by the City of Saratoga on the day of 1995. H: 1CLIENrONEMSER \90500376\3%RESOLSAR 9119195 4:52 pm - 3 - A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TRANSFER PROCESS (Applicable Federal Law & FCC Guidelines) Federal Law: AUG 3 1 1995 The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, sets forth in Section 617 (47 U.S.C. 537) the federal regulations pertaining to the sale and transfer of cable systems. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Act ") added Section 6I7 and established new requirements and procedures governing changes in the ownership of cable television systems. The 1992 Act and implementing regulations of the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC "), specifically. Section 76.502 of the FCC's Cable Television Service Rules (47 C.F.R. 76.502), state that a cable operator may not transfer ownership in a cable system unless it has been owned for more than three years or unless the transaction qualifies for an exemption or waiver. If franchise authority approval is required prior to transfer of ownership by the terms of the prevailing franchise, the cable operator and the V - franchising authority are required to follow specific guidelines as described in this guide from the 1992 Cable Act and the FCC's rules. Specifically, the 1992 Act and the FCC rules: (1) impose time limits on the transfer approval process; (2) establish a new, three -year holding period for cable system ownership; and (3) require cable companies to demonstrate compliance with the holding requirement to the local franchise authority before an ownership change occurs. Background: Before the 1992 Cable Act went into effect, franchise authorities were free to establish their own procedures and requirements for cable ownership changes. In communities where transfer approval is required, procedural issues such as the timetable, type of information considered, or the need for public hearings normally are established by the local franchise.. (Page 2) TRANSFER GUIDE The Three -Year Holding Period: • Although FCC cable regulations such as those governing rates and customer service apply on a community -by- community basis, the three -year holding requirement applies system - by- system. • The operational unit that the FCC considers to be single cable "system" can serve a number of different communities or result from the technical integration of several formerly separate systems. • The three -year holding period runs from initial construction (first date of service to subscribers) or acquisition (closing date) of any portion of a "system. " • In a community in which a cable operator has served subscribers for less than three years, the holding requirement is met if that community is part of a larger system that the operator has held for three years. • A transfer of ownership in a cable system that does not affect the identity of the cable — franchisee or the holder of a controlling interest in the cable system is not subject to the three -year holding requirement. • If an assignment or transfer of control involves multiple systems and the terms of the transaction require the buyer to subsequently transfer or assign one or more such systems to one or more third parties, such subsequent transfers shall be considered part of the original transaction for purposes of measuring the three -year holding period. • The FCC will grant waivers from the three -year holding requirement, consistent with the public interest. The FCC will look favorably upon waiver requests involving multiple system operators or transfers of multiple systems if at least two - thirds of the subscribers of the systems being transferred are served by systems owned by the cable operator for three - years or more. Further, conditioned upon receipt of local franchise authority transfer approval, where such approval is required by the terms of the franchise agreement or applicable state or local law, transfers of cable systems serving less than 1000 subscribers are subject to a blanket FCC waiver. A cable system operator's certification to the local franchise authority which contains a description of the transaction and indicates that the cable system has been owned for three years, or that the transferor has obtained or is seeking a waiver from the FCC, or that the transaction is otherwise exempt creates a presumption that the proposed assignment or transfer of the cable system will comply with the three -year holding requirement. g:U egdWan sfer\sb- swap\genend4ramgde (Page 3) TRANSFER GUIDE The following transactions are exempt from the three -year holding requirement: (1) Any assignment or transfer of control of a cable system which is not subject.to Federal income tax liability under the Federal Income Tax Code; (2) Any assignment or transfer of control of a cable system required by operation of law or by any act, order or decree of any Federal agency, any State or political subdivision thereof or any franchising authority; or (3) Any assignment or transfer of control to one or more purchasers, assignees or transferees controlled by, controlling, or under common control with, the seller, assignor or transferor. • A cable system operator seeking to assign or transfer ownership control of a cable system after three years must submit a copy of FCC Form 394 to the local franchise authority if franchise authority approval of the transfer is required by the terms of the franchise agreement. TRANSFER PROCEDURES • When the franchise requires prior transfer approval, the parties 'involved in a proposed - ownership change are required to provide a franchising authority with the following information: FCC Form 394: The information must be submitted on a FCC Form 394 which the FCC designed especially for the transfer process. This form sets forth information and includes supporting documents describing the transaction and demonstrating the new owner's legal, financial, and technical qualifications. Since FCC Form 394 is designed to provide local franchise authorities with all the information reasonably needed to make an informed decision on the transfer approval, the FCC's regulations do not require the parties to include any documents or information with their initial filing other than those specifically enumerated in the form or explicitly identified by the terms of the local franchise. 120 Day Time Limit for Local Approval: The 1992 Act provides a 120 day period for the franchise authority to act upon the request for approval of the ownership change. The terms of the franchise agreement may provide by its terms a shorter time period. If the franchise agreement provides for a shorter period, such shorter period applies. The 120 day time period runs from the date the cable operator submits FCC Form 394 to the franchise authority. g:U egaAtraasfer\sb- swV\general\trm.gde (Page 4) TRANSFER GUIDE • Under the FCC Regulations, franchise authorities are permitted to make reasonable follow -up requests for clarification or additional, related information during the 120 day period; however, such requests do not stop the running of the 120 day period. Failure of a franchise authority to render a final decision within the 120 day period is deemed to be an approval of the ownership change, unless the party requesting approval and the franchise authority agree to an extension of time. • The cable operator may appeal the local franchise authority's determination concerning the three -year holding period to the FCC. g: UegaIVransfer \sb- swap\grnaalltrans.gde �9u'ff go &UQXB& 13777 FR.UITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCII. MEMBERS: Ann Mane Burger Paul E. Jacobs November 20, 19 9 5 Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Mr. Leo Hinderly Donald C. Wolfe Attorney -in -Fact Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P. 235 Montgomery Street Suite 420 San Francisco, CA 94104 Dear Mr. Hinderly: This, letter is .being sent to you in response to your letter of August 28, 1995 regarding the speculated cable television franchise transfer between Brenmore Cable Partners, Inc. and TCI of Cleveland, Inc. We.acknowledge receipt of your letter of intent to transfer as well as receipt of FCC Form 394, including an asset transfer agreement, and, receipt of a transfer fee check for $5, 000 (pursuant to City of Saratoga Ordinance No. 71 -127 Section 4- 25.060(d)(4)). In recognition of FCC regulations permitting franchise authorities to make reasonable follow -up requests for clarification or additional, related information, we hereby are requesting further information prior to final consideration of the franchise transfer. Additionally, the City's Cable Communications Ordinance stipulates that "Grantee ", here Brenmore, "shall agree to provide and all information and documentation as may be reasonably requested by the City in connection with its review of any proposed transfer:" The issues needing clarification stem from our efforts involved in analyzing the relationships and obligations between the City and Brenmore Cable Partners as defined in the following documents: 1. City of Saratoga Ordinance No. 71 -127 known as the City of Saratoga's Cable Communications Ordinance and effective September 15, 1993. 2. 3. 4. Printed on recycled paper. Franchise Agreement between the City of Saratoga and Brenmore Cable Partners L.P. (South. Bay Cablevision) dated September 30, 1993. CATV Franchise Transfer Agreement dated September 23, 1993 between the City of Saratoga, Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P., and Hernandez Communications, Inc. FCC Form 394, Application for Franchise Authority Cons4nt to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television city of Saratoga Page 2 Franchise, received by the City of Saratoga on August 31, 1995. 5. "Resolution Approving the Transfer and Assignment by Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P. to TCI of Cleveland, Inc. of the Franchise to Operate a Cable Television System in the City of Saratoga, California," proposed and submitted to the City August 31, 1995. Filing of FCC Form 394 and Section 617 of 1992 Cable Act: You have stated in your letter of August 28, 1995 that said letter serves "as Brenmore's certification that the Transaction will not violate the "Anti- trafficking" rule" (Section 617 of the 1992 Cable Act and Part J of the new FCC Cable Television Service Rules, 47 C.F.R. 7 6.5 02) ... "since the System has been owned for over three years, since January 16, 1990." We would like to know if Brenmore is claiming three year's ownership based on the provision that "In a community in which a cable operator has served subscribers for less than three years,- the holding requirement is met if that community is part of a larger system that the operator has held for three years." In other words, does the fact that, as stated in the Franchise Agreement of September 30, 1993, "South Bay has operated and continues to operate a cable communications system in the City pursuant to a franchise awarded to Hearst Cablevision and assigned to Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P. on December 21, 1989, which assignment was accepted by South Bay" mean that South Bay has in fact been the owner for over three years? The discrepancy of the two dates made it unclear to us if this applied, and, we want to be certain as to the basis for the claim of the three - years' ownership. FCC Form 394: Assuming that Brenmore is in fact then exempt from the three -year holding requirement, we turn now to questions and concerns arising from the FCC Form 394 itself.- Part I Section I- General Information: No concerns, however, acknowledgement of Brenmore's legal agreements with the City noted as items 1 -3 above would be preferable to the City of Saratoga. Section Ii- Transferor /Assignor: Item 2.(b): In exhibit 3, Brenmore comments on its negative City of Saratoga Page 3 response to whether the asset exchange agreement referenced in item 2.(a) embodied the full and complete agreement between the transferor /assignor and the transferee/ assignee. FCC form instructions in item 2. (a) allow for redaction of confidential trade, business, pricing or marketing information, or other information not otherwise publicly available. Question: Can Brenmore submit a categorization of the information that has been redacted? What legal recourse does any public entity have that safeguards us from the withholding of allowable information and in what code, rules or regulations is that articulated for our review and analysis? Part II: Transferee /Assignee: Item i and Item 3 and Exhibit #7: We have a general query, and that is that TCI Cleveland is out of Tennessee, headquartered out of Englewood Colorado and managed out of Walnut Creek, California: what certification does TCI Cleveland have that it can provide to us that states it is legally qualified to do business in California? It is stated in Exhibit 17 that "Transferee /Assignee will qualify to transact business in.the State of California prior to the closing of the transaction that is the subject of this application." What is the process for that qualification, will the City be notified and when specifically is this set to occur? The City of Saratoga would require in its transfer agreement, the same condition regarding this issue as it had in the transfer with Brenmore and Hernandez: that TCI is duly organized; validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of California, and, has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out the transactions contemplated hereby." Item 2: Brenmore states that at this time it does not have any plans to "change the service and operations of the system as a consequence of this transaction. However, the Managing Entity may, after it has an opportunity to familiarize itself with the-system's operations, determine that such changes are desirable or necessary." This statement does not provide the City of Saratoga with the assurance that "such changes" will proceed as outlined in the current franchise agreement with the franchising authority (City) dated September 30, 1993. In what document will this issue be covered and articulated by TCI? section I. Transferee /Assignee's Legal Qualifications: Item 2: Listing of persons, officers, directors, stockholders etc. holding more than 5% of the outstanding voting shares, general City of Saratoga Page 4 partners and limited partners holding an equity interest of more than 5 %, etc. The City of Saratoga, in its Transfer Agreement with Brenmore stipulates the following conditions in Section B. (1) pages 2 and 3 which we would also request of TCI at this time with respect to the officers and others listed on page 4 of FCC Form 394 "Director Information ": Section B. (1) In seeking the CITY's consent to any change in, transfer of, or acquisition by any other party or control of GRANTEE, the GRANTEE shall have the responsibility: (1) To show to the satisfaction of the CITY whether the proposed purchaser, transferee, or assignee ('the proposed transferee "), which in the case of a corporation, shall include all officers, directors, and all persons having a legal or equitable interest of twenty -five percent or more of its voting stock. And, in the case of a partnership shall include all general partners and any limited partners holding twenty -five percent or more of the Partnership interest; (a) has ever been convicted or held liable for acts involving moral turpitude; (b) has ever had a judgement in an action for fraud, deceit or misrepresentation entered against it, her, him or them by any court of competent jurisdiction; (c) has pending any legal claim, lawsuit or administrative proceeding arising our of or involving a cable system. Section III - Transferee's /Assignee's Financial Qualifications: Item #2: Item requests that transferee/ assignee attache as an Exhibit the most recent financial statements, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, etc. In Exhibit No. 9 on the page following the cover and titled "INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ", paragraph 3 it is stated: "The accompanying special - purpose consolidated financial statements were prepared ... and are not intended to be a presentation in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles." We would like to understand how these two items compare in your assessment as it leads us to believe that there is discontinuity in the data that is being provided. Section v: Certifications Part 11- Transferee /Assignee (c) : In this section, transferee 18 to "use its best efforts to, comply with the terms of the franchide and applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations, City of Saratoga Page 5 and to effect changes, as promptly as practicable, in the operation of the system, if any changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing." We interpret this to mean adherence to the ordinances and agreements stated above, including but not limited to items 1 - 3. In addition, the specific provisions in the City's Cable Communications Ordinance Section 4- 25.060 "Limitations of Franchise" (d) Transfer outlines the parameters of ahy transfer in which the City is involved. Part I- Transferor /Assignor: classification box. "Other. Explain:" Signator for the Transferor /Assignor is Leo Hinderly who signs as "Attorney -in -Fact for Hernandez Communications, Inc., the General Partner of Brenmore Cable Partners, L.P." If Hernandez is a 21% shareholder in Brenmore, why is Mr. Hinderly signing for Brenmore as Attorney -in -Fact? Wasn't Hernandez out at the end of 1993? Proposed Resolution Approving the Transfer We are uncertain as to whether we will use the majority of the language of the proposed resolution prepared by Brenmore for the transfer. We would outline the parameters of our needs in the context of the transfer agreement we will submit to you and that would be the place where we would prefer to address some of the issues contained on pages 2 and 3 of the proposed resolution. The following are our concerns with the existing language of the proposed resolution. 1. Section 3 of the resolution ought not conflict with the parameters of the City's Ordinance No. 71 -127, Cable Communications Ordinance, Section 4- 25.060 Limitations of Franchise. 2. Section 4: City would prefer if, rather than "Subsequent to" the Closing, that the language stipulate "Within 30 days of" the Closing. Acceptance of the provisions should not be subsequent to closing and should be prior to the adoption of the resolution. The Franchisee should agree to abide by all conditions of the Franchise, Ordinance, and prior Transfer Agreements and we need certification that all prior requirements have been met in a timely fashion. Finally, the words "and municipal" be inserted between the words "state" and "law at the end of the paragraph for reiteration. 3. Section 5: * Provision (a) should be deleted as it is unnecessary. * Provision (b) should be amended to say that the Fran`shise expires on October 1, 2008. c' City of Saratoga Pago 6 * Provision (c) should be amended to add the following words at the end of the sentence: "...upon the date of closing." * Provision (d) should be amended to say "TCI- Cleveland is responsible for acts or omissions of Franchisee up to and including the date of the Closing." * Provision (e) the language needs to reflect all prior agreements with the City, that is, the Franchise Agreement of September 30, 1993, the Ordinance 71 -127 of September 15, 1993 and the CATV Franchise Transfer Agreement of September 23, 1993. * Provision (f) should begin with "Except for the agreement for late charges as outlined in the letter dated October 31, 1994 from William Haggarty regarding billing practices," as this agreement is substantive between South Bay and the City of Saratoga (see attached copy of referenced letter). Other Issues: One final issue for us at this time involves whether or not TCI intends to use a cost -of- service showing or the benchmark justification for rates? What is it that TCI is intending to do? We would like to know about this in advance. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to your responses to these items. Sincerely, Harr2eacockV/"'- City nager r/ cc: Jennifer Britton, As to the City Manager attachment Ax bMMMMA Costriwtt WMiam L i'Iopuly osMat UMMir October 31.1994 Mr. Harry L Peacock City MMMV Cry of Saratoga 13777 Fmkvmk Avenue Seratogs. CA. 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock Thank -you for meeting with Bmat 3m art. Berbom Wood and me on Friday. October 28, 1994 ngwd ng our billing practices and pot cwL l appreciate your inluu which bas helped us craft ow new policies. As we discumsed, South Bay bas revievied all of tts billing ps cdm and policies over the put month. Consitxartt with the law to you fi= Mr. Stewart dated October 27,194►. we rci ffirm that aJ of nor cuttmt billing and eoiMc ion pmt icmt, policies and procedures we w bok in compliance w tub applicable federal. state and local start= and kws Altbovo we stand hem as the legali• of our' billing and collection practices, policies and proadures. we have nonetheless uken the opportunity recently to reconsider each policy rmd p acedrro m light of our customer's views and views of n:guutcry autbomies. lace you. We canddered cub pmcedrte it terms of the cause and etBecL, short term and long tam. While we reached decisions to.ciu np many of** peoeodrres, man) • w m aim left intact. I o summar= and eon&m the most importmt chanlce which we discussed , our adminimarive late fec will be reduced Man the ettnnent S 1 0.00 fee m a fee of SS.00, a figure bebw the aewal Costs assoemed with the account, adminmatim and eolleWw of late payme d aeco=3L TIM adminittrattve I= fee sill also be charged at the 45 day marls, versus the current 30 day marls. Feather, all billing messages will clearly set fortis the portions of dic bill which are :object to eollectim ac ivities. All of these changes and lax charges are scheduled to go into c(lect on December 1, 1994. In review. Pur billing will be: • Day 0 Billing Cutoff- Bills Produced. • Day 1 -3 Bills Mailed • Day 21-24 Due Dale • Doy 2431 Grace Period • Day 31 BMMS C=ff- Bill Produced - Lete'Notiee Wattling- Ducusulm Warning • Day 44.45 Late Balance Due Darr 3450 Canea Dive ■ SaM Clara. CA 95054 ■ (408) 727 -5295 • FAX (408) 98&3723 . � -i99�4 13iS� a y SMON SW GCE . DIY <S o$ cy►ele Bin Peodoe.a . lame yaa C bwgo - Dismuw-- Wa nb6' Dfy 52 -53 tole bdL DOSDw Day" wo mnymmaDLaooaa D,y 60 CIo:ioe SM SJUMCUt sdwb of amens wwk for ova aw omets- While lame mule $outh Bay s ooh m we f:r *b � w-n not dew 1m)v e cu:mmers am very oomdyto ow eadae fobsttlbv bffe. from profit pfyaN34 wile U the sow thw vkvimft a p ubkm for snY °o° w►h° k*** Ddy Wb behtod to paft tbelc able but. Please contract me if you Lave my quolmn ngmdmLtdm dmr. cc: Alfa lf"N' Bros BOWEL Bum Wood Sherman & Howard L.L.c. Peggy Beming Knight Direct Dial Number: (303) 299 -8140 VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock: ATTORNEYS 8: COUNSELORS AT LAW FIRST INTERSTATE TO W ER NORTH 633 SEVENTEENTH SIRED SUITE 3000 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE: 303 297-2900 FAX 303 298-0940 OFFICES IN: COLORADO SPRINGS RENO • LAS VEGAS December 1, 1995 R E. 111j'r, E'r- � W LE DE-C � r- � D 4 I C.11 1 v: :JC jL,,t% ' "GA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE At the request of Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. dba South Bay Cablevision ( "Brenmor ") and TCI of Cleveland, Inc. ( "TCI- Cleveland "), I am forwarding responses to your questions and requests for additional information on behalf of the City of Saratoga contained in your letter dated November 20, 1995, to Mr. Leo Hindery with respect to the FCC Form 394 filed in connection with the proposed transfer of the cable television system serving the City of Saratoga by Brenmor to TCI - Cleveland. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 299 -8140 or Kathy Hutton on behalf of Brenmor at (415) 616 -4637 if you have any questions. Sincerely, e-gw Peggy Knight PK/mja Enclosure cc w /enc.: (via facsimile) Kathryn A. Hutton, Esq. Ms. Valerie Castellani Ms. Kathi Noe Ms. Patty Conroy Mr. Bob Haehnel H:\ CLIENIIPKNIGH7190500576 \PEACOCKLTR 12/1/95 10:46 am RESPONSES TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Filing of Form 394 and Section 617 of the Cable Act. Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d/b /a South Bay Cablevision ( "Brenmor ") has operated the Saratoga cable system since January 16, 1990, pursuant to the CATV Franchise Assumption Agreement dated December 21, 1989 ( "Assumption Agreement ") between the City of Saratoga and Brenmor in which Brenmor assumed the obligations of the franchise from Hearst Cablevision. The January 16, 1990 date referenced in Brenmor's letter to the City was the closing date of the transaction between Hearst Cablevision and Brenmor. The Assumption Agreement acknowledged that the franchise was due to expire on September 3, 1992. In 1993, the City of Saratoga renewed Brenmor's franchise pursuant to the Franchise Agreement dated September 30, 1993. As presently structured, the sole general partner of Brenmor is Hernandez Communications, Inc. ( "HCI "), and InterMedia Partners ( "IP "), a California limited partnership, is the sole limited partner. In a February 12, 1993 letter to Harry Peacock from David Rozzelle, a former general partner of IP, the City was informed that IP agreed to purchase HCI's interest in Brenmor. Pursuant to the CATV Transfer Agreement dated September 12, 1993, the City granted its consent to the transfer of control of Brenmor from HCI to IP. However, this transfer of control from HCI to IP has not been consummated. A prerequisite to closing the HCl/IP transaction is the consent to the transfer from all of the affected franchising authorities. Brenmor sought and received the required consents from seven of the eight franchising authorities, namely, Newark, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Los Gatos, Saratoga and County of Santa Clara. The City of Santa Clara, however, has not yet consented to the transfer. The City of Santa Clara, which is currently in franchise renewal negotiations with Brenmor, has indicated that it wishes to consider the proposed transfer from HCI to IP, and the subsequent assignment from IP to a subsidiary of Tele- Communications, Inc. ( "TCI "), on a consolidated basis. In sum, Brenmor has continuously owned and operated the Saratoga cable system well over three years, since January 16, 1990. No transfer of control or assignment of the franchise has occurred for more than three years. Part I, Section H - Transferor /Assignor: Item-20): The redactions made to the Asset Exchange Agreement ( "Agreement ") between Brenmor and TCI relate largely to proprietary information regarding price adjustments which are typical in any like -kind exchange transaction, sensitive subscriber penetration information, and rebuild budgets for Brenmor and TCI. The City has correctly noted that FCC Form 394 itself provides the requisite legal authority for redaction of such material. In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 requires that all statements made to a government entity be truthful, and the FCC Form 394 requires both the Transferor and Transferee to certify under penalty of perjury that the Form is complete and accurate. Form 394 also specifically references 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Therefore, the City may be assured that the redacted information falls within the scope of proprietary information which the FCC has determined may be redacted. Part II: Transferee /Assignee: Item 1 and Item 3 and Exhibit #7: TCI of Cleveland, Inc. ( "TCI - Cleveland ") will qualify to do business in California by filing the required certificate for a foreign corporation to transact business in California immediately prior to the closing of the proposed exchange transaction with Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. ( "Brenmor "). There is no legal impediment to TCI - Cleveland's qualification to transact business in California. It is simply a matter of filing the appropriate certificate and paying the requisite filing fee with the California Secretary of State. At the present time, TCI - Cleveland has no need to incur the expense associated with qualifying to do business in California because TCI - Cleveland does not conduct business in California. TCI - Cleveland would be willing to notify the City of Saratoga when it has qualified to transact business in California. TCI - Cleveland has no objection to confirming to the City of Saratoga as of the time of the closing of the proposed exchange transaction with Brenmor in a transfer agreement with the City that TCI - Cleveland is "duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of its state of incorporation and is duly qualified to transact business in the State of California, and has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out the transactions contemplated hereby." Item 2: TCI - Cleveland has certified to the City of Saratoga in the FCC Form 394 filed with the City (Section V, Part II(c)) that it "will use its best efforts to comply with the terms of the franchise and applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations, and to effect changes, as promptly as practicable, in the operation of the system, if any changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing." Section I. Transferee /Assignee's Legal Oualifications: Item 2: Please see the certificate attached as TCI - Cleveland Exhibit 1. Section M. Transferee /Assignee's Financial Oualifications: Item 2: This item requests that the transfereelassignee attach to FCC Form 394 the most recent financial statements, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, including a balance sheet and income statement for at least one full year, for the transferee/assignee or parent entity that has been prepared in the ordinary course of business, if any such financial statements are routinely_ prepared. Transfereelassignee submitted as Exhibit 9 to FCC Form 394 the audited consolidated financial statements for its indirect parent, TCI Communications, Inc. and its "Restricted Subsidiaries," which includes TCI Holdings, Inc., the direct parent company of transferee / assignee. The audited financial statements for TCI Communications, Inc. that are routinely prepared are prepared for the purpose of complying with, and on the basis of accounting practices specified in, certain debt instruments and credit facility agreements. The accounting practices specified in such debt instruments and credit facility agreements differ from generally accepted -2- accounting principles as described in note 1 to the financial statements in that they require that certain subsidiaries of TCI Communications, Inc. are designated as "restricted" subsidiaries and others are designated as "unrestricted" subsidiaries and that the restricted and unrestricted groups be accounted for as unrelated parties. Accordingly, transactions between the restricted group and the unrestricted group have not been eliminated and certain majority -owned subsidiaries are not consolidated as would be required under generally accepted accounting principles. As noted in the auditors' report accompanying the financial statements, however, such financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the assets and liabilities of TCI Communications, Inc. and Restricted Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1994 and 1993, and their revenue and expenses, and their cash flows for the years then ended, on the basis of accounting described in note V as explained above. Section V: Certifications: Part I - Transferor /Assignor: The City asks why Leo J. Hindery, Jr. has signed the Form 394 as "Attorney -in- Fact" for Hernandez Communications, Inc. Please be advised that Ray Hernandez has granted Mr. Hindery a revocable power of attorney which authorizes Mr. Hindery to sign certain documents on Mr. Hernandez's behalf including, but not limited to, the FCC Form 394 submitted to the City of Saratoga. The purpose of the revocable power of attorney is to expedite the processing of day -to -day operating matters. As noted above, the transfer of control from HCI to IP has not yet been consummated since the transfer request is still pending before the City of Santa Clara. Part II - Transferee/Assignee (c): TCI -Cleveland has certified in this portion of the FCC Form 394 to the City of Saratoga that it will comply with all relevant franchise agreements and ordinances. Proposed Resolution Approving the Transfer. TCI - Cleveland would like to have some flexibility to make intercompany transfers in connection with internal restructurings that may be desirable for purposes of operational efficiencies. As mentioned in the FCC Form 394, the proposed transaction involves the transfer of the franchise to TCI - Cleveland for tax reasons. In the future when tax considerations no longer require that TCI- Cleveland continue to hold the franchise, it may be desirable to transfer the cable operations, including the franchise, to another TCI entity more directly involved in cable operations in California, for example TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. If it would be preferable to the City of Saratoga, the language of Section 3 of the resolution could be limited to transfers to any wholly owned subsidiary of TCI Communications, Inc., rather than the broader "controlled affiliate" language included in the proposed resolution that was submitted originally. This would provide TCI - Cleveland with the flexibility it needs to accomplish desirable intercompany restructurings and the City of Saratoga should in no way be prejudiced by any intercompany transfer of the franchise by TCI - Cleveland to another wholly owned subsidiary of TCI Communications, Inc. 2. TCI - Cleveland does not object to the language changes to Section 4 of the resolution proposed by the City of Saratoga. With respect to certification that all prior requirements -3- have been met in a timely fashion, the City will need to discuss the form and content of such a certification with Brenmor. TCI- Cleveland's comments on the changes to Section 5 of the resolution proposed by the City of Saratoga are as follows: Provision (a): Is there some problem with confirming that the franchise was properly granted? Provision (b): The proposed change is acceptable to TCI - Cleveland. Provision (c): This provision was intended to confirm that Brenmor currently is the recognized holder of the franchise. TCI - Cleveland does not object to the change proposed by the City of Saratoga, but if that change is made, provision (c) also should be revised to change "Franchisee" to "TCI- Cleveland." Provision (d): TCI - Cleveland needs to know whether there are acts or omissions of Brenmor of which the City of Saratoga is aware. The City has not proposed to change provision (g) of Section 5 of the resolution. If there are no known material non - compliance issues, this change should not pose a problem for TCI - Cleveland. Provision (e): The proposed change is acceptable to TCI - Cleveland. Provision (fl: The proposed change is acceptable to TCI - Cleveland. Other Issues TCI Cleveland has not prepared any analysis of its proposed methodology with respect to rate regulation matters. All rates established by TCI - Cleveland will be consistent with applicable FCC regulations. H:\ CLIENT IPKNIGH'N0500576\SARATOG2.RR I2/I/95 10:59 am - 4 - -SENT BY;SHERMAN & HOWARD I a claim, be des Inc., have r ;11 -27 -85 ; 3 :05PM Services dean 1�1iSMd :a j OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE The undersigned hereby certifies as of the date hereof that he is the duly 'qualified and Vice President of TCI of Cleveland, Inc. (the " Company "), and in such capacity farther i that, to his knowledge: {i) the Company, its current directors, officers and those persons currently having or equitable interest in 25% or more ofthe Company's voting stock (the "Entities "): (a) have never -been convicted or held liable for acts involving moral turpitude; and (b) have never had a judgment in an action of flaud, deceit or misrepresentation entered against it, her, him or them by any court of competent jurisdiction; and (ii) the Entities do not hxm peoft against it, her, him or them any material legal rwmuit or administrative proceeding arising out of or involving a cable system except as may gibed in the Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended Deoenber 31, 1994 and Form 10-Q for the ended June 30, 1995 of the Company's ultimate parent corporation, Tale- Communications, i0es of which are enclosed as an exhibit to Form 394. ! It should be noted that Tele- Communications, Inc. acquired the Company in r. 1995 and to the extent that this CertWcate applies to p prior to that acquisition, we fled on the entity ftom which we acquired the Company. ")� ii By: N : 'Stepfum :'Step M. Brett Title: Vice Presi ift DaW: December 1: ].995 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 216S-7 MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITF CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAL SUBJECT: Establishment of various parking restrictions Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution establishing various parking restrictions. Report Summary: Attached is a Motor Vehicle Resolution which, if adopted, will formally establish parking restrictions at two locations. The first location is along the north side of Fourth Street downhill from Big Basin Way. Previously there was a yellow (loading) zone at this location, however the loading zone is no longer used. It is necessary to restrict parking in this location because of the narrowness of the street. The second location is along the east side of Paseo Presada between Cox Ave. and Bucknall Rd. across from El Quito Park. The Council approved the elimination of parking at this location at your previous meeting. Adoption of the Motor Vehicle Resolution is necessary to successfully enforce the parking restrictions at both locations. Fiscal Impacts• Roughly $300 for installation of the appropriate signage and curb markings. There may also be a small increase in traffic fine collections over time as parking citations are issued. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: There Resolution would not be adopted and there would be no formal authorization for imposition of the parking restrictions. Eventually, parking citations, if challenged, would be dismissed by the Traffic Court. Follow Up Actions: None. The signs and curb markings have already been installed at both locations. Attachments: 1. Motor Vehicle Resolution. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. (0 S AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1995 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEF T. HEAD: SUBJECT: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Improvements, Capital Project No. 924 - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. Report Summary: All work on the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Improvements (Capital Project No. 924) has been completed by the City's contractor, B &B Concrete Construction, and inspected by Public Works staff. The final construction cost for the project was $434,128.33, which is 11.3% above the awarded contract amount of $390,210. The increased costs were primarily due to 1) additional concrete quantities required for the retaining walls along the west side of the road between Brookwood Ln. and Marion Rd., 2) unanticipated traffic signal modifications at Reid Ln., and 3) unanticipated concrete removal from several of the.median island areas. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts• The ten percent retention funds will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City. 14 Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract and release the contract sureties and retention 30 days thereafter. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Attachments: 1. Contract Summary. 2. Notice of Completion. CONTRACT SUMMARY PROJECT: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Improvements, C.I.P. 924 CONTRACTOR: B & B Concrete Construction CONTRACT DATE: 10/25/94 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 11/10/95 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $390,210.00 CHANGE ORDER INCREASE: $67,166.43 CHANGE ORDER DECREASE: $23,248.10 NET CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT: $43,918.33 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $434,128.33 PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +11.3% SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AND WORK TO THE CONTRACT: 1. ADDITIONAL CONCRETE REMOVAL 2. ADDITIONAL WEDGE CUTTING 3. ADDED UTILITY TRENCHING 4. SIGNAL BOX RELOCATION 5. UPGRADE CHAINLINK FENCE TO WROUGHT IRON FENCE 6. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED TRAFFIC LOOPS 7. ADDITIONAL ROADWAY EXCAVATION AND SITE GRADING 8. ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE BASE 9. ADDITIONAL ASPHALT CONCRETE 10. ADDITIONAL A.C. DIKE 11. ADDITIONAL P.C.C. CURB (TYPE A1-6) 12. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SUMMARY OF REDUCTION OF MATERIALS AND WORK TO THE CONTRACT: 1. REDUCED MEDIAN EXCAVATION 2. REDUCED P.C.C. CURB (TYPE A2 -6) 3. REDUCED STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION 4. REDUCED STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 5. REDUCED P.C.C. GUTTER