LAFCO
Countywide Fire Service Review
Read the report at Santa Clara County Fire Districts ↗
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review
Final Report
Adopted December 15, 2010
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Prepared for
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County
LAFCO Commissioners
Pete Constant
Don Gage
Liz Kniss
Margaret Abe-Koga
Susan Vicklund Wilson
Countywide Fire Protection Service Review
Technical Advisory Committee
Appointed by LAFCO: Pete Constant, LAFCO Commissioner
Appointed by City Managers’ Association: Thomas Haglund, Gilroy City Administrator
Appointed by County Fire Chiefs’ Association:
Dale Foster, Fire Chief, City of Gilroy
Ken Waldvogel, Fire Chief, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Steven Woodill, Fire Chief, South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
LAFCO Staff
Neelima Palacherla, LAFCO Executive Officer
Dunia Noel, LAFCO Analyst
Emmanuel Abello, LAFCO Clerk
Special thanks to Steve Borgstrom, Santa Clara County Planning Office for preparing the maps
included within this report.
The GIS data for the maps was compiled from various sources. While deemed reliable, the
County Planning Office or LAFCO do not assume liability.
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Countywide Service Review Determinations..................................................................... 3
1.4 Focus Issues, Efficiencies and Economies ........................................................................... 7
2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Purposes of the Report ......................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Project Approach and Methodology ................................................................................. 14
2.4 Financial Environment ........................................................................................................ 16
3 Fire and Emergency Services System Overview ..................................................................... 19
3.1 Emergency Medical .............................................................................................................. 22
3.2 Fire Suppression ................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Mutual and Automatic Aid ................................................................................................. 27
3.4 Hazardous Materials Response .......................................................................................... 28
3.5 Fire Prevention ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.6 Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................... 29
3.7 Training .................................................................................................................................. 29
3.8 Communications ................................................................................................................... 29
4 Agency Profiles .............................................................................................................................. 33
4.1 City of Gilroy Fire Department .......................................................................................... 33
4.2 Los Altos Hills County Fire District ................................................................................... 42
4.3 City of Milpitas Fire Department ....................................................................................... 46
4.4 City of Mountain View Fire Department .......................................................................... 54
4.5 City of Palo Alto Fire Department ..................................................................................... 62
4.6 City of San José Fire Department ....................................................................................... 70
4.7 City of Santa Clara Fire Department ................................................................................. 79
4.8 Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ....................................................... 87
iii
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
4.9 South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District .......................................................... 99
4.10 Saratoga Fire Protection District ....................................................................................... 109
4.11 City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department ................................................................. 112
4.12 CAL FIRE and Volunteer Fire Companies ...................................................................... 120
5 Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities .............................................................. 121
5.1 Volunteer Companies and Underserved Areas ............................................................. 121
5.2 Service Delivery Options for the South County Region ............................................... 125
5.3 Fire Districts Contracting for Service with Another Fire District ................................ 129
5.4 Communications ................................................................................................................. 132
5.5 Consolidation of Stations and Apparatus ....................................................................... 134
5.6 Competitive Service Contracting ..................................................................................... 135
5.7 Strategic Paramedic Placement......................................................................................... 142
5.8 Fire Suppression Training ................................................................................................. 143
5.9 Prevention ............................................................................................................................ 144
5.10 Apparatus Maintenance .................................................................................................... 144
5.11 Apparatus Purchasing ....................................................................................................... 144
5.12 Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................. 145
5.13 Other Service Delivery Methods ...................................................................................... 145
6 Service Review Determinations ............................................................................................... 148
6.1 Service Review Determination Criteria ........................................................................... 148
6.2 City of Gilroy Fire Department ........................................................................................ 150
6.3 Los Altos Hills County Fire District ................................................................................. 152
6.4 City of Milpitas Fire Department ..................................................................................... 154
6.5 City of Mountain View Fire Department ........................................................................ 156
6.6 City of Palo Alto Fire Department ................................................................................... 158
6.7 City of San José Fire Department ..................................................................................... 160
6.8 City of Santa Clara Fire Department ............................................................................... 162
6.9 Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ..................................................... 164
6.10 South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District ........................................................ 167
6.11 Saratoga Fire Protection District ....................................................................................... 170
6.12 City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department ................................................................. 171
7 Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations ............................................ 174
7.1 Los Altos Hills County Fire District ................................................................................. 174
7.2 Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ..................................................... 177
7.3 South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District ........................................................ 182
iv
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
7.4 Saratoga Fire Protection District ....................................................................................... 185
8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 188
Attachment A: Definitions and Acronyms ....................................................................................... 190
Attachment B: Interviews .................................................................................................................... 194
Attachment C: Fire Agency Information .......................................................................................... 197
Gilroy Fire Department Detail .................................................................................................... 197
Milpitas Fire Department Detail ................................................................................................ 203
Mountain View Fire Department Detail ................................................................................... 206
Palo Alto Fire Department Detail .............................................................................................. 210
San José Fire Department Detail ................................................................................................ 216
Santa Clara Fire Department Detail ........................................................................................... 231
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Detail.................................................... 237
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Detail ...................................................... 250
Sunnyvale Public Safety Department Detail ............................................................................ 255
Attachment D – Apparatus and Calls for Service by Station ....................................................... 259
Tables
Table 1: Responsible Jurisdictions and Fire and Emergency Service Providers ................ 19
Table 2: Public Fire Service Providers in Santa Clara County ............................................... 21
Table 3: Volunteer Fire Companies in Santa Clara County ................................................... 22
Table 4: EMS Response Standards for Code 3 Calls ................................................................ 24
Table 5: Fire and Emergency Medical Service Communications Protocols ........................ 30
Table 6: Expenditures by Function .............................................................................................. 34
Table 7: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................... 35
Table 8: Gilroy Fire Department Staffing .................................................................................. 36
Table 9: Labor Agreements ........................................................................................................... 36
Table 10: Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 36
Table 11: Apparatus ......................................................................................................................... 37
Table 12: Mutual and Automatic Aid for 2009 ............................................................................ 38
Table 13: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ......................................................... 39
Table 14: Expenditures by Function .............................................................................................. 43
Table 15: Revenues ........................................................................................................................... 43
Table 16: Expenditures By Function ............................................................................................. 47
Table 17: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................... 47
v
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
Table 18: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 48
Table 19: Labor Agreements ........................................................................................................... 48
Table 20: Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 48
Table 21: Apparatus ......................................................................................................................... 49
Table 22: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 .............................................................................. 50
Table 23: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ......................................................... 51
Table 24: Expenditures by Function .............................................................................................. 55
Table 25: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................... 55
Table 26: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 56
Table 27: Labor Agreements ........................................................................................................... 56
Table 28: Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 56
Table 29: Apparatus ......................................................................................................................... 57
Table 30: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 .............................................................................. 58
Table 31: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ......................................................... 59
Table 32: Expenditures by Function .............................................................................................. 63
Table 33: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................... 63
Table 34: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 64
Table 35: Labor Agreements ........................................................................................................... 64
Table 36: Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 64
Table 37: Apparatus ......................................................................................................................... 65
Table 38: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 .............................................................................. 66
Table 39: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ......................................................... 67
Table 40: Expenditures by Function .............................................................................................. 71
Table 41: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................... 71
Table 42: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 72
Table 43: Labor Agreements ........................................................................................................... 72
Table 44: Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 72
Table 45: Apparatus ......................................................................................................................... 73
Table 46: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 .............................................................................. 74
Table 47: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ......................................................... 74
Table 48: Expenditures by Function .............................................................................................. 80
Table 49: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................... 80
Table 50: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 81
Table 51: Labor Agreements ........................................................................................................... 81
Table 52: Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 81
vi
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
Table 53: Apparatus ......................................................................................................................... 82
Table 54: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 .............................................................................. 83
Table 55: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ......................................................... 84
Table 56: Expenditures by Function .............................................................................................. 88
Table 57: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................... 89
Table 58: Revenues ........................................................................................................................... 89
Table 59: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 90
Table 60: Labor Agreements ........................................................................................................... 90
Table 61: Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 90
Table 62: Apparatus ......................................................................................................................... 91
Table 63: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 .............................................................................. 93
Table 64: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ......................................................... 93
Table 65: Expenditures by Function ............................................................................................ 100
Table 66: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................. 101
Table 67: Revenues ......................................................................................................................... 101
Table 68: Staffing ............................................................................................................................ 102
Table 69: Labor Agreements ......................................................................................................... 102
Table 70: Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 102
Table 71: Apparatus ....................................................................................................................... 103
Table 72: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 ............................................................................ 104
Table 73: Response Standards and Performance for 2009 ....................................................... 105
Table 74: Expenditures .................................................................................................................. 109
Table 75: Revenues ......................................................................................................................... 110
Table 76: Expenditures by Function ............................................................................................ 113
Table 77: Expenditures by Type .................................................................................................. 113
Table 78: Staffing ............................................................................................................................ 114
Table 79: Labor Agreements ......................................................................................................... 114
Table 80: Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 114
Table 81: Apparatus ....................................................................................................................... 115
Table 82: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009 ............................................................................ 116
Table 83: Response Standards and Performance in 2009 ........................................................ 117
Table 84: Cost Factors for Provider Agencies in South County ............................................. 128
Table 85: Fire Department Communication Band and Frequency ........................................ 132
Table 86: Cost Factors for Provider Agencies ............................................................................ 139
Table 87: Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 190
vii
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
Table 88: Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 191
Figures
Figure 1: Santa Clara County Unemployment Rate from 1990 To 2010 ................................. 16
Figure 2: San José-Santa Clara-Sunnyvale Area Local Market Report .................................. 17
Figure 3: Santa Clara County Emergency Medical Calls: 2005, 2007 and 2009 ..................... 23
Figure 4: 2009ALS Performance by Jurisdiction* ....................................................................... 25
Figure 5: Gilroy Fire Department Organization Chart ............................................................. 34
Figure 6: Calls for Service in 2009 ................................................................................................. 38
Figure 7: Projected Population City of Gilroy 2000 to 2035 ..................................................... 39
Figure 8: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................. 40
Figure 9: Staffing from 2007-08 to 2010-11 ................................................................................... 40
Figure 10: City of Gilroy Boundary and Station Map ................................................................. 41
Figure 11: Los Altos Hills County Fire District Organization Chart ........................................ 42
Figure 12: Projected Population for Los Altos Hills County Fire District 2000-2035 ............ 44
Figure 13: Los Altos Hills Fire District Boundary and Station Map ........................................ 45
Figure 14: City of Milpitas Fire Department Organization Chart ............................................ 46
Figure 15: Calls for Service for 2009 ............................................................................................... 50
Figure 16: Projected Population City of Milpitas 2000 to 2035 .................................................. 51
Figure 17: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................. 52
Figure 18: Staffing 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................................................. 52
Figure 19: City of Milpitas Fire Department Boundary and Station Map .............................. 53
Figure 20: Mountain View Fire Department Organization Chart ............................................ 54
Figure 21: Calls for Service in 2009 ................................................................................................. 58
Figure 22: Projected Population City of Mountain View 2000 to 2035 .................................... 59
Figure 23: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................. 60
Figure 24: Staffing 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................................................. 60
Figure 25: City of Mountain View Fire Department Boundary and Station Map ................. 61
Figure 26: Fire Department Organization Chart .......................................................................... 62
Figure 27: Calls for Service in 2009 ................................................................................................. 66
Figure 28: Projected Population City of Palo Alto 2000 to 2035 ................................................ 67
Figure 29: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................. 68
Figure 30: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 68
viii
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
Figure 31: City of Palo Alto Boundary and Station Map ............................................................ 69
Figure 32: San José Fire Department Organization Chart .......................................................... 70
Figure 33: Calls for Service in 2009 ................................................................................................. 73
Figure 34: Projected Population City of San José 2000 to 2035 .................................................. 75
Figure 35: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................. 75
Figure 36: Staffing 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................................................. 76
Figure 37: City of San José Boundary and Station Map ............................................................. 77
Figure 38: City of Santa Clara Fire Department Organization Chart ....................................... 79
Figure 39: Calls for Service in 2009 ................................................................................................. 83
Figure 40: Projected Population City of Santa Clara 2000 to 2035 ............................................ 84
Figure 41: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11 ............................................................. 85
Figure 42: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 85
Figure 43: City of Santa Clara Boundary and Station Map ........................................................ 86
Figure 44: Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Organization Chart ............ 88
Figure 45: Calls for Service in 2009 ................................................................................................. 92
Figure 46: Projected Population Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District 2000
and 2035 ............................................................................................................................ 95
Figure 47: Expenditures and Revenues 2007-08 to 2010-11 ......................................................... 96
Figure 48: Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 49: CCFD Boundary and Station Map ............................................................................... 97
Figure 50: South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Organization Chart ............. 100
Figure 51: Calls for Service in 2009 ............................................................................................... 104
Figure 52: Projected Population South Santa Clara County 2000 to 2035 .............................. 105
Figure 53: Expenditures and Revenues 2007-08 to 2010-11 ....................................................... 106
Figure 54: Staffing ............................................................................................................................ 106
Figure 55: SCFD Boundary and Station Map ............................................................................. 107
Figure 56: Saratoga Fire Protection Organizational Chart ....................................................... 109
Figure 57: Projected Population City of Saratoga 2000 to 2035 ................................................ 110
Figure 58: Saratoga Fire District Boundary and Station Map .................................................. 111
Figure 59: Sunnyvale Public Safety Department/Fire Division Organization ..................... 112
Figure 60: Calls for Service in 2009 ............................................................................................... 116
Figure 61: Projected Population City of Sunnyvale 2000 to 2035 ............................................ 117
Figure 62: Expenditures 2007-08 to 2010-11 ................................................................................. 118
Figure 63: Staffing ............................................................................................................................ 118
Figure 64: City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department Boundary and Station Map ....... 119
ix
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Table of Contents
Figure 65: Operating Cost per Capita ........................................................................................... 141
Source: Agency reported financial information and ABAG population data ........................... 141
Figure 66: Operating Cost per Three Person Company Equivalent ....................................... 141
Figure 67: Operating Cost per Sworn Operating Personnel* .................................................. 142
Figure 68: Recommendation for LAHFD SOI Amendment ..................................................... 175
Figure 69: Recommendation for CCFD SOI Amendment ........................................................ 179
x
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Background
In accordance with Government Code Section 56425, Local Agency Formation
Commissions (LAFCO) must conduct periodic reviews of services prior to or in
conjunction with the mandated 5-year schedule for updating spheres of influence
for agencies under its jurisdiction. The service review must include an analysis of
the service issues and written determinations in each of the following categories:
Growth and population projections for the affected area;
Present and planned capacity of infrastructure and adequacy of public
services;
Financial ability of the agency to provide services;
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities;
Accountability for community services, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies; and
Any other matter affecting or related to efficient service delivery, as
required by Commission policy.
In addition to required determinations, LAFCO identified the following areas for
focused review:
Funding and providing fire and rescue services to the underserved areas
of the County;
Issues regarding one fire district contracting with another fire district for
service;
The potential for regional service delivery models for the South County
region;
Best practices for the definition of roles, status, and oversight for
volunteer fire protection companies in the County;
An assessment of the opportunities to derive efficiencies from changes in
governmental structure and other operational improvements for each
service provider.
The 2010 service review was conducted during a time of unprecedented financial
challenge for local governments in California. This dynamic created strong
Management Partners, Inc. 1
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
interest among cities and special districts to find ways to maintain services at
reduced costs.
Management Partners reviewed pertinent information regarding each fire and
emergency service provider in the County and conducted interviews with a
broad cross-section of stakeholders. This information was analyzed and used as
the basis for making the required determinations and to report on the focus
review areas.
Gathering and verifying department information was complicated by different
information gathering and reporting practices, different terminologies used to
describe similar apparatus and a decision to update financial information after
initial data collection. LAFCO and Management Partners acknowledge and
appreciate the cooperation and patience received from all participating agencies
to gather and validate the information contained in this municipal service
review.
1.2 Overview
The delivery of fire and emergency services in Santa Clara County is complex. Of
the approximately 1,857,600 residents in the County, about 1,763,700 reside in
one of the 15 incorporated cities and 93,900 reside in unincorporated areas. The
County is 1,315 square miles in size. Between cities and districts, there are 14
jurisdictions that have assumed responsibility for providing fire and emergency
services. A large geographic area with a small population in the unincorporated
area is not served by a public fire district beyond the CAL FIRE State
Responsibility Area (SRA) lands during fire season. Some cities provide their
own fire and emergency medical services, some cities are included in fire
districts, and some contract for services with other providers. As a result of this
complex service delivery system, the cities and the unincorporated areas in the
County are served by nine provider agencies:
Gilroy Fire Department
Milpitas Fire Department
Mountain View Fire Department
Palo Alto Fire Department
San José Fire Department
Santa Clara Fire Department
Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District - CCFD (serving the
cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Campbell, Morgan Hill, Los
Altos, part of Saratoga, the Saratoga Fire Protection District, the Los Altos
Hills County Fire District and unincorporated areas)
Management Partners, Inc. 2
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD), through a
contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE), serving unincorporated lands in the south part of the county.
Five volunteer fire companies (VFC) provide limited service to some
unincorporated communities and CAL FIRE provides service to unincorporated
areas under state responsibility. A contractor to the federal government provides
fire and emergency services at Moffett Field.
The predominant activity of fire agencies is providing first responder emergency
medical service as part of the County’s emergency medical system (EMS). Under
state law the County is responsible for the EMS system. The one exception in
Santa Clara County is the City of Palo Alto, which provided EMS service prior to
the law granting authority to the County. The County has an exclusive contract
with American Medical Response (AMR), a private company, to provide ALS
service. AMR has contracted with all fire departments with the exception of
Sunnyvale f to provide the initial ALS response to medical emergencies. AMR
provides additional ALS response and ambulance transport to trauma centers
and hospitals with their staff. In Sunnyvale, the Department of Public Safety
provides BLS emergency medical response; ALS is provided by AMR.
Fire suppression remains a critical function of the fire departments as they
respond to structure, brush, automobile and other fires to protect life and
property. Fire prevention, public education, hazardous materials response
(Hazmat), fire fighter training and emergency preparedness are other core
responsibilities.
Radio communication is an essential part of fire and emergency services
delivery. Communication responsibilities are highly decentralized in Santa Clara
County, with 14 agencies having various responsibilities and with fire and EMS
communications taking place on four different radio bands/frequencies.
1.3 Countywide Service Review Determinations
Criteria were established to assess each agency in the determination categories
required by state law. In order to provide a broad overview of the current status
of fire and emergency medical response service in Santa Clara County, the
following is a countywide summary of the information used in making the
determinations for each agency.
Growth and Population Projections for the Affected Area
Countywide population growth of 33% is projected for the period from
2010 to 2035. This is an annualized growth rate of 1.32%.
Management Partners, Inc. 3
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
The central and southern parts of the County are projected to experience
the greatest population growth (40% and 34%, respectively over a 25 year
period).
Population growth of 23% over 25 years is projected for the northern part
of the County and virtually no growth is projected for the west valley.
The 25-year projections are beyond the planning horizon of most cities’
General Plans.
County land use policies support limited development and encourage
development within city boundaries.
Conclusion
Given the moderate annualized growth rate and existing municipal and
county land use policies, projected population growth should be
absorbed with prudent land use and transportation planning.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public
Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies
There are 90 stations ranging from poor to excellent condition. Most are
in good, serviceable condition.
Plans for new stations in Gilroy and San José are dependent upon
population growth and service demand as well as annexation.
There are 86 pumper engines, 23 aerials/trucks and 8 rescue units, and 10
fire department medic units/ambulances and 7 pieces of specialized
apparatus staffed on a daily basis.
Most agencies have apparatus on a 20-year replacement schedule, serving
15 years on the line and five years in reserve. All apparatus are within the
stated replacement schedule for the agencies.
Agencies maintain different response standards for non-medical
emergency calls. Generally these are met.
All agencies consistently exceed the County EMS agency’s established
standard of responding to medical emergency calls within the time set,
given the nature of the call, 90% of the time. Performance in 2009 ranged
from 94.98% to 98.98%.
A Countywide mutual aid agreement is in place and adjoining agencies
have automatic aid agreements.
County EMS is in the process of awarding a new ten-year contract that
will essentially keep the current EMS response standards.
With the new EMS contract, public fire agencies will be direct contractors
with the County for ALS service, rather than subcontractors to the private
transport provider.
Management Partners, Inc. 4
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
Mutual/automatic aid is significant in the south County region; the three
agencies serving that area are dependent on each other to maintain
adequate response times.
The fragmented communications system in the County is a significant
barrier to improving service delivery and achieving potential cost
savings. The interoperability task force is attempting to improve the
system as much as possible, short of consolidation.
Conclusion
If current infrastructure is properly maintained and planned, new
infrastructure is constructed to serve new development, and if
departments continue current apparatus replacement funding,
infrastructure and response capacity appears sufficient to accommodate
projected population growth and sustain existing response standards.
Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services
The financial condition of fire and EMS provider agencies has eroded in
recent years due to decreases in revenue brought on by the Great
Recession and employee compensation and pension costs that have
increased at a greater rate than revenue and inflation.
Fire districts have had greater financial stability than cities due to a
revenue base largely comprised of property tax.
The general consensus among economists and government agencies is
that recovery from the recession will be slow. Cities and fire districts
should not expect to return to pre-recession funding capacity for several
years.
In response to fewer financial resources, some fire and EMS departments
have reduced staffing and budgets. In most cases, these reductions have
been accommodated without closing stations or permanently taking
apparatus out of service; there are exceptions in some communities.
Generally, response standards have been maintained. Training budgets
and programs have been reduced in most departments.
Most municipal departments anticipate further budget reductions.
Most cities have replacement funds to ensure apparatus replacement in
accordance with an established schedule.
None of the agencies in the County have developed plans for ballot
measures to increase revenue for fire and EMS services.
Fire and EMS providers have different cost structures resulting largely
from staffing patterns and compensation policies.
Management Partners, Inc. 5
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
Conclusion
Cities and fire districts will continue to operate in a financially
constrained environment for the next several years. To maintain adequate
fire and EMS services, agencies will need to make better use of existing
resources, individually and collectively, and seek additional non-tax
revenue. Some jurisdictions may be able to provide service at a lower cost
by changing providers; others may be able to lower cost by changing
their cost structure. Some jurisdictions may need to pursue voter
approval for new revenue.
Status of and Opportunities for Shared Facilities
Communications/dispatch is fragmented throughout the County. A
single countywide communications system or fewer sub-county systems
would improve overall efficiency and emergency response. To achieve
savings through consolidation, police dispatch will need to be included
and an up-front investment in communications technology is also
required.
Duplication of effort and staff exists in agencies in the areas of training,
apparatus maintenance, prevention activities and communications.
Redundancies may exist in stations and apparatus both within and
between communities.
Conclusion
There are significant opportunities for Santa Clara County’s fire and EMS
agencies to share facilities and services. Implementing these opportunities
will allow fire and emergency medical services to be delivered in a more
effective and economical manner while helping to avoid the need for
overall service reductions.
Accountability for Community Service Needs, including Governmental
Structure and Operational Efficiencies
Fourteen agencies in Santa Clara County are responsible for providing
fire and EMS services: ten cities, three dependent fire districts and one
independent fire district.
Nine agencies directly provide fire and EMS; seven are municipal
departments, one is a dependent fire district and one is CAL FIRE. Three
cities and three districts contract for service.
The southern portion of the County is served by three providers: Gilroy,
CCFD and CAL FIRE. These providers are dependent on mutual and
automatic aid to meet established response standards. The cities of
Morgan Hill, Gilroy and Santa Clara County (as the governing entity for
Management Partners, Inc. 6
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
CCFD and SCFD) have established a working group to advance
regionalization of fire and EMS services. The goals of the working group
are to maintain service levels and reduce and contain service costs.
Information regarding governance, meetings, finances and department
information is readily available from municipal departments. Information
from fire districts is more difficult to access.
Conclusion
The fragmentation of service between multiple providers and contractors
can create confusion for the public regarding which government entity is
responsible for fire and EMS. This fragmentation makes it more difficult
for agencies to take advantage of opportunities to share facilities and
services. The number of providers, each requiring a management and
support structure, results in duplication and redundancies that cost more
than a consolidated or shared structure. Public access to fire district
governance and financial information would be improved by changes to
fire district websites.
1.4 Focus Issues, Efficiencies and Economies
1.4.1 Underserved Areas and Volunteer Companies
Of the 1,315 square miles in Santa Clara County, 627 are unincorporated and not
protected by a legal fire protection district. The area has a population of less than
7,000 individuals. Fire and EMS are currently provided to these areas by one of
the five volunteer fire companies and by adjacent fire departments. AMR
provides ambulance transport.
Given the distance of travel from adjacent public fire departments, response time
is generally very long. The response to calls by public fire departments to these
areas has two negative impacts on the departments: apparatus included in local
deployment plans are out of service and the agencies incur expenses that are not
reimbursed. Budgets are extremely limited for the five volunteer organizations.
The most cost-effective approach to dealing with this issue is to increase the
capabilities of the volunteer companies, thus reducing their dependency on
adjacent fire departments. Formation of a county service area (CSA)
incorporating all areas not currently served by a public fire/EMS provider would
provide the legal structure to raise revenue to improve the capacity of volunteer
companies and provide some reimbursement to responding agencies.
Management Partners, Inc. 7
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
1.4.2 Service Delivery Options for the South County Region
The cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and adjacent unincorporated areas
constitute the “south County” region. Three fire and emergency services
departments currently serve different parts of this area:
1. CCFD serves the City of Morgan Hill by contract.
2. The Gilroy Fire Department serves the City of Gilroy.
3. SCFD serves unincorporated areas in the region through a contract with
CAL FIRE.
The three agencies are dependent on mutual and automatic aid to provide
appropriate response to the combined service area. A working group of city
management, county management and management from the three fire
departments has been created, with the goal of moving to a regional approach to
fire and EMS. The working group has initiated a shared battalion chief pilot
program and is evaluating options for a fully-integrated regional approach.
1.4.3 Fire Districts Contracting for Service with another Fire District
The Saratoga and Los Altos Hills fire districts both contract with the CCFD for
service. Annexation of the Saratoga and Los Altos Hills fire districts to the CCFD
would result in reduced administrative costs and would make accountability for
service more transparent. By continuing their status as separate districts,
residents have greater certainty about the ability to provide supplementary
services and maintain choice for contracting with alternative service providers.
Representatives of both districts expressed their interest in remaining
independent.
Meeting notification practices of the districts meet the minimum requirements of
state law. The lack of important financial and governance information on their
websites makes it difficult for district residents to become informed about the
finances and activities of the districts.
1.4.4 Communications
Fourteen public safety answering points (PSAPs) are involved in dispatching fire
apparatus. The 14 agencies operate on four radio bands and frequencies. This
fragmentation is a significant barrier for achieving efficiencies and improving the
overall effectiveness of the fire/EMS system. Consolidation of fire
communications would most likely increase costs for those agencies that
maintain communications units responsible for police dispatch. Consolidating all
public safety dispatch could yield significant savings. Recognizing the
shortcomings of the current system and the difficulty of consolidation, the Silicon
Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA), a joint powers authority
Management Partners, Inc. 8
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
(JPA) consisting of all public safety agencies in the County, is working to
“virtually” consolidate communication systems.
1.4.5 Competitive Service Contracting
Certain jurisdictions that are responsible for fire and EMS fulfill this
responsibility by contracting with another agency for service delivery. The cities
of Los Altos, Campbell and Morgan Hill and the Saratoga and Los Altos Hills
Districts contract for service with the CCFD. The SCFD contracts with CAL FIRE.
Municipalities providing services directly have the ability to contract with
another agency. As service providers have different cost structures, contracting
could result in lower costs for some agencies.
1.4.6 Strategic Paramedic Placement
With the exceptions of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, the practice of all agencies is
to have at least one firefighter/paramedic on each engine. As response times are
consistently above the 90% County EMS standard (95% to 98% for all agencies) it
may be possible to meet the County EMS first-responder standard at lower cost
with fewer paramedics strategically placed throughout the County. A
countywide study of paramedic placement necessary to meet the EMS response
standards would identify whether this approach could reduce service costs.
1.4.7 Training
Each agency provides training for its personnel. The amount of resources
devoted to training and the adequacy of training facilities varies among agencies.
Some agencies have had to reduce training programs and budgets because of
financial conditions, which has resulted in some agencies providing only
mandated training. Multi-agency training facilities and shared training staff
could allow dollars to go further and improve personnel capacity on a
countywide basis. Joint training would improve overall response effectiveness.
1.4.8 Prevention
All fire departments provide fire prevention services including new construction
plan check and inspection, mandated building inspections and arson
investigation. CCFD provides new construction services in all unincorporated
areas of the County. Maintaining several fire prevention bureaus results in
duplication of management and support costs. Savings could be achieved by
integrating prevention activities into fewer administrative units.
1.4.9 Apparatus Maintenance
All nine providers have apparatus maintained by an in-house unit. Maintenance
of fire apparatus is specialized, requiring certified fire mechanics. Developing
Management Partners, Inc. 9
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Executive Summary
shared apparatus maintenance facilities could produce some economies of scale
and savings for participating departments.
1.4.10 Apparatus Purchasing
Each department generally develops specifications for their apparatus and each
unit is custom-manufactured. With engines costing from $500,000 to $750,000
each, the opportunity for multiple agencies to develop a common apparatus
specification and competitively bid uniform vehicles offers the potential for
significant savings. Development of a common apparatus fleet over time would
help facilitate a shared maintenance function, generate savings through the
standardization of parts, and facilitate improved coordination of multiple
departments at large-scale incidents.
1.4.11 Consolidation of Stations and Apparatus
In some cases, stations and engine companies are located in close enough
proximity that they could be combined and, with fewer apparatus, be capable of
meeting response standards to all areas. This would result in savings to the
affected agencies. A broad overview of stations and apparatus has identified
station pairings where consolidation may be feasible.
1.4.12 Other Service Delivery Changes
Public agencies are increasingly implementing alternatives to the traditional
models of service delivery out of financial necessity. The most significant
opportunity for financial savings and improved service is the consolidation of all
public safety communications. In addition to those summarized above, other
opportunities include: combining multiple departments into a single department;
sharing battalion chiefs or command staffs; boundary drops; and alternative shift
schedules and apparatus deployment plans.
Management Partners, Inc. 10
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
2 Background
2.1 Introduction
The mandate for LAFCOs to conduct service reviews is part of the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), California
Government Code §56000 et seq. LAFCOs are required to conduct service
reviews prior to or in conjunction with sphere of influence updates and are
required to review and update the sphere of influence for each city and special
district as necessary, but not less than once every five years. LAFCO of Santa
Clara County completed and adopted its first round of service reviews and
sphere of influence updates prior to January 1, 2008, as required by state law.
LAFCO must complete its next round of required service review and sphere of
influence updates for all cities and special districts prior to January 1, 2013.
LAFCO of Santa Clara County is responsible for establishing, reviewing and
updating spheres of influence for 44 public agencies in Santa Clara County (15
cities and 29 special districts). LAFCO’s service reviews work plan calls for the
completion of four studies over the next three calendar years. The first priority, a
review of countywide fire protection service in Santa Clara County and sphere of
influence updates for fire districts, is the subject of this report.
The Countywide Fire Protection Service Review Report provides an overview of
fire protection and emergency medical services in the County along with profiles
of each agency/department that provides fire protection and emergency medical
services in the County, evaluates the provision of these services, and identifies
alternative models that may result in more efficient service delivery. The report
does not make any specific recommendations with regard to the alternatives
proposed. Further research and analysis will be required to evaluate the
feasibility of each of the alternatives. The report includes service review
determinations for each service provider as required by statute, and sphere of
influence recommendations and determinations for each of the four fire districts.
Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence Updates
Service reviews are intended to serve as a tool to help LAFCO, the public and
other agencies better understand the public service structure and to develop
Management Partners, Inc. 11
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
information to update the spheres of influence of special districts and cities in the
County. Government Code Section 56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a service
review and adopt a written statement of determination for each of the following
categories:
Growth and population projections for the affected area.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental
structure and operational efficiencies.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as
required by commission policy.
State law defines “sphere of influence” (SOI) as the probable physical boundaries
and service area of a local agency. In Santa Clara County, this definition is
relevant for special districts; however, for cities, the inclusion of an area within a
city’s SOI should not necessarily be seen as an indication that the city will either
annex or allow urban development and services in the areas. The urban service
area is the more critical boundary considered by LAFCO for the cities, and serves
as the primary means of indicating whether an area will be annexed to a city and
provided with urban services.
Government Code Section 56425 requires LAFCO, when determining the sphere
of influence of each local agency, to prepare and adopt a written statement of
determinations regarding the following considerations:
1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and
open-space lands; growth and population projections for the affected
area.
2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the
area.
3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services
that the agency provides or is authorized to provide.
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the
area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency;
status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.
5. The nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services
provided by existing districts.
Management Partners, Inc. 12
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
2.2 Purposes of the Report
To Update Spheres of Influence
LAFCO will use this report as a basis to update the spheres of influence of the
four fire districts. With regard to the cities’ spheres of influence, LAFCO will use
information from this report along with the information gathered in subsequent
service reviews to update the spheres of influence of cities.
To Initiate or Consider Jurisdictional Boundary Changes
The Report contains a discussion of various alternative government structures
for efficient service provision. LAFCO is not required to initiate any boundary
changes based on service reviews. However, LAFCO, other local agencies
(including cities, special districts or the County) or the public may subsequently
use this report together with additional research and analysis, where necessary,
to pursue changes in jurisdictional boundaries. Government Code Section
56375(a) gives LAFCO the power to initiate certain types of boundary changes
consistent with a service review and sphere of influence study. These boundary
changes include:
Consolidation of districts (joining two or more districts into a single new
successor district);
Dissolution (termination of the existence of a district and its corporate
powers);
Merger (termination of the existence of a district by the merger of that
district with a city);
Establishment of a subsidiary district (where the city council is
designated as the board of directors of the district); or
A reorganization that includes any of the above.
Any local agency (cities, special districts or the County) which contains, or would
contain, or whose sphere of influence contains, any territory within the proposal
to be reviewed by LAFCO may apply to LAFCO for a boundary change with a
resolution adopted by its legislative body. Registered voters within the proposal
area or property owners owning property within the proposal area may petition
LAFCO for a boundary change. The following boundary changes in addition to
those listed above may be proposed to LAFCO:
Formation of a new district/city;
Annexation or detachment to/from a city/district; or
A reorganization that includes any of the above.
Management Partners, Inc. 13
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
To Consider Other Types of LAFCO Applications
LAFCO may also use the information presented in the service reviews in
reviewing future proposals for annexations or extensions of services beyond an
agency’s jurisdictional boundaries or for proposals seeking amendment of urban
service area boundaries of cities or sphere of influence boundaries of districts.
Resource for Further Studies
Other entities and the public may use this report as a foundation for further
studies and analysis of issues relating to fire protection and emergency medical
services in this County.
2.3 Project Approach and Methodology
Management Partners used standard analytical tools and practices to gather and
analyze information for the fire service review.
2.3.1 Information Gathering
The following information was gathered from all municipal fire departments and
fire districts:
1. Governance and Organization
2. Financial
3. Staffing
4. Calls for Service
5. Response Standards and Performance
6. Mutual/Automatic aid
7. Labor Agreements
8. Compensation information
9. Station information
10. Apparatus information
A dedicated area to allow departments to upload requested information was
established through Management Partners’ SharePoint site. The information was
then put into a standard format and sent to the fire departments for verification.
EMS performance response data were obtained from the County EMS agency.
Information regarding communications interoperability was provided by the
County of Santa Clara Communications Department (County Comm.).
Population information and projections, developed by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG), were obtained through the County of Santa Clara
Planning Department.
Management Partners, Inc. 14
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
2.3.2 Gathering information for the review was complicated
Departments have their own practices regarding what information is tracked and
how it is reported. This inherently results in some inconsistencies. After initial
data collection, a decision was made to re-gather information based on the 2010-
11 budgets for each department. This resulted in numerous changes. The budget,
staffing and apparatus data reflect the 2010-11 fiscal year. Call information is for
calendar year 2009.
Interviews were conducted with a number of stakeholders, including:
Chiefs and other chief officers from all providers’ fire departments
Representatives from four of the volunteer fire companies – Casa Loma,
Stevens Creek, Spring Valley and Ormsby
Staff from the County Office of Emergency Medical Services
Staff from the County Communications Division
Office of Emergency Services staff
The County Counsel’s Office
Staff from fire departments in other counties
The interviews were focused on developing a broad understanding of the
operation of each department, the overall countywide fire and emergency
services system and identifying opportunities for efficiencies and economies.
Attachment B lists the individuals interviewed during the engagement.
2.3.3 Development of Determination Criteria
Preliminary criteria to be used in making the determinations required under the
laws governing service reviews were developed. These criteria were presented to
the LAFCO staff and Technical Advisory Committee for review and comment.
2.3.4 Data Analysis and Service Review Determinations
Information gathered from the agencies and the interviews was analyzed and
applied to the determination criteria to make the required determinations for
each agency and reach conclusion about the focus issues identified in the RFP.
This is a complex service review, involving more than a dozen agencies reporting
financial and call response information data from different financial and
management information systems. Agencies responded to information requests
in varying levels of detail.
Different budgeting practices, service program structures and categorization of
service calls and responses make precise assessment and comparison impossible
in the scope of the assignment. For example: some fire agencies include the
move-ups of apparatus to cover for a responding apparatus in their response
Management Partners, Inc. 15
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
statistics while others do not; the cost structure of fire districts is different from
that of municipal departments, as the full cost of general management and
administrative support functions may not be included in municipal department
budgets; some agencies track response time from the time of a 911 call to arrival
at the incident, others measure only unit travel time. Reasonable efforts were
taken to obtain a level of consistency in the data to make the required
determinations and analyze issues.
2.4 Financial Environment
For most of the past 30 years, California public agencies have operated in an
environment of increasing financial resources fueled by population and
economic growth. Although there were periodic downturns in the economy and
local revenue, generally, increasing revenue was the trend. This condition
allowed for the continued expansion of municipal services. The financial
environment facing local government changed dramatically with the beginning
of the Great Recession in 2008. This recession saw economic declines, financial
losses, unemployment, foreclosures and property value declines unprecedented
since the 1930s. Figure 1 shows the unemployment rate in Santa Clara County
over the past 20 years.
Figure 1: Santa Clara County Unemployment Rate from 1990 To 2010
Figure 2 charts the mean housing prices from 2005 to 2010 in the San José-Santa
Clara-Sunnyvale metropolitan statistical area.
Management Partners, Inc. 16
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
Figure 2: San José-Santa Clara-Sunnyvale Area Local Market Report
Source: National Association of Realtors
The result of the economic decline on California local government has been a
dramatic decrease in the revenue available to provide local services; property
taxes, sales taxes, business taxes, utility taxes and hotel taxes were all negatively
impacted. Concurrent with the significant loss of revenue, local governments
experienced continued increases in their cost of operations. These were primarily
due to employee compensation increases agreed to in multi-year contracts prior
to the recession and, following the loss of value in public pension funds,
significant increases in required employer contributions to pension funds to
maintain the defined benefits of these plans.
Beginning in FY 2008-2009, local governments began making unprecedented cuts
in expenditures. Some California cities have cut their general fund budgets by as
much as 25% to 30%. Layoffs, concession bargaining, cuts in public services and
changes in service delivery models have occurred throughout the state.
It should be noted that property tax based special districts, including the fire
protection districts in Santa Clara County, have not been impacted as hard as
cities and counties. Property tax is the most stable of local revenues and is not
subject to the rapid decline of the more consumer-driven revenues of sales,
business and hotel taxes relied upon by cities and counties. The decline in
property values and impact of foreclosures has started to impact fire district
revenue and districts are subject to the same upward pressures on costs.
As most economists project a prolonged economic recovery, it is unlikely local
governments will see revenue return to more robust levels for several years.
There has been much talk about the “new normal,” reflecting a sense that
generally reduced local revenue will be the norm for a long time. The current
Management Partners, Inc. 17
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Background
and projected financial condition has caused local governments to look for new
ways of providing services that are less costly than current service delivery
models. This includes challenging assumptions about established practices,
looking for opportunities to consolidate or share services with other jurisdictions
and outsourcing various services and support functions.
Fire and emergency services are essential local government services, necessary to
protect life and property. They are also costly services, typically consuming
around 20% of a full-service city’s budget. They are labor-intensive with
relatively higher compensation than most public employee groups and require
the construction, purchase and maintenance of significant infrastructure
including stations and apparatus. Given the current and projected financial
environment, cities, counties and fire districts are looking for opportunities to
reduce and contain the cost of providing these essential services.
Management Partners, Inc. 18
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
3 Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Santa Clara County has a population of approximately 1,857,620. Of this total,
about 1,763,700 reside in one of the 15 incorporated cities and 93,900 reside in
unincorporated County areas. The County is 1,315 square miles in size.
Responsibility for, and delivery of, fire and emergency services in the County is
complex. Some cities provide their own fire protection, some cities are included
in fire districts, and some contract for services with other providers. A large
portion of the unincorporated area with a small population is not served by a
public fire agency beyond the protection of State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)
during fire season by CAL FIRE. The 15 cities and some unincorporated areas in
the County are served by nine agencies. Table 1 shows the responsible agencies
and how service is provided.
Table 1: Responsible Jurisdictions and Fire and Emergency Service Providers
Responsible Jurisdiction Service Provider
Santa Clara County Central
City of Campbell Fire Protection District
(CCFD) Contract
City of Gilroy Gilroy Fire
City of Los Altos CCFD Contract
City of Milpitas Milpitas Fire
City of Morgan Hill CCFD Contract
City of Mountain View Mountain View Fire
City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Fire
City of San José San José Fire
City of Santa Clara Santa Clara Fire
City of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Public Safety
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
includes Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, part of CCFD
Saratoga and some unincorporated areas
Management Partners, Inc. 19
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Responsible Jurisdiction Service Provider
Los Altos Hills County Fire District includes Town of
CCFD Contract
Los Altos Hills and some unincorporated areas
Saratoga Fire Protection District includes part of the City
CCFD Contract
of Saratoga and some unincorporated areas
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
(SCFD) includes some unincorporated areas in the south CAL FIRE Contract
part of the County
The nine public service providers include seven municipal fire departments, one
dependent fire district and CAL FIRE. Five private volunteer companies provide
limited service to communities outside the service areas of public departments.
American Medical Response (AMR), under contract with Santa Clara County,
provides ambulance transport countywide with the exception of the City of Palo
Alto, which provides ambulance transport through its fire department. Moffett
Field maintains a fire department through contract with a private provider; they
declined to participate in the service review.
The public fire agencies provide the following major services:
Fire suppression
Advanced life support medical (ALS)
Emergency medical transport
Fire prevention
Hazardous materials response (Hazmat)
Emergency preparedness
Table 2 summarizes the responsibilities of the public agencies providing these
services.
Management Partners, Inc. 20
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Table 2: Public Fire Service Providers in Santa Clara County
Advanc
Provider Fire ed Life ALS Fire
Agency Area Served Suppression Support Transport Prevention Hazmat
Gilroy Fire
City of Gilroy
Department
Milpitas Fire
City of Milpitas
Department
Mountain
City of Mountain
View Fire
View
Department
City of Palo Alto,
Palo Alto Fire Stanford,
Department unincorporated
lands
City of San José,
San José City unincorporated
Fire islands and lands
Department adjacent to the
City
Santa Clara City of Santa
City Clara
Sunnyvale
City of Sunnyvale
City
Cupertino, Los
Gatos, Monte
Sereno, part of
Saratoga,
Campbell, Los
Central Fire
Altos, Morgan
Protection
Hill, Saratoga
District
Fire District, Los
Altos Hills Fire
District, and
unincorporated
areas
South Santa Clara
County Fire
Protection
CAL FIRE* District (SCFD),
unincorporated
SRAs during fire
season
When needed by County EMS protocol
State certified as Type I, to handle the most severe hazardous materials incidents
* Contract provider for the South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Management Partners, Inc. 21
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
The unincorporated areas of the County are served by fire districts, city
departments and volunteer companies. The volunteer fire companies are private
entities. The County pays for workers’ compensation insurance for the volunteer
companies. CCFD, SCFD, Milpitas and San José also respond into these areas.
Table 3 identifies the volunteer fire companies. The station locations for these
volunteer fire companies can be found on the CCFD and SCFD boundary and
station maps.
Table 3: Volunteer Fire Companies in Santa Clara County
Volunteer Company Area Served
Ormsby Fire Brigade North of Mt. Madonna Park
Casa Loma Volunteers West of Uvas Road and south of Mt. Umunhum
Stevens Creek Volunteers West of Cupertino
Spring Valley Volunteers East of Milpitas
Uvas Volunteers Croy and Uvas Road areas
The public agencies provide service from 90 fire stations with 88 engines, 21
trucks 9 rescue units and 5 ambulance units. Most stations and apparatus are
staffed at the same level 24/7/365 days a year; some agencies staff additional
apparatus during peak fire season AMR provides ambulance transport service.
The number of ambulances in service varies by day of week and time of day
based on analysis of historical service demand. The Palo Alto Fire Department
staffs one ambulance on a 24-hour basis and one on a 12-hour shift.
Service demand is expressed in calls for service. Calls for service are categorized
by type, as follows.
Emergency medical
Structure fire
Other fire
Rescue
Hazmat
False alarms
Other
3.1 Emergency Medical
The heaviest demand on the fire/emergency system is emergency medical calls.
In calendar year 2009 there were a total of 93,906 responses to 911 emergency
medical calls and 69,394 ground ambulance transports. Between 2005 and 2009,
Management Partners, Inc. 22
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
total EMS responses increased by 4%, while ground ambulance transports
increased by 5%. Figure 3 shows the trend in emergency medical calls from 2005
to 2009.
Figure 3: Santa Clara County Emergency Medical Calls: 2005, 2007 and 2009
100,000
90,444 91,607 93,906
90,000
80,000
65,804 67,321 69,394
70,000
60,000
Total Responses
50,000
40,000
Ground Ambulance
30,000 Transport
20,000
10,000
-
2005 2007 2009
Source: County EMS Agency
The emergency medical system consists of two components: initial paramedic
response and ambulance transport to the appropriate medical facility. By state
law, the EMS system is a county government function. Oversight and
administration of the Santa Clara County emergency medical system is the
responsibility of the County EMS Agency.
Santa Clara County has contracted with AMR to provide pre-hospital emergency
service. AMR has entered into agreements with the public fire agencies to
provide paramedic first responder service. Ambulance transport service is
provided countywide by AMR with the exception of Palo Alto. The City of Palo
Alto had established rights to transport prior to the change in state law granting
this authority to the counties. The San José, Santa Clara City and Gilroy fire
departments maintain ambulances at some fire stations and will transport when
specific criteria (contained in Santa Clara County Pre-hospital Care Policy) are
met.
With the exception of the City of Sunnyvale, all public fire agencies are the first
responder to emergency medical calls with firefighter paramedics trained to
provide advanced life support (ALS), including the administration of drugs and
patient intubation. The City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety responds
Management Partners, Inc. 23
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
with firefighters trained as emergency medical technicians (EMT) who provide
basic life support (BLS); AMR responds with ALS paramedics.
ALS paramedic service is supplemented by AMR upon arrival of an ambulance.
Departments generally have first-responder paramedic capability at all stations.
The City of Santa Clara Fire Department is an exception to this, staffing three of
its ten stations with firefighter/ paramedics. ALS service in Sunnyvale is
provided by AMR quick response vehicles (QRVs) staffed by paramedics that are
dispatched by the City but are comprised of AMR personnel.
Medical emergency response standards are established by the County for five
zones based on the extent of development and population density. These are:
Metro
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Remote
Table 4 shows the response standards for Code 3 medical calls.
Table 4: EMS Response Standards for Code 3 Calls
Zone ALS First Response Ambulance Response
Metro/Urban 7 minutes 59 seconds or less 11 minutes 59 seconds or less
Suburban 9 minutes 59 seconds or less 16 minutes 59 seconds or less
Rural 11 minutes 59 seconds or less 21 minutes 59 seconds or less
Remote 21 minutes 59 seconds or less 29 minutes 59 seconds or less
The performance standard established by the County is that response times must
be met at least 90% of the time per month in each zone and for each individual
response. Failure to meet the standard results in fines to the contractor. Figure 4
shows the overall performance of each provider for 2009.
Management Partners, Inc. 24
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Figure 4: 2009ALS Performance by Jurisdiction*
100.00%
98.00%
96.00%
94.00%
92.00%
90.00%
88.00%
86.00%
Source: Santa Clara County EMS Agency
*Figures for the City of Sunnyvale are those for the Department of Public Safety’s BLS response.
Figures for AMR are those for ALS service provided in the Sunnyvale City Limits
Performance by the public fire agencies consistently exceeds the 90% standard; it
is typically in the 95% to 98% range. When a fire service provider achieves 95%
or greater compliance, fines are waived. Exceptions to the time standards are
granted for calls to remote areas.
The exclusive operating agreement granted by the County to AMR terminates
June 30, 2011. The County has issued an RFP for a competitive selection of an
ambulance provider for a new contract. Under the structure of the RFP, the
public fire agencies will be direct contractors of the County, not subcontractors of
the private ambulance provider.
3.2 Fire Suppression
Response to calls for potential fire suppression is a critical area of service
demand on fire and emergency service agencies. Responses are categorized by
type including structure fires, car fires, and brush fires. The key factors in fire
suppression response are the time it takes for the initial response and the number
of resources responding to the incident.
Fire suppression responses are provided by engines and trucks. Engines are the
predominant first responder and are equipped to pump water, set up the fire
ground and prepare for suppression activities. Trucks are more specialized
providing extended aerial ladders and various emergency tools.
Management Partners, Inc. 25
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Most fire agencies in Santa Clara County staff fire engines with a company of
three firefighters. Trucks are typically staffed with a company of three or four.
This is consistent with the predominant staffing pattern of suburban fire
departments in California. The cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale are exceptions to
this staffing pattern. As a densely populated city, San José’s staffing pattern is
typical of that in other major cities, with four-person engine companies and five
or six-person truck companies. The City of Sunnyvale provides services through
the Department of Public Safety, responding to emergency calls with a
combination of staffed apparatus and police patrol personnel trained for fire and
BLS response. The City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety staffs all
apparatus with two personnel The number of apparatus and personnel
(including engines, trucks, and command staff) deployed to an incident vary
based upon the nature of the call, the policies of each agency and the amount of
resources available.
Fire response is measured in stages: the time the call comes into the public safety
answering point (PSAP) until the time the dispatch is made to the initial response
unit; the time the call is received by the initial responding unit until the unit is in
route to the incident; and the travel time for the unit to arrive at the incident. The
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) publishes guidelines on fire
response standards and deployment. Although not legally binding, they provide
a benchmark for assessing the performance of individual departments.
The 2010 edition of NFPA 1710 provides for a travel time standard of four
minutes or less 90% of the time for a single home structure fire. The NFPA
recommended initial response deployment is a minimum of 15 firefighters in
order to complete tasks necessary to ensure firefighter safety while executing
their mission. The recommended response compliment can be comprised of a
combination of engines, trucks, rescues, ambulances and command staff. In Santa
Clara County the initial response deployment ranges from 9 to 24 depending on
the policies of the department.
Another often-cited measure of fire suppression capability is the rating assigned
to a department by the Insurance Service Office (ISO). The ISO is a company that
provides information to insurance companies that may be used to establish
premium costs. ISO collects and analyzes information on municipal fire-
protection efforts including fire alarm and communication systems, telephone
systems, staffing, and dispatching systems; the fire department, including
equipment, staffing, training, and geographic distribution of fire companies; the
water-supply system, including the condition and maintenance of hydrants, and
an evaluation of the amount of available water compared with the amount
needed to suppress fires.
Management Partners, Inc. 26
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
ISO then assigns a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally
represents superior property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the area's
fire suppression program does not meet ISO’s minimum criteria. Whether
insurance companies use ISO ratings and how they impact fire insurance
premiums varies depending on the insurance company. Some insurance
companies do not use ISO ratings. Of the nine provider agencies: five have a
rating of 2; one has a rating of 3; one is rated 4; and three agencies have ratings
that vary from 3 to 9, depending on the proximity of a property to a fire station.
Generally, for residential homeowners there is not a significant difference in fire
insurance premiums for those departments in the 2 to 5 range of the rating scale.
Another assessment tool for fire department performance is the Commission on
Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) international accreditation process for
fire departments. The process evaluates a fire departments on a full range of
performance evaluation categories including:
Assessment and Planning
Essential Resources
External Systems Relations
Financial Resources
Goals and Objectives
Governance and Administration
Human Resources
Physical Resources
Programs
Training and Competency
Each category includes a measure or index on which a judgment or division can
be based, as well as indicators that define the desired level of ability to perform a
particular task. This is a very detailed and time intensive process. There are five
municipal fire departments to be accredited in California; one is the Santa Clara
County Central Fire Protection District.
3.3 Mutual and Automatic Aid
Mutual aid is characterized by one or more agencies providing support to
another agency upon request. A countywide mutual aid agreement is in place in
Santa Clara County and all public fire departments are a signatory to the
agreement. Automatic aid is characterized by an ongoing agreement between
agencies that the resources of one department will respond automatically to
service calls in the other jurisdiction. Automatic aid agreements are typically
established when the physical presence of a station in one jurisdiction is
sufficiently close to another jurisdiction to provide a quick response. The
Management Partners, Inc. 27
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
jurisdiction in which the incident occurs is the first responder and is responsible
for the incident. Fire agencies in Santa Clara County typically have automatic aid
agreements with adjacent departments. Another form of cooperation is called a
“boundary drop.” This occurs when two agencies agree that the closest unit will
be the first responder to an incident and take responsibility for the incident
regardless of political jurisdiction. Boundary drop agreements do not exist in
Santa Clara County.
3.4 Hazardous Materials Response
Countywide hazardous materials response capability is provided by a limited
number of departments. This arrangement is cost-effective, as not all
departments need to have the specialized equipment and training necessary to
handle the most serious materials. The Santa Clara County Central Fire
Protection District is certified by the State as “Type 1,” the highest response
capability. The City of San José has applied to the State for Type 1 certification.
The Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale Fire
Departments maintain capability for lesser hazardous responses.
3.5 Fire Prevention
Fire prevention encompasses a number of discrete activities including the
following.
Construction Services. Checking construction plans to ensure compliance with
the uniform fire code and performing inspections to ensure construction
conforms to approved plans. These functions are typically performed by trained
plan checkers and inspectors. In some cities this function is performed by the
building division.
Maintenance Inspections. Annual inspections of commercial establishments and
multi-family residential properties to ensure fire safety and familiarize the
department with hazards located in particular properties. This function is
typically performed by a combination of inspection personnel and “company
inspections” where fire apparatus crews conduct inspections as a routine part of
responsibilities.
Public Education. Provides increased awareness of the risk of fire and protective
measures through media information, speaking to organizations and working
with schools and neighborhood groups.
Arson Investigation: Investigation of fires to determine if arson may have been
the cause of a fire. In some jurisdictions arson investigation is located in the
police department.
Management Partners, Inc. 28
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Each municipal department maintains a fire prevention bureau tasked with these
responsibilities. The CCFD serves as the county fire marshal and provides
construction-related services to the unincorporated area of the county in addition
to the municipalities it serves.
3.6 Emergency Preparedness
Fire departments conduct emergency preparedness activities to maintain
response capability for natural disasters or accidents including earthquakes,
floods and large hazardous materials incidents. Preparedness activities typically
include ensuring proper organization for effective response, maintaining and
supplying an emergency operations center, stockpiling supplies necessary to
manage through a prolonged emergency, public education, and working with
neighborhoods to establish community-based preparedness with the goal of
having the capability to sustain their households and neighborhoods for several
days in the event of a significant incident. The countywide Fire Services and
Rescue Master Mutual Aid Plan determines the relationships between agencies
in the event of a large-scale incident.
3.7 Training
All newly hired firefighters complete a basic firefighter academy prior to
beginning work. Most agencies participate in the Santa Clara County Joint Fire
Academy (JFA), a joint effort by the Santa Clara County Training Officers, under
the direction of the Santa Clara County fire chiefs. Some departments conduct in-
house academies for new firefighters. Regular training is required to maintain
the readiness capability of fire and emergency service employees. Training
covers strategies and tactics for fighting fire, continuing education for paramedic
skills for appropriate personnel, and fire officer training. Each agency is
responsible for providing training. There are different training models; some
departments maintain staffed training bureaus, others rely heavily on on-duty
line personnel and some contract most training. The size and quality of training
facilities varies among the agencies. Some joint training is done with two or more
departments and through the JFA.
3.8 Communications
The three key communication activities in the delivery of fire and emergency
medical services are as follows:
First responder fire unit dispatch. Notification from the primary public
safety answering point (PSAP) to the Secondary PSAP responsible for the
initial incident response.
Management Partners, Inc. 29
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Ambulance dispatch. Notification of the ambulance that will respond to
the incident.
Emergency medical dispatch (EMD). The provision of pre-paramedic
arrival emergency medical directions by the communications dispatcher
to persons at the emergency incident.
Emergency communications in Santa Clara County is fragmented and
complicated. All 911 calls are routed to a primary public safety answering point
(PSAP) depending on the location of the caller. In cities with police departments,
the police communications unit is the PSAP. For cities served by the County
Sheriff and the unincorporated areas, the Santa Clara County Communications
Department (County Comm.) is the PSAP.
What happens once the call is received by the PSAP varies depending upon
whether a city has its own police and fire departments and whether a city
provides EMD through its own communications personnel. For all calls, with the
exception of those in the City of Palo Alto, ambulance dispatch is done by the
Santa Clara County Communications Department (County Comm.). In most
cases where a police department is the PSAP, information from calls requiring an
ambulance response are transferred to County Comm. to initiate an ambulance
response.
The dispatch protocols are summarized according to the three key
communication activities for all responsible jurisdictions in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Fire and Emergency Medical Service Communications Protocols
Primary Public
Safety First Responder Fire Emergency
Answering Dispatch/Responding Ambulance Medical
Origin of Call Point (PSAP) Agency Dispatch Dispatch (E)
Police County County
City of Campbell County Comm/CCFD
Department Comm Comm
County County
City of Cupertino County Comm County Comm/CCFD
Comm Comm
Police Department
Police County County
City of Gilroy /Gilroy Fire
Department Comm. Comm.
Department
Police County County
City of Los Altos County Comm./CCFD
Department Comm. Comm.
City of Los Altos County County
County Comm. County Comm./CCFD
Hills Comm. Comm.
Management Partners, Inc. 30
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
Primary Public
Safety First Responder Fire Emergency
Answering Dispatch/Responding Ambulance Medical
Origin of Call Point (PSAP) Agency Dispatch Dispatch (E)
Los
Gatos/Monte County County
City of Los Gatos County Comm./CCFD
Sereno Police Comm. Comm.
Department
Police Department
Police County County
City of Milpitas /Milpitas Fire
Department Comm. Comm.
Department
Los
City of Monte Gatos/Monte County County
County Comm./CCFD
Sereno Sereno Police Comm. Comm
Department
City of Morgan Police County County
County Comm./CCFD
Hill Department Comm. Comm.
City of Mountain Police Police County Police
View Department Department/MVFD Comm. Department
Police
Police Police
City of Palo Alto Department/Palo Alto Police Dept.
Department Department
Fire Department.
Police San Jose Fire County Fire
City of San José
Department Department/SJFD Comm. Department
Police
City of Santa Police County Police
Department/Santa
Clara Department Comm. Department
Clara Fire Department
County County
City of Saratoga County Comm. County Comm./CCFD
Comm. Comm.
Public Safety
Public Safety Department/Sunnyval County Public Safety
City of Sunnyvale
Department e Public Safety Comm. Department
Department
Santa Clara
County County
County Central County Comm. County Comm./CCFD
Comm. Comm.
Fire District
South County County County
County Comm. CAL FIRE/CAL FIRE
Fire District Comm. Comm.
Unincorporated County Comm./CCFD County County
County Comm.
Areas* or CAL FIRE/SCFD Comm. Comm.
Source: County Communications Department
Management Partners, Inc. 31
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire and Emergency Services System Overview
*Calls originating in the unincorporated area will go to either CAL FIRE or CCFD, depending on
the location
The fragmentation of communications among different agencies is further
complicated by the use of four different radio bands and frequencies between the
provider departments. The structure of the current communications is a major
barrier for achieving efficiencies, reducing response times and improving the
overall effectiveness of the fire/EMS system. Recognizing the difficulty of
consolidating all countywide functions, an interoperability joint powers
authority comprised of nearly all municipalities and representing all PSAP
agencies in the County has been created to improve system-wide functionality.
This JPA, the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) has a
goal of creating a “virtual” consolidated communications system.
SVRIA has submitted a FY 2010 UASI grant funding request for approval and the
County has allocated $810,000 to begin this process. The first phase is to develop
CAD-to-CAD compatibility among all communications centers. This will enable
all CAD systems to communicate with each other and create a common regional
operating picture (CROP) in all communications centers, which will improve
regional resource availability awareness. The second phase will allow automatic
data transfer between systems, and except for EMD services, will eliminate the
need to transfer calls between agencies to provide callers with fire and
emergency medical services. Grant funds to begin the work will be available in
2011.
Management Partners, Inc. 32
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
4 Agency Profiles
This section of the report provides a profile of each entity responsible for fire and
emergency medical services in Santa Clara County. Detailed information for each
agency is contained in Attachment C.
4.1 City of Gilroy Fire Department
4.1.1 Overview
The City of Gilroy Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency
services to a 16.2 square mile area with an estimated 2010 population of 49,800.
Gilroy is a charter city with a seven-member City Council. The city is a council-
administrator form of government with the Fire Chief reporting to the City
Administrator.
As new areas have been annexed, SCFD Station #3 on Hecker Pass Highway is
now within the Gilroy city limits. Figure 10 is a map depicting the boundaries
and fire station locations of the City of Gilroy. The Gilroy Fire Department and
SCFD have automatic aid agreements and cover areas within each other’s service
area. A working group consisting of Gilroy, the City of Morgan Hill, the Santa
Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) and SCFD is studying
options to the current fragmented system. The organization chart of the Gilroy
Fire Department is provided in Figure 5.
Management Partners, Inc. 33
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Figure 5: Gilroy Fire Department Organization Chart
City Council
City
Administrator
Fire Chief
Administrative
Support (1)
Operations (38)
4.1.2 Budget
The Fire Department is funded from the City’s General Fund. Table 6 displays
budgeted expenditures by function according to the FY 2010-11 budget.1
Table 6: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditures
Administrative and Management $490,889
Operations $6,832,205
Fire Prevention In Community Development Department
Other $32,276
Total Expenditures $7,645,370
Table 7 displays FY 2010-11 budgeted expenditures by type.
1 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to estimate expenditures into
defined functions to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency
response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 34
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Table 7: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditures
Salaries and Benefits $6,744,520
Operations and Maintenance $809,425
Subtotal Operations $7,583,945
Capital $61,425
Total Expenditures $7,645,370
4.1.3 Stations
The department has three fire stations. The Sunrise station was constructed in
2004 and is in good condition. The Chestnut station needs remodeling and
seismic upgrades. The Las Animas station was constructed in 1977 and
remodeling of the kitchen and sleeping quarters is needed. Additionally, a new
station is being planned for the southwest when sufficient development impact
fees have been collected to fund construction. Detailed station information is in
Attachment C.
4.1.4 Staffing
The department staffs three line engines. As a result of an agreement between the
City and labor, effective July 1, 2010 all engines will be staffed with three-person
companies. There is at least one certified firefighter/paramedic on each
apparatus. One station, Sunrise, was browned-out for up to two-thirds of the
time in FY 2009-10 due to budget cuts. The station will be returned to full
operation with the new labor agreement. Initial response deployment to a single
alarm structure fire is nine personnel.
The Gilroy Fire Department has 38 authorized full-time employees, of which 37
are sworn firefighter positions. Table 8 displays the number of sworn and non-
sworn personnel as reported in the FY 2010-11 budget.
Management Partners, Inc. 35
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Table 8: Gilroy Fire Department Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 1.00 1.00 2.00
Operations 36.00 0.00 36.00
Fire Prevention (in Community
n/a n/a n/a
Development Department)
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total FTEs 37.00 1.00 38.00
4.1.5 Labor Agreements
Information about labor agreements is displayed in Table 9.
Table 9: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
IAFF Local 2805 3 years December 31, 2013
Gilroy Management Association 1 year June 30, 2011
4.1.6 Benefits
Pension and health benefits for sworn personnel are shown in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Benefits
Benefits
Pension City pays employee 9% for CalPERS, 3% @ 55
City pays (as of Jan 1, 2010):
Employee only $ 523.08
Health
Employee + 1 $1,035.21
Employee + 2 or more $1,381.33
4.1.7 Apparatus
Apparatus is typically replaced after 20 years. Most apparatus is less than eight
years old; one reserve engine is 23 years old. All scheduled replacements have
been postponed for at least five years. Apparatus maintenance is performed by
the City’s Fleet and Facility Division. Equipment replacement is funded through
Management Partners, Inc. 36
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
annual contributions to an internal service fund. Table 11 displays the fire
department’s apparatus.
Table 11: Apparatus
Apparatus Year Type/Make
Engine 61 2007 Hi-Tech Type I Pumper
Engine 71 2002 Hi-Tech Type I Pumper
Engine 81 1999 Hi-Tech Type I Pumper
Engine 72 1987 Triple Combination Pumper
Truck 61 2004 American LaFrance/LTI 75’ Quint
Engine 83 1999 West-Mark Type III
Rescue 81 2003 Type 1 Ambulance
Brush Patrol 61 2005 Type 4 4x4 Pumper
Brush Patrol 71 2007 Type 4 4x4 Pumper
4.1.8 Service Delivery
Dispatching is provided by the Gilroy Police Department; EMS calls are
transferred to Santa Clara County Communications, which uses emergency
medical dispatch (EMD) protocol and provides transport dispatch. Interagency
coordination for automatic aid is handled through telephone calls. The multi-
agency regionalization group has identified the South County’s communication
system as an issue that impacts the region’s response times and ability to work
together.
During calendar year 2009 there were 2,727 reported calls for the department; of
those 1,884 (69%) were EMS calls. Gilroy’s calls for service are shown in Figure 6.
Management Partners, Inc. 37
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Figure 6: Calls for Service in 2009
2000 1884
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
528
600
400 155
57
200 50 49 4
0
Mutual aid and automatic aid agreements are maintained with several agencies.
In 2009 the City received mutual/automatic aid 117 times and provided aid 284
times. By far the majority of aid responses received and provided (95%) were
with the SCFD. Mutual aid for 2009 is shown in Table 12. The regionalization
study group discussed above is analyzing the utilization of a full boundary drop
service protocol.
Table 12: Mutual and Automatic Aid for 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Mutual Automatic
Agency Received Aid Received Aid Given Aid Given
South Santa Clara County
3 112 65 201
Fire Protection District
Santa Clara County
Central Fire Protection 1 1 2 0
District
CAL FIRE 0 0 4 8
Hollister FD 0 0 2 0
Other 0 0 2 0
Total 4 113 75 209
Table 13 displays the department’s response standards and performance.
Management Partners, Inc. 38
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Table 13: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Measure Standard* Actual Performance
Emergency calls – non medical 90% within 5 minutes 88% within 5 minutes
Emergency calls – medical 90% compliance 97.65%
* Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established a 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls; this
standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The City has an ISO rating of 4.
The Fire Marshal works in the City’s Community Development Department and
handles Hazmat inspections as well as construction plan check and inspection.
The Fire Chief handles training responsibilities.
4.1.9 Trends and Projections
City population is expected to grow 40% between 2010 and 2035 to an estimated
69,600 residents. This is an annualized growth rate of 1.6%. Figure 7 shows
projected population growth between 2000 and 2035.
Figure 7: Projected Population City of Gilroy 2000 to 2035
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Fire department expenditures have decreased by 19% over the past four fiscal
years. Figure 8 shows budget expenditures from FY 2007-08 to FY 2010-11.
Management Partners, Inc. 39
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Figure 8: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Staffing decreased from 48 in FY 2007-08 to 38 in FY 2008-09. It has remained
constant over the past three fiscal years at 38. Figure 9 shows staffing changes
from FY 2007-08 to FY 2010-11.
Figure 9: Staffing from 2007-08 to 2010-11
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 40
Coyote
Reservoir
UVAS RD W AT S O N VILL E R D Tr S e C H e F h A D Y a E v L - L S G ( e A C S n N i L A t l N O r S a L o t t y L i a F o N A t I n R io r E 3 e n a - - ) D !! AY H R E D CKER R H A A R P N D I T C N A U G H R M A S L O V O S L D L E I H A C R S S K N A U V H E T N W S S E R C u t L G Y I a i L S n t i I t l M y E r r O i i N L o o L D s T o A D E A G M n G e y R !! R A f E M R S U Y r R S P A i H R a G e V Y l 2 D A E S C r s a C o - t n S F t Y A a i ( y C e S V i D t A C E m i M t n y K E R N a A O V E L i A l R - o E n a a S o r A L W S V n R s s E E f t N M o A V E t F a M ! a ! a t I A M t R i O r y N o S i T t E o E C T R n i O E n n L ! E Y ! O - ) H M N W N B A Y E M T E A A H U V N A O N V N N E O A N M A E C E S H T U U R N C O H B C F S R E O T N U R M T U E U E S E R R T C R A A F N S V Y O T K E O A A T V E C H E IL R V L i A t V I E A S y V T o A E f G U A I M G B V A A L R i E A C V l E E L r G LA o I A L y V M E N E A W N A V L E R E D D A UK V E E D S R E B L S E U T Y T D A V C U R T I C A H N E D R O D D O L Y S R E O A O D L T P D P E O R R R R Y A FU O D V R R D LO E E N E G S N G A F E O V E A E R L D R L V G A F U V M E S R A O O E L N N I Y R R D A R VE C D R EW S R D CANADA RD COYOT R E D E K A S L t C a F o C t I ! R y ! i A o o E L n t - e 2 C 1 A N A D A R D
W HITEHURS
D T R
C E L A U G B L D E R RIDGE U
D
V
R
AS PAR
S
K
A
D
N
R
TA MI LL E R
AV
T
E
ER
6
E
T
S
H
A
8
B
S T
L
7 T
V
H T
D
H S
M E
T
S
S
A
T M O
N T
E R E
C
Y
S
H
h
W Y
t e a !! s t
KÍ
t i n o u n t
SOU
P
T
A
H
C
S
H
ID
E
E
C
D
O
R
PASS H W Y
FR A ZIE R LAKE R D PACHECO PASS HWY
RD
BO
D
LSA
RD SHELDON
D
A
A
V
V
E
IDSO
N
AVE
R
Y O
U
N
G STATE
HWY 25
O
D L
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
R
D
SA
N
S A
B
N
EN
TA
IT
C
O
R
C
U
O
Z
U
C
N
O
T
U
Y
NTY
Figure 10: City of Gilroy
November 2010
County Boundary Cities Urban Service Areas A Fi r r e e a S s e O rv u i t c s e id P e r o F v o i r d m e a r l Jurisdiction
!! City/District Fire Stations
City of Gilroy Cities Spheres of Influence ) Volunteer Fire Companies
Fire Protection Districts Fire Protection Districts Spheres of Influence
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD) South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD)
I
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Los Altos Hills County Fire District
4.2 Los Altos Hills County Fire District
4.2.1 Overview
The Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHFD) is a dependent fire district
governed by the County Board of Supervisors. A seven-member fire commission,
selected by the Santa Clara County District 5 Supervisor with Board of
Supervisors’ approval, oversees District operations. In December 1980, the Board
of Supervisors adopted a resolution delegating all of its powers to the Fire
Commission to manage the affairs of the district except that the commission shall
not initiate litigation without prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. Two
members must be from the unincorporated area of the Fire District. The District
serves a population of approximately 11,500 in the Town of Los Altos Hills and
adjacent unincorporated lands. Figure 13 is a map depicting the boundaries and
fire station locations of the Los Altos Hills County Fire Protection District.
The District, which contracts with CCFD for all services and does not employ its
own firefighting personnel, is responsible for funding station maintenance and
apparatus purchases. Additional services provided directly by the District are
brush clearance and hydrant maintenance. A contract fire consultant and clerical
help support the commission. The fire marshal function is provided by the
CCFD. The District’s organization is displayed in Figure 11 below.
Figure 11: Los Altos Hills County Fire District Organization Chart
4.2.2 Budget
Revenue estimated for FY 2010-11 is approximately $7.8 million, with about 85%
derived from property taxes. A total of $4,833,000 is budgeted to pay the CCFD
Management Partners, Inc. 42
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Los Altos Hills County Fire District
for fire and emergency services. An additional $3,365,000 is budgeted to provide
supplementary programs and projects including chipping, tree trimming, dead
tree removal, maintenance of fire breaks and emergency preparedness. The
District has also budgeted $2,800,000 for hydrant installation. As District
expenditures for the year will exceed revenue, funds will be drawn from reserves
to cover expenses.
As of June 30, 2010, the District audit reported a total fund balance of $17,768,277,
a decrease of $2,193,027 in comparison with the prior fiscal year end. Unreserved
fund balance was $6,768,277, which is 59% of annual expenditures. Several
reserved fund balances also exist: $1 million for insurance, $1 million for
equipment, $3 million for emergency operations, $3 million for building
maintenance, and $3 million for water mains and fire hydrants. Tables 14 and 15
list the District’s FY 2010-11 expenditures and revenue.
Table 14: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditure
Administration $338,481
Contract Services $4,833,000
Projects and Programs $3,365,000
Hydrant Installation $2,900,000
Total Expenditures $11,436,481
Table 15: Revenues
Source Revenue
Property Tax $6,798,000
Interest $500,000
Other $541,000
Total Revenues $7,839,000
4.2.3 Stations
The District has one fire station which contains an engine, a truck and patrol
apparatus. This station handled 550 calls for service in 2009. Staffing and
operational information is included with the information for CCFD.
Management Partners, Inc. 43
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Los Altos Hills County Fire District
4.2.4 Trends and Projections
Figure 12 shows the projected population growth between 2000 and 2035.
Population in the District is estimated to increase by 3% over the next 25 years
(2010-2035) to approximately 11,800.
Figure 12: Projected Population for Los Altos Hills County Fire District 2000-2035
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Prepared by LAFCO based upon 2000 census and ABAG Projections 2009
Management Partners, Inc. 44
L F a e k lt e PA G E MILL R D COYOTE HILL RD H ILLV IE W A V ARASTRADERO R D O RT E G A AV E W M R O I N G T H E T C A IT V O E AVE OL D L A C R E STA A H L l E o i t l o l s s s FO O T H ILL E X P Y R O B L E D A RD B U R K E R D PI 2 3 N N R D D E S S A L M A T T C LN T LY S A N A N T O NI O R D EL A L L ST l J o A t R o D s IN s DR LA N A A L O S E D T L R H M A O J N M A T E S Y A T V S E T S P RI N G E R R D CAL T IF U O L R A N N M IA E S D T o R V u i B E G E N A V E e n HA w N t S a AV i E n A NZ A S C T M E E P A N V A R T E U T R L E L E Y N A N S S V T A E A V V E E SLEEPER AVE ROSITA AVE OKEEFE LN SOUTH DR P
A
a
lt
l
o
o
MOODY RD
TEPA WAY DAWSON
D
S
R
UMMERHILL
M A A V G E DALENA AVE FRONTERO AVE
G
R
A N T R D
E V E
L
A
O
S
Y
T
O
B LA RO D O R K A V E
K
E
E
VA
N
A
T
V
D
E
R
A U S T H I N A OLT AVE
Cupertino
VOSS AVE
SCC Central -
Seven Springs
Fire Station
DR D R N N E RD 4 W D R O A D ARASTRADERO RD MOON L P N A G E MILL RD M A N U ELL A R D M IR A N D M A I R A N D A R D AV E C A it l y S to t o s a f t F L io i o r n e s V AL E N CI A D R PA N C HIT C A A W SI A T Y A WAY TOD C D ity S T of V M S ie o t w a u t n F i O o t i A r K a n e ST i n 1 - S TI E R LI DANA ST AL PI %&j( DR A V E E A V E C A St i l t t a y o t S I i X E o L A F o f i n r P e 8 alo CENTRAL DR ALTA A M M O T O A N R N D T RD ELEN TA A A R D FFE RD L A PAL O M A R D E Fi l r M S e UN o S n ET te DR P A LM AVE CO B V O F IN R R G D E T M E O O R N N R T D R AV D E C L A R K P A R M A W A Y SLADKY G OL D E N W A A Y S V S E LL A V E E of V M S ie o t w a u t n B O F NI T A A V io C t ir a n i e t i n y 2 NIL D A - PR C B E H R S E Y T S A O L N N E R D T Y A A V V E E
SHERLOCK M R O D ODY CT Station HILLTOP DR R WAY D R C A Fi i l r t t e y o S s R U o t L f a o L t P y o io O o s n R la TLAND AVE M A N A V E
L A LOMA
D
R
KATE DR
FAI ARBO
R AVE R N LG
LISA LN
D R
T
R U
MAGDALENA RD T E R R A C E D L U N D Y RANGER AVE N E W C A S TL E
DR
VIA ESPLEN
D O O
D
S
L N
DEO
D ARA
D R
Figure 13: Los Altos Hills County Fire District M O
R A CRISTO O R W
R
E
November 2010 Y
DR D
V
L
County Boundary Cities Urban Service Areas A Fi r r e e a S s e O rv u i t c s e id P e r o F v o i r d m e a r l Jurisdiction B LLIH
!! City/District Fire Stations T O
Cities Cities Spheres of Influence ) Volunteer Fire Companies O F
D
R
L
S
o
a
s
n t
A
a
l t
C
os
la
F
H
r
i
a
r
i l
e
l
C
s
o
P
C
u
r
o
n
o
u
ty
t
n
e
t
C
y
c
e
F
t
n
i
i
o
r
tr
e
n
a
D
l
D
F
is
i
i
r
t
s
e
ri c
t
P
r
t
i
r
c
ot
t
e
s
ction District (CCFD)
Fire
S
L
P
o
a
r
s
n
o
t
A
a
t
l
e
t
C
o
c
s
la
t i
H
r
o
a
i l
n
l
C
s
o
D
C
u
i
o
n
s
u
t
t
y
n
r
t
C
i
y
c
e
F
t
n
s
ir
t r
e
S
a
D
l
p
F
i
h
s
ir
t
e
e
ri c
r
P
e
t
r
s
o t
o
ec
f
t i
I
o
n
n
f l
D
u
i
e
st
n
ric
c
t
e
(CCFD)
M
O
NTEBELLO
E R
M
A N
E
NTE CCFD
V
S
i
-
t
s
a
M
t
t
a
i
o
o
F
n
n
i
t
r e
a
7
P
I
RD
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SKYLINE BLVD2 Miles
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
4.3 City of Milpitas Fire Department
4.3.1 Overview
The Milpitas City Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency
medical services to a population of 69,000 within the 13.2 square miles of the city
limits. Figure 19 is a map depicting the boundaries and fire station locations of
the City of Milpitas. Milpitas is a general-law city operating under the council-
manager form of local government. The governing body is a five-member City
Council comprised of four council members elected at-large for four-year terms
and an at-large mayor serving a two-year term. The Fire Chief is the director of
the department and reports to the City Manager.
Figure 14 shows the organization of the Milpitas Fire Department.
Figure 14: City of Milpitas Fire Department Organization Chart
Management Partners, Inc. 46
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
4.3.2 Budget
The Fire Department is funded from the City’s General Fund. Tables 16 and 17
list budgeted expenditures by function and type, respectively, according to the
FY 2010-11 budget.2
Table 16: Expenditures By Function
Function Expenditure
Administrative and Management $516,468
Operations $12,258,554
Fire Prevention $929,6007
Other $551,826
Total $14,256,448
Table 17: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditure
Salaries and Benefits $12,760,938
Operations and Maintenance $1,464,920
Subtotal Operations $14,225,858
Capital $30,590
Total Expenditures $14,256,448
4.3.3 Stations
Service is provided from four stations. All stations were seismically reinforced
within the past ten years and are in good condition. There are no plans to close
any stations or reduce daily staffing.
4.3.4 Staffing
Daily staffing consists of three three-person engine companies, one three-person
truck company one two person truck company and one 1 person rescue. Each
apparatus has a paramedic. Initial deployment to a single alarm structure fire is
13 personnel. Table 18 lists budgeted positions according to the FY 2010-11
budget.
2 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 47
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
Table 18: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 3.00 2.00 5.00
Operations 63.00 0.00 63.00
Fire Prevention 9.00 1.00 10.00
Other 1.00 1.00 2.00
Total FTEs 76.00 4.00 80.00
4.3.5 Labor Agreements
Labor agreement information is displayed in Table 19.
Table 19: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
IAFF Local 1699 2 years December 31, 2011
4.3.6 Benefits
Pension and health benefits for sworn personnel are shown in Table 20 below.
Table 20: Benefits
Benefits
Pension CalPERS 3% @ 50
Health City contributes at Kaiser plan rate.
4.3.7 Apparatus
The service period for all apparatus is 20 years, including 15 years on the line
and five years in reserve. Apparatus purchase is funded through a replacement
fund with an annual schedule of contributions, and apparatus maintenance is
provided by the City’s Public Works Department. Table 21 below identifies the
department’s apparatus.
Management Partners, Inc. 48
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
Table 21: Apparatus
Apparatus Make Year
Engine(Type 3- International 4800 2002
Brush #3)
Engine 1 Pierce 1250 GPM 2005
Engine 2 Pierce 1250 GPM 2010
Truck 1 Sutphen 1999
Engine 3 Pierce 1250 GPM 2003
Truck 4 Pierce 2005
Rescue (USAR) Spartan SVI 1999
Battalion Chief Suburban Northstar 2001
Reserves
Engine 301 Pierce Arrow 1993
Engine 201 Pierce Arrow 1993
Engine 101 KME 2004
Engine (Type 3 SVI 2000
Brush #1)
Hazmat Ford C800 1990
4.3.8 Service Delivery
Dispatch is provided by the Milpitas Communication Center, which is managed
by the City’s Police Department. Calls are transferred to the Santa Clara County
Communications Center for ambulance dispatch and EMD. There were 4,439
calls for service in 2009; 59% of calls were for emergency medical. Calls for
services by type of call are shown in Figure 15.
Management Partners, Inc. 49
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
Figure 15: Calls for Service for 2009
3000
2,636
2500
2000
1500
1000
634
272 276
383
500
38 114 86
0
The department is a party to the Santa Clara County Master Mutual Aid
agreement. Automatic aid is provided to the San José City Fire Department and
CAL FIRE. Mutual aid is provided to the Fremont City Fire Department in
Alameda County. The department regularly responds to underserved areas.
Table 22 lists mutual and automatic aid given and received in 2009. Responses
into the underserved lands adjacent to the City accounted for approximately 98%
of mutual/auto aid calls and 6% of total calls.
Table 22: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Automatic
Mutual Aid Aid Mutual Aid Automatic
Agency Received Received Given Aid Given
Fremont Fire Department 3 0 0 0
CCFD 1 0 0 0
Other 0 0 1 275
Total 4 0 1 275
The response standards and performance for 2009 are shown in Table 23 below.
Management Partners, Inc. 50
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
Table 23: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Measure Standard* Actual Performance
Emergency calls – non-medical Not established 4 minutes, 2 seconds
Emergency calls - medical 90% 98.98%
* Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established the 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls;
this standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The City has an ISO rating of 3.
The department maintains a Fire Prevention Bureau managed by a non-sworn
fire marshal. The bureau conducts plan check and inspection services for new
construction and annual maintenance inspections.
A training facility is maintained at the main station. Training is staffed with one-
third of a 40-hour/week battalion chief and three shift training captains. The City
contracts with private vendors for most classes.
4.3.9 Trends and Projections
City population is projected to grow 54% over the next 25 years to approximately
106,000 residents. This is an annualized rate of 2.1%. Figure 16 shows the
projected population growth between 2000 and 2035.
Figure 16: Projected Population City of Milpitas 2000 to 2035
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Management Partners, Inc. 51
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
Fire department expenditures peaked in FY 2009-10 at $15,313,409 and were
reduced by 7% to $14,256,448 in FY 2010-11. Figure 17 shows Fire Department
expenditures from FY 2007-08 to FY 2010-11.
Figure 17: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (budgeted) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Staffing has remained constant at 80 FTEs during the past four fiscal years, as
shown below in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Staffing 2007-08 to 2010-11
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 52
W
E
LLE
R
R
D
C
A
LAV C
R
a
es
la
e
v
rv
e
o
ra
ir
s
E
R
A
TINY ST S R
D
A
R
DIXON LAN M C DIN C G A LIF O RD M ILM O N T
IZO
N
A
A V E COELH P O K W E Y S S C T U E LA COUNTRY
CLUB DR
DOW NING R D
NE W ST R E ET
C A R
T H Y B
LV D
R N IA
C I
H E
R
A T H S T AL E A L M V L E M E A Y R
D
Y
R
LIN S T N A N O S A V A D LT O N R T S E I C R E
C
F
IR
i
i
M
r
t
IL
e
y
P I T
S
o
AS M
t
f
B L
a
V D
M
ti
i
o
l
i
p
n
R l
i
p E
t
#
P
a
F A
3
U
s
S i G E t I O O as D W
J
E I R V
A
L LIH
C
D R
R K D L
W O O L
IN
C A R G N A E D G S IE D
D
E N D R LY N D N R A V E R O S W E L
L
B I E X B V Y A D R N S R
D
D
C LO
ALAVE
L
R
A
A
C
S
E
R
Y D
D
R VISTA RIDGE DR FELTER RD MARSH RD
City of R
C S E N T R N A E R 1 C F D I S T R T W E O i i E R r S P C t E H T e R A O y R D T R C S I AËH S o C T O W A Y P t B f K L a V S W D t a i Y o n D n R O S J 'N U 2 o T E M 9 A s L D e A S R S C J M U E N A E C S A L D N T Y Y L R B I M O B E D C A D N C R R V E R A I E E A N C R R M N V G A Z D R N A E O T D N S D C A F H R A K T N Y R i i E D B E L t r V R D O B S e C F y A D R T i B i S R o r E t R e y L t f N H S a A S M o R R Y F N O t O D G S A T R G C R t A T P f L A E i A O i R i R R a D o r V A G S l L V M IT p e E t I A n A P E A V i D i i V A S o I t E R B S l # T E D L R a p E S t n T O a 1 C a R s i R C F E t n O L F # E O A t F K X a S L i 5 I L A i D O t C R E 4 E J M o %&t( T s D N D A V y I X o N K A F E L H S S n E R T s L o T N e 5 f S E S N D L C A M C D W G R A E V A R G D O O W G N Y IR B A E J R I E G N V S E R S E E H A F D o T O M R R a A G D L O R L A R I K D D B LA s T N R D M R A R U n D D C L R e T N K KÍ A P R A E D IP Y E D R O R R Y D A A C A M S R V M A F E i S t L t U A E i a y R N D M E P r J M U Q A S D A K t e T U Y W K o i T i R o Y O l A A S f p M I M M V n V M t A S F i E T O E a A t B I # a i O a N t r B D L N E n E M e i 2 s P T E U S o E X Y A F R J R B D n R L P G o R E I Y R G P D O C R Y D D L R Y U U 2 s K L A S C R E I e 3 E R N C A S F I Y T a A V A U C C G D O E S R T n A L C o i E U S E t T t V O B R N y u a R S I E N E D P Z A A n T A o O C C O H V V L t A E Z f A R N y A E L E l E K L W N a A O F M O I D V P S Y Y B E H r V S A i R E a i R U o r l E Y p D R W E I e u C I A A C i C D t D n R O V a 0 o P A R d E s M u O K a r I n A D N o r H R t G y y I t G K L L R e O I C N U C D D c O 0 L T C O e S M O . A t E D C 2 C n D i M F S K N O A o 5 R t T A O r P A Y S P B D n D a I P T D L F B O L l D D O R R E U R I D I FN L R M R E N M A H i i A i r A 0 O A D E V L s e g E D R . S R R L L D 5 t P D O N E R U r A M P i H r R D Y B u I V I R E c O D o D D M L Y E R O M t N t O R R T e I s L I N N D L r c T L A E R O t A D e D V i V D o H R E R R A R n E U M K C C A G J L D L E I 1 N i i S E M M t t T Z i I i i C s O e e S I D L S W L O t U s s 9P D A r E N L Y R L i N E 1 P c N U S N E E I N %&p( E t p Y : D r o I D D ( F T b M h C R E v O I W R a S e C F N N C A n e T r E C A B R e F m A D S I Y M A s L D i e C b o t ) C r S K A LT v f e R E L y i I A c E n r E K e f E R E l 2 S u A D D o K R W e 0 1 F r . e n 1 5 i R E Ba c r W f 0 I E D e e M s G R H T A S A A W D E P S S B M D I V L a T Y U E E A R I F C F r R E X n R M Y o I T A i R i Y t J r P a N R t A t R I A R e D y e i L D D N C E A A c l G R A B S o l V I a W t p R A E G t i C f r S V F Y o H A a a O S S i L p o Y n W A i t U r N C L 2 a H V i e r l t N F M I o o u D T i n E E C n u C D a i n n iR l R n R e S s J C g R D o ) ! T ! t t T E s S O 1 o t J y O F s i e m G V S E r Y t o 9 S t s N O C i e T I T y N a c E a e O O s A p e r A N t A e t l V V N o A V C n A F a s E l i H V E V e t o o i i f r F n r r t O Se E E S l y y a e u S n T i y a D / L l r D p n D S a E s L F e D M 2 t R L h Y i P e e ni s OI R r A A E r e e t e I v r R u R r r C A D i i c P t V c O e I F s L E E A G t e r i s i O A o r d L F R S e P L R t e E D i o e U r O N r EC e c A o N F D Nf B O U M D L E E R t V o v R o S N i I A o i E m V n D O r Y d t C C S m n W a I S e f R N p L T S A t l a L D A r i a A T u o T N H J O l Y J n I i A n E e I s O T A P u L i L s R A e t O n U L E r r N M I V s i S i L R s c c R Y E d t O D e N C i (R D K c C R D A t M V i C A R o E H O n F N E DY )
City of San
Jose Fire
Station 21
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
4.4 City of Mountain View Fire Department
4.4.1 Overview
The Mountain View Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency
medical service to a population of 72,100 and service area of about 12 square
miles. Figure 25 is a map depicting the boundaries and fire station locations of
the City of Mountain View. Mountain View is a charter city with a seven-
member City Council elected at large, operating under the council-manager form
of government. The Fire Chief reports to the City Manager.
The department organization chart is shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Mountain View Fire Department Organization Chart
Management Partners, Inc. 54
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
4.4.2 Budget
The department is funded primarily by the City’s General Fund. Table 24
displays budgeted expenditures by function, as reported in the FY 2010-11
budget.3
Table 24: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditure
Administrative and Management $1,501,441
Operations $16,445,640
Fire Prevention $2,333,660
Interfund Expenditures $318,000
Total Expenditures $20,598,741
Table 25 shows budgeted expenditures by type.
Table 25: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditure
Salaries and Benefits $19,081,591
Operations and Maintenance $963,692
Subtotal Operations $20,045,283
Capital $182,458
Other $371,000
Total Expenditures $20,598,741
4.4.3 Stations
The Mountain View Fire Department maintains five stations. Stations 1, 2 and 4
are all in good condition. Renovations are scheduled for Station 3. Station 5 is
currently a temporary structure; its replacement is scheduled for construction in
the fall of 2010.
3 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 55
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
4.4.4 Staffing
The department maintains daily staffing of five ALS engine companies, one
Truck company, and one Rescue company. The Truck and Engine companies are
staffed with three personnel while the Rescue is staffed with two. When
additional paramedics are available, the Truck and Rescue are staffed with a
paramedic. Initial deployment to a single alarm structure fire is 15 personnel.
Table 26 shows staffing levels of both sworn and non-sworn personnel for FY
2010-11.
Table 26: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administration and Management 1.00 3.50 4.50
Operations 70.00 0.00 70.00
Fire Prevention 1.00 11.00 12.00
Other 0.00 2.00 2.00
Total FTEs 72.00 16.50 88.50
4.4.5 Labor Agreements
Labor agreement information is displayed in Table 27.
Table 27: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
IAFF Local 1965 4 years June 30, 2011
4.4.6 Benefits
Pension and health benefits for sworn personnel are shown in Table 28 below.
Table 28: Benefits
Benefits
CalPERS 3% @ 50. Employees pay 50% of the City share above 16.268%,
Pension
employee maximum of 13% - up to 4% added to the employee share of 9%.
City pays 100% for employee only HMO plan. Employees pay 10% of
Health
difference between that and the cost of dependents.
Management Partners, Inc. 56
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
4.4.7 Apparatus
The fleet of seven engines and one truck was purchased in the fall of 2009. New
Hazmat and rescue apparatus were delivered in the summer of 2010. Apparatus
are on a 15 year replacement cycle; the fleet is scheduled to be replaced in 2025.
The City’s Fleet Division of Public Works maintains the apparatus and
maintenance and replacement are funded through the City’s fleet internal service
fund. Two reserve engines are maintained and a reserve truck is shared with
Palo Alto. Table 29 displays the department’s apparatus.
Table 29: Apparatus
Apparatus Make/Model Mileage
Engine 2901 Pierce Quantum 6000
Engine 2902 Pierce Quantum 6200
Engine 2903 Pierce Quantum 6800
Engine 2904 Pierce Quantum 6100
Engine 2905 Pierce Quantum 2000
Engine 2906 Pierce Quantum 5000
Engine 2907 Pierce Quantum 4000
Truck 1 Pierce Quantum 4300
Rescue 1 Pierce Quantum New
Hazmat 5 Pierce Quantum New
4.4.8 Service Delivery
Dispatch is handled through the Mountain View Police Department. The Fire
Department reported 7,794 calls for service in 2009. Of those, 5,551 (72%) calls
were for emergency medical service. Figure 21 shows all calls for service in 2009
according to type of call.
Management Partners, Inc. 57
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
Figure 21: Calls for Service in 2009
6,000
5,551
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,109
872
1,000
262
0
Structure Fire Other Fire Emergency Public Service
Medical
Mountain View Fire Department has mutual/automatic aid agreements with
CCFD, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. During 2009, 97 aid responses were recorded;
45% were to CCFD while 28% were to Palo Alto. Table 30 lists only mutual and
automatic aid given in 2009 because the department does not track
mutual/automatic aid received.
Table 30: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Aid Mutual Aid Automatic Aid
Agency Received Received Given Given
CCFD n/a n/a 6 38
Palo Alto n/a n/a 5 22
SCFD n/a n/a 0 2
Sunnyvale n/a n/a 6 14
Moffett n/a n/a 2 1
CAL FIRE Ranger
n/a n/a 1 0
Unit
Total n/a n/a 20 77
Table 31 shows response standards and performance in 2009.
Management Partners, Inc. 58
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
Table 31: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Actual
Measure Standard* Performance
Emergency calls – Arrival of first engine at a structure fire within
98%
non-medical six minutes of dispatch, 100% of the time
Emergency calls -
90% County standard 96.8%
medical
* Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established the 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls;
this standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The City has an ISO rating of 2.
The Mountain View Fire Department has a full time fire marshal who manages
the Fire and Environmental Protection Division. This division has two sections:
Fire Building Safety and Environmental Safety. The division is also responsible
for fire investigation, special events inspections, fire watch standby, training of
suppression staff, and follow-up inspections of referrals and complaints. The
department has a training battalion chief who oversees entry-level recruitment,
probationary training and testing, and monthly training events for three shifts.
4.4.9 Trends and Projections
The population in the City of Mountain View is expected to increase by 26%
between 2010 and 2035 to approximately 90,600 (an annualized rate of 1%).
Figure 22 shows the projected population growth between 2000 and 2035.
Figure 22: Projected Population City of Mountain View 2000 to 2035
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Management Partners, Inc. 59
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
Fire department expenditures have increased steadily since FY 2007-08, as
displayed in Figure 23 below. This is driven largely by increased pension
contributions.
Figure 23: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11
$22,000,000
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (actual) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Staffing has remained stable during the past four fiscal years, dropping by only
0.50 budgeted FTEs from FY 2009-10 to FY 2010-11, as shown below in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Staffing 2007-08 to 2010-11
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 60
D
C
P
H
IT
A
M
N
A
N
N
IN
A
G
V E
AVE
EDGEWOOD DR EMBARCADERO R Fra
B
S n a
a
c n
y
isco
City of Palo
Alto Fire San
E L O M W E E R L S L O AV N E
ST
S
BY
t
R
a
O
t
N
io
S
n
T C
P
3
ALIF M
a
O I R D N D I
l
A L E
o
AV
F
E
IELD RD A R M O L A O S R S U IL I L R S O D R A G V D R E EER RD BAYSHO RE RD Jose
City of
P T A H G A A H A R D I E A L P A C N A N L A A V R A I O M E H W P F V A I A L V L E U A E F L S T R A R N R E A T S S I D S T F S R R M H S E R M L E A I O O A D M S N D N T G T A N A E U W R L T R N D A M Y B A O R A A A R R D A H R R S D L V J O D T E N O P l A o M A A i V S N t U E E R LL A l E R o K A L O l D F S s R B A s O E L B M V s L L l D E E N MI R A N S D A t R D R A S o V R E F S O O BL E E D A R N i l t D r O a M S C e T t K O C A S i o W E W o W t i l I n t E P t a L A n y K o E U F t V t N I R e I E E E V i o E F o L O S ALT R O S A V E R S W S f i L L E P n I T T r A Y E P A N Y D O e V Y E 5 a I O R S R T A l E T N T o H G L E O A L M A M E A C A L L O Y V V A N T S A N A N P T O E NI T O E R D S E A A L N A V C A S H A V S N E E I t i l T U L t C A S O t a M N y L C o t I i t l O M T t A H t a i o E S y R O F o o F A t H R D E f L i J P R O n s i H o R r o A P W I N L l e D L F f C o 4 E n E R E L A t a R R i L S S A A D r N O I l S o T V o R T o e V A I I D T E T s R O N W E E s A A G A N A Y s R F A BI A N W D A Y C A R A V A L O R N D R A B V R U V F P L O E A D O E E A I A F R A S T W L L O S C V A I L H E B O I Y N T T A J O E A Y T D D A A A S R H S H M G A O Y D I T A D L R H E L R S V D S R O R E P T E E T R X K N R G P W S A N Y T T Y R O O R B F S F O D A C A F T R V D C C M V S E i i l G O D L r E N t A W t A t i Y i e S y t o e o L a L y T A I B u w S t s F o N A i R D o O n S t o L f IN R F a A O R t C f o L n G N a i B t N C S O r o y i i A 3 I e o K V n A R o s D R MI R A M O N T E A V E R n I A - l S S N A H a C M T T G S A A U V O O L T V N M I E N L I O U E S S S L C M V S A N T A A T V L A N t i i H A E t o S e V R C a NI L D A A o V E y T H u V w D E D D t P G R A N T R D U i o n R R o S H O R E LI N E E B L V R D u F t f C M V S C n A C i S a i P t E i r i E R H e t o L M e i M 1 B a M V S A e n N n U y E O u S w U E R t t T A KÍ i - N o E F T e i R a L o R n L Y V w o F t I P u w C F E t A A A E t f C E n E i a T Y V V L a n i N o E r T F R E I i 2 t E T e N n n B S A a i X L A r i A T - V V i P A 5 e V n V n D E Y V E E - E L D T R U M A N A V E E ALI C E A V E E A O A S A Y D N N A D S A I T E G A V D R E I A C S X D L R D E T E R A V V ?¾E E E K M L R O N BI A W R N O I L D A V E Y I N A D B Y N G U S D S A U A W L C H R H A V L I E S A S C M V S N M N D G E E A B S R F N E A E A D R t i i P R R N E I t o D A L e N a R A E V D E L y O u w t L L A O V A I R W E S i Z D o n O A o Y V O D E F A t K f A R n R a i Y E M D L A r L D L N I i S G 4 e A O n S T A L V E C E O O - D T D A C S S A Y V R E R u t i M D t A a R n Y y A C t V AËH E n i A o o C y L M R f Y n D v S E S E V o A a R f 3 O I f l e O u A N e t W t M D M - F R A P n A ie R U A ld R E U S S D E V T D n R M E E I A N y V G E T v M A C O O N R D P A S T N O a RI A A V E D C S S R l u t i M e t a n C y O A R t R n O F i B L o M A L o A Y F S y T V T H I E f IL W D E n v H A D A A V V T E E a E U 1 W T N l A e C S S E D P N F u t i D A - Y A I t R I E P a T D O R n y A R A K E A t S E I A n A V K V S i Y R o E L J V o y E A L L S f D A E n V v O I V R A A D a R 5 E N R l e D A D R V - E R G AI L A V E
L S o a C C s n o i t A t a y u l t n C o o t s f l y a M F H r B a i o i o r l l u C e u s n n o C P t d u a o a r n in u o r t F y y n V t t e C y ie i c e F w g t n i i r t o e r K a u n A D l T F i D s E r ir t i r e D s e ic P t R t r r i M o c 2 t A e t G s c 5 D tio A n L : E C C D N C i i i t t A s i i e e tr s s i iR c N U S t t D ( p r o C y b h v a C e n e r F e o m S D s e ) b o r f v f e E i I c A n r M e S f l 2 T u A B e 0 F r R e n 1 i o O a c r 0 e O s e K L S u P A o a V E r s n o n t A a t l e t C o t M c s l O a t a i H r R o a A i i l n l C s n o D D C u R i o A n s u V ) ! V ! t A I t y E V n E S r S t A C i y c P i C I e N R L F t e T n V C A F s E I i S r t N o N i i r L e r T r U t J e S L w N a l y e D D O u O Y a D l / p R O n D S E s F S Y i t R h s i e e i E s O r t e r e D r e t P v i r u r r c i R i H P c t c e t F s t e r s i i o r d F e P A t e i o e V r %&j( r C e c E o F f t o v o S i I o i n m r d t n m a f e p t l D D a r i a u o E l J n i n e s O u i t s e n D r r s i i A c c s R t d e A ( ic C t D i C o R CF n C C L D A Y C )F R D I D C S R T R - R D E S M B A R T T O N O o N n D R D t R a E W A Y LLIV E LLE B A S S M T A T O N N O R D K W RI G H T A V E R ES IA T AV H D E R E DA S A M E D R A S T LL C C E H S A O S u M CA E p D ST E S T EL LI N G R D E e D A R D r R t D F i R n EM o O Y N U K O N D R T D E A N Z A BL V D S U N N Y V A L E S A R AT O G A R D AVE C C F FL O Y D A V E i C u M r p e F E D e R r R t - i IT n T o H E D R O N V A E R A L A V E L A R K LN
Vista Fire Station 1 R T
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles I Station 7 PEPPER TREE LN STEVENS CREEK BLVD P O
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
4.5 City of Palo Alto Fire Department
4.5.1 Overview
The Palo Alto Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical
service to a population of 61,600 within the 23 square miles of the city limits and
to approximately 16,180 additional residents living in adjacent unincorporated
areas, primarily Stanford University. Figure 31 is a map depicting the boundaries
and fire station locations of the City of Palo Alto.
Palo Alto is a charter city with a nine-member City Council, operating with a
council-manager form of government. The Fire Chief reports to the City
Manager. Pursuant to state law granting an exception to cities providing
ambulance transport before counties were given the authority over EMS service,
the City provides ambulance response and transport.
The department organization chart is shown in Figure 26.
Figure 26: Fire Department Organization Chart
4.5.2 Budget
Approximately two-thirds of the fire department’s budget is funded by the City’s
General Fund; one-third is derived from contracts for services with Stanford and
the Stanford Linier Accelerator and fees, primarily ambulance charges. Tables 32
Management Partners, Inc. 62
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
and 33 display budgeted expenditures by function and type respectively, as
reported by the FY 2010-11 budget.4
Table 32: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditure
Administrative and Management $1,527,003
Operations $18,959,463
Fire Prevention $ 5,389,580
Other $ 1,131,441
Total Expenditures $27,007,486
Table 33: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditure
Salaries and Benefits $23,294,330
Operations and Maintenance $3,468,709
Subtotal Operations $26,763,039
Capital $244,447
Total Expenditures $27,007,486
4.5.3 Stations
The City maintains eight stations, five of which are in fair condition requiring
maintenance; three are in poor condition with two not meeting essential building
standards (Stations 3 and 4).
4.5.4 Staffing
As shown in Table 34, the department has 121 FTEs of which 113 are sworn
positions. Minimum staffing is three per engine, three per truck, three per rescue
and two per ambulance. All engines are staffed with a paramedic. Initial
deployment to a single alarm structure fire is 18 personnel.
4 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 63
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Table 34: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 4.00 0.00 4.00
Operations 105.00 2.00 107.00
Fire Prevention 3.00 3.00 6.00
Other 1.00 3.00 4.00
Total FTEs 113.00 8.00 121.00
4.5.5 Labor Agreements
Labor agreement information is displayed in Table 35. The Palo Alto labor
agreements expired in 2010. The City and unions are currently in negotiations.
Table 35: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
IAFF Local 1319 4 years June 30, 2010
Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association 4 years June 30, 2010
4.5.6 Benefits
Pension and health benefits for sworn personnel are shown in Table 36 below.
Table 36: Benefits
Benefits
Pension CalPERS 3% @ 50
Health PEMHCA - City pays up to second highest cost plan
4.5.7 Apparatus
The department staffs seven engines (plus one used in summer only), one truck,
one rescue, two ALS ambulances and one BLS ambulance. In reserve, the
department has three engines, one ambulance, one rescue and a truck that is
shared with Mountain View. Engines are replaced at 20 years; trucks at 15 years.
All apparatus are consistent with the replacement cycle. The City stopped
allocating funds to the vehicle replacement fund five to six years ago;
approximately $3.3 million was spent on recent engine replacements. The City’s
Management Partners, Inc. 64
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Public Works Department maintains the apparatus. Table 37 displays the
department’s apparatus.
Table 37: Apparatus
Station/Location Apparatus Make Year
1 Engine Pierce XT 2009
1 Medic Ambulance Ford 2002
1 BLS Ambulance Freightliner 1998
1 Reserve Ambulance Freightliner 1998
2 Engine Pierce XT 2009
2 Air/Light KME 2005
2 Heavy Rescue Pierce Arrow 1992
2 Medic Ambulance Ford 2002
2 Reserve Patrol Ford 2001
3 Engine Pierce XT 2009
3 Reserve Engine Pierce-Arrow 1991
4 Engine Pierce XT 2009
4 Reserve Engine Pierce-Arrow 1991
5 Engine Pierce XT 2009
5 Reserve Engine International 1992
6 Engine Pierce XT 2009
6 Truck Spartan 1999
6 Reserve Engine International 1992
6 Reserve Patrol Ford 2008
7 Engine Pierce-Arrow 1991
7 Reserve Patrol Ford 2008
Cubberley OES Ford 2000
4.5.8 Service Delivery
Dispatch is provided by the City’s Police Department. The department reported
7,549 responses in calendar 2009 of which 4,509 (60%) were EMS calls. All calls
for service in 2009 are shown below in Figure 27, according to type of call.
Management Partners, Inc. 65
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Figure 27: Calls for Service in 2009
5000
4,509
4000
3000
2000
1,065
1,243
1000
20 219 328 165
0
The department has mutual and automatic aid agreements with Mountain View,
Menlo Park, CCFD, CAL FIRE and the Woodside Fire Protection District in San
Mateo County. In 2009, a total of 181 mutual/auto calls were received and a total
of 148 calls were provided, as shown below in Table 38.
Table 38: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Aid Mutual Aid Automatic Aid
Agency Received Received Given Given
Mountain
4 37 4 46
View
Menlo Park 3 75 0 41
CCFD 3 42 0 47
CAL FIRE 0 2 3 0
Woodside FPD 0 11 0 4
Other 0 4 0 3
Total 10 171 7 141
Table 39 below shows response standards and performance in 2009.
Management Partners, Inc. 66
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Table 39: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Measure Standard* Actual Performance
Emergency call - non medical 8 minutes 90% of calls 8 min. 91%
Emergency call - medical 12 minutes 90% of calls 12 min. 99%
* Response standards for emergency calls are established by the department.
The City has an ISO rating of 2.
The department has a fire marshal and Fire Prevention Bureau that perform
construction plan check and inspection, as well as annual business and multi-
family inspections. They do not have a public education program. A training
captain is supported by suppression captains who serve as training coordinators.
4.5.9 Trends and Projections
Population growth of 36% is projected for the city during the next 25 years, to an
estimated 84,800 residents by 2035 (for an annualized rate of 1.4%). Figure 28
shows the projected population growth between 2000 and 2035.
Figure 28: Projected Population City of Palo Alto 2000 to 2035
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Fire department expenditures have increased by approximately 13% over the
past four fiscal years while staffing has decreased 4% in the same period, as is
shown in Figures 29 and 30 below. The increase in expenses is largely attributed
to increased employee pension costs.
Management Partners, Inc. 67
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Figure 29: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (budgeted) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Figure 30: Staffing
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 68
A
L
A
M
ED
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
C A S S t i l t t t a a y o t n i f o F o o f r i n d r P e U 7 a n l i G o 4 v W O e D D L A O R F NL rsity Cit L F S y A a e N o k l D t e f J H P U IL a N L I l R P o D E S R A O N S E M A R L E X A I R S C T A D M E i B t R A O S y L A Y t V F C l o a I D G t A E L O t V f o E L Z O i L S D D U T P o P F C A S A N a n G A S i E V t i r l l t E T M E t I a o 6 L e L y o R U Y t R N i R D o S F o I T V A A f A i E M O n R T N A N r R D P F S e S O 1 T I a R C T D O A Y l L L o A A A L V M V E A H E G E A L R E M A S A l E S V o T i L M t E T V C A S l R I I o L R t i A L l l s t E t a A D s A V C E y o N E t s S i R A D i o t F o O t A y M l f i a n t A r A P T o o t e A R 2 V i F D a f E o E D F E R l R P M n i o O E r B a A e R M 3 V A l O E o O R B O L C N C R E A C E T D S i A G O A D t M R R t O D y R W l E a N A I t D D R P M o o E t D E X O O i f L R o P F P N E A Y P n S i R A F r D T a E I V A S O TL A S O L e E S a 5 l L T o l D 1S t C T R l 2 H C N o S D A o B D A T A i S Y E S R t l S T L t y H t L O M o E a R O o C A S E S s t N A T R f t i i l T F t o O D t E a L F L y i o N A n E t r o V R KÍ l i e o E F R o o N s t E f D i n A r o P e C V s 4 a S E OL U A N A D l s E R o A R S L E V N I L T N G S A E T S O G R T D F H F R A M V O E T R C M V S U N t i L i o t o e a S A V y V u w t C T N I i o n L u H o E D D L F R t f i A A n A a i e R N r n S i 3 e L A n T C B E E G E N A V E - S w H t S C M V S T U T a t i i R V O t o e M a S C y N i u w t S H O R E L C I N e t H E B L V D o i i V o n a o w I i n E u S R F t W t f t n T y n D a i i S F o r T C M V S t i 1 e o i n n a r t i i f t o - e e i a F 2 n y u w t - r i o n a o B S D F t f n I n E a a i a c R r n i I y 5 e E i C n A S s Y S S - c Y T L V A o N A A R N OL D V A V E E M C C O R C M V S D A V B E t i E i R t o e N a A R y D Z u w t O O A O E i V o n K E o V R B F D t f n E L L a i E O r L T A M A i 4 e Y A n V I E o N R - ff A e A S t V M V F M E A R E i u e A N A l U d I M L D n AËH A P E D A n R VE O y L M A C O N R D IV v C S S E u t it A a a M n A y T V H t I J L n D S E A i o A o V o y E l a f n v e s n C S S a e 1 l u t i e t a n y t - n i o o y f n v a 5 le -
S A t l a t t o io F n ir 8 e ALTAMONT R D Fi E re l M St o a n t t io e n C A Fi i l r t t e y o S s o t L f a o L t o y io o s n la A N A V E X R D W N A IB Y O R L OI S A V E C S S u t it a n y t n i o o y f n v a 3 le - REMINGTON DR
MOODY RD KATE DR EASTBROOK
AVE M O R A D %&j( R
LISA
LN
DEO
O
D
A
A A U R
K
ST A I N
A
A V
E
D
VE
T R U
M
Y A W E V E L L I L L E B HELE Y
A V E
R A N M A D R L E WI S T O N D R
FREMONT
BI T T
A
E R N D R
VE
R
C
R
ISTO
NTE
R
R
EY
D
DR B
L L IH T
L
O O F
V
DC
R ESTO
N D R M A N N D R Cup ALV e E r S t D in R o D E A N Z A
BL V D
SKYLINE
BLVD MONTEBELLO County Boundary
Figure
C
3
i
P
t
E
ie
1 R
E
M
s L
A N N
U
:
C
E
r
o
E b
C v
a R n
e
R
i m
S IT
t
e
b
O r
y
v
V e
i R
O
c
r
eD
S2 o
A
S
R
0
r
D
e
1 f A
a
0 V
s
P E a C lo u A p lt e o rt
A F
B
R Di r
i
r e e
n
a S s e O
o
rv u i t c s e idS T EL
LI N G R D
P e r o F v o i r d m e a r l Jurisdiction BL A N
E Y A V E
R D City of Palo Alto Cities Spheres of In N Y fO N luence ) !! V C B U B o it l y u / n D t i e s e tr r i c F t ir F e ir C e o S m ta p ti a o n n i s es C Jo it s y e o F f i r S e an
Los Altos F H i i r ll e s C P o r u o n t t e y c F t i i r o e n D i D st i r s ic t t ricts STEVENS C A Fire L P o r s o A t l e to c s t i H o Gil n Nls A D R C T o iRs u D t n r t i y c F ts ir e C SS C D pp S i F h s r t t D ei r a n ic r t - eg t i o s S s n e oF v if 2 r e Ien n flue ?¾E nce Station 15
RE
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) Santa Clara County Central Fire ProtPecRtiOonS PDEisCtrT ict R(CDCFD)
Stevens
Creek I Saratoga
ReservoirMiles
0 0.25 S0t.5evens Cr1eek 1.5 2
Volunteer CAL FIRE -
Fire Company Stevens Creek
Station 23
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
4.6 City of San José Fire Department
4.6.1 Overview
The San José Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical
service to a 205 square mile area with a population of about 981,000. In addition
to the City of San José, the department services unincorporated islands and
adjacent areas through a contract with the CCFD; these areas have a population
of approximately 56,567. Figure 37 is a map depicting the boundaries and fire
station locations of the City of San Jose. San José is a charter city with an 11-
member City Council. The city is a council-manager form of government with
the Fire Chief reporting to the City Manager.
The department organization chart is shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32: San José Fire Department Organization Chart
4.6.2 Budget
The department is funded primarily from the City’s General Fund. Tables 40 and
41 display budgeted expenditures by function and type respectively, as reported
in the FY 2010-11 budget.5
5 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 70
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
Table 40: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditure
Administrative and Management $14,468,090
Operations $126,926,383
Fire Prevention $6,665,904
Other $5,271,903
Total Expenditures $153,332,280
Table 41: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditure
Salaries and Benefits $146,426,316
Operations and Maintenance $6,905,964
Subtotal Operations $153,332,280
Capital $0
Total Expenditures $153,332,280
4.6.3 Stations
The City has 34 fire stations. Thirteen were identified as in excellent condition; 14
were identified as in fair condition; and seven were identified as in poor
condition. Information on each station is provided in Attachment C.
4.6.4 Staffing
According to the FY 2010-11 Adopted Budget, the department has 770.48 FTEs,
of which 665 are sworn positions (as shown in Table 42). Engines companies are
staffed with four personnel and truck companies with five ; there is at least one
medic on each apparatus. At some stations companies are split and assigned to
two pieces of apparatus. Initial deployment to a single alarm structure fire is 14
to 24, depending upon conditions described in the 911 call.
Management Partners, Inc. 71
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
Table 42: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 18.00 27.00 45.00
Operations 630.00 49.48 679.48
Fire Prevention 17.00 29.00 46.00
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total FTEs 665.00 105.48 770.48
4.6.5 Labor Agreements
Labor agreement information is displayed in Table 43. The department’s labor
agreement with IAFF has expired. There is currently no new agreement in place.
Table 43: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
IAFF Local 230 5 years June 30, 2009
4.6.6 Benefits
Pension and health benefits for sworn personnel are shown in Table 44 below.
Table 44: Benefits
Benefits
SJ Police and Fire Retirement Plan System. 2.5% @ 50 up to 20
Pension
years. 3% @ 50 after 20 years, maximum of 90%
Health City pays 90% of lowest cost plan
4.6.7 Apparatus
The department staffs 30 engines, 9trucks, 5 medic units, 4 light units, 2 brush
patrols, 1 Urban Search and Rescue unit and 1 HazMat unit on a daily basis. This
staffing is augmented by additional brush patrols in the fire season. Engines are
evaluated for replacement at 17 years; trucks at 20 years. Apparatus are replaced
with funds from a 2002 bond issue. All front line apparatus currently in use are
consistent with the replacement cycle. Apparatus maintenance is performed by
the City’s Fleet Management Division of the General Services Department. Table
45 displays the department’s apparatus. Attachment C provides more detail
about apparatus.
Management Partners, Inc. 72
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
Table 45: Apparatus
Apparatus Quantity
Engine 30
Truck 9
Hazardous Incident Team (HIT) 1
Rescue (USAR) 1
Medic Units 5
Light Units 4
Brush Patrols 2
4.6.8 Service Delivery
Dispatch is provided by the department’s communications unit in the City’s
Communication Center. The Fire Department responded to 70,892 calls in
calendar year 2009; about 73% were EMS calls. Figure 33 shows calls for service
by type.
Figure 33: Calls for Service in 2009
60,000
51,645
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
9,994
10,000
320 1,367 713 3,230 281 3,342
0
The department has a mutual/auto aid agreement with the CCFD. Mutual and
automatic aid reported for 2009 is shown below in Table 46.
Management Partners, Inc. 73
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
Table 46: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Mutual Aid Automatic
Agency Received Aid Received Given Aid Given
CCFD 1 1 7 44
SCFD 0 0 6 1
City of Santa Clara 1 0 2 0
City of Milpitas 0 0 1 0
Total 2 1 16 45
Reported aid activity is significantly less than actual activity. The San Jose Fire Department
acknowledges record keeping problems on auto/mutual aid calls in 2009.
Response standards and performance for 2009 are shown in Table 47, below.
Table 47: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Measure Standard* Actual Performance
Emergency calls – non-medical 8 min for 80% of calls 8 min for 82% calls
Emergency calls - medical 90% 95%
* Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established the 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls;
this standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The ISO rating in the city varies from 3 to 9 depending upon proximity to
suppression resources. The standards of cover approach is used to determine the
resources that are necessary to meet service standards.
The department has a fire marshal and Fire Prevention Bureau that is based on a
cost recovery budget. The department has an accredited and state-approved
training facility. State fire marshal training is available and open to other
agencies.
4.6.9 Trends and Projections
San José’s population is projected to grow 41% during the next 25 years to
approximately 1,381,000 (an annualized rate of 1.6%). Figure 34 shows the
expected population growth between 2000 and 2035.
Management Partners, Inc. 74
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
Figure 34: Projected Population City of San José 2000 to 2035
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Fire department expenditures have decreased by approximately 4% from FY
2007-08 to FY 2010-11, as shown in Figure 35.
Figure 35: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11
$180,000,000
$160,000,000
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (actual) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Over the past four years, staffing has decreased by 12%, from 875.48 to 770.48, as
shown in Figure 36.
Management Partners, Inc. 75
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
Figure 36: Staffing 2007-08 to 2010-11
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 76
YTNUOC OETAM NAS YTNUOC ZURC ATNAS
ALAMEDA COUNTY
ATEO COUNTY
ALAMEDA COUNTY
CRaelsaevrveorairs
N
M
San Mil
C
p
i
i
t
t
y
a s
o
F
f
ire
S A Fra B n a c y isco Station #3
Stanford University C
S
i A t
t
y l
a
t o o
ti
f
o
F P
n
ir a e
1
lo Ci
A
ty
lt o
o f
F
P
ir
a
e
lo JACKLIN RD EVANS
Pa S lo C t a A it t y l i t o o o n f F 7 ire JUN L F I a P e k l E e t RO SE %&j( RR
S A
A
C t
C
l a
B
P t i
S i
o
A L
t t a
t V
y
t
i
y l
o l F
D a t
o o n
o
i
o t
r f
i f
e
o
8
F P n ir a e 6 lo A
A
LM
M H
A
L
S
O
A S C t
O l
T l a
o
P t i
i D t
o t t a
Y
P y
l
i A
o
o l F o
l R
o
s
n i
D
r
s
f a e 2
s
l S t t l a o o t
E
i
S
o
l t M
n
F a
C
i t
3
r o
S i A C
i e
t
o n
H t y l a
n t
t A
A e
o o R ti L f o
L
F
C
S E A
A
P n S i
i l
C t
S
r l
t o l
T a a P t e
t t y
5 i
t
O o l t
o
t
a
a o
o
N y i
o s
o
t
l
s
F V o
f i
R M o
F
n S i
o
i r
L
D
s
f C
i
e t
n
e o 4
r o
a w
e
i u t
s
t y n i
SP RIN GE R RD
F o t o i n a r f
A
e i
F
3
C
V n
M
M
l i
S -
t r i
i V M
o t
C e
e
t
F
S o
y O
i a w
s
i C e t u
S O
o t
o
t
o
a w
L T
y i n
V
i
t
u
C
F t
H
o t
f a o
t y
I
n o i i
L i
n F
u L
o a
t
r
y t L
t f
i
o e
i
i
y o
i n
o o
a 5
-
r
E
n
V e
f
X
e
s n
-
n l
i
S o
1 n
a P i Y e f t
-
C C w a w t M C t V a S i F C o F o i t S D
V
s u C i n
M
u a
S
r p S i t
i
n F e t -
C
a
e t
2 n r
o
t i t D
a
o i
w
M a
i
a
u
F n p
M t t
n t
y
i i
n i
g - o i n
F o
r
o
o 7
t
S e s
o
S n
i f n a
n
r f
e e F
f
t
e
u S
e i 4
a
n
v 2
t
i C n t M r
t
F
-
A e S a R e n Y i R
F
A t n V r t E y E
i
y i
e
u o v M t
l
o
d
a n S O i f l n u S e N 3 n C n T t - a DE A N n ZA BLV D i n A t t y o V y io v E
S
y o a n
u S
f l e 1
C n t
B v C
a
S
n
O -
it
u
t
C t
y
L
y
C
i
a p a
o
C F L
v
F S H i
o
t I e i
n a
F t F i O u S N A r i I r R y
f
r W OLFE o R D
l
O e D l e C n G t M
5 e
t A K n a o e i S n E i S E n A
-
- t t V f E R y S 1 t y i o S o S a v T R o u S n E t a a D i
S
f C n A t l n o 4 e a
S u
D n i n J t t
C n
-
t
y o y R i
a
1 o
n i
v s D
t t
5 o n a
y
e
y
C
i
S o f
o v
l S 2 e l LA
o
W t RE NCE f EX
n
PY
a
a T a C
f
S - r
l
E t
6 e
a i a i V C t o
-
y n F E i C S C n S t A N t i R y r i l a t C A
S
7 S S t e a C
C
T C a y O o l
t
r t G i C t
l
a
C
C i S a
S a
C a t A f
a
S t o i AV r R E y o
i
l
t
y t t S
a r
l t a
t
F f a C a E
i
i a
a
n S C a
y n
o
o
o a o i r S J E r t F i r t t a i
t
n f
F n
o n t 8 a C
o
i f a e S K t i a i o
a
y o S
i
r t y s S F
f
l n t t
1
5
r
F e n a a B e n a
e
o a i i a t
0
o i o L r r r n a t 9 f n F e a 4 V f e n i t S o t i D S S r F a C
L
a 1 a n
A
e a
C
i
F S
C 4
A
S r n
J
n
Y
a 3 J
i
e
t E
i
o
t
t T
o t t l
a T
a
y E
y a
s T
a s C
t
t S n
e A o
e
i
T C o i i
o
C o
S
S t
f F
f i F
n
C y r
M
S l n t t t
S i
a S i y a
r
l
A
t a r o a
2 a
a r 1
e
C a a t e S
N
o a
5
f
n
r 0 i n t l C o t a S f S a i
D
F a o i n S a r a
R
t F i t a n r y n a i n 6 i e C o r t n F t 2 o O e n a a t i L f r a E 1 e
M
M
S
H BAS C O M AVE N
i
A
t
T E
l
A
C a
R D N
p
C G D I
C t
S
S i i
M J L A i I
t t i J
N E o t
i
V
o
t
t
B
y a o t
E G y E a
a
L s
y n s
C
s
A
o
E S S e t
t
o V
e
Z J T
F
i
i o # f
i R t E A o
o
o f t F 1 D a N
i f F
S y C
4 r
n
n
S K s T i t
S
S
e
r J E
i
S e i i a o
r
R e T o 4
2
t o
a
t
e
y n R f F a s
9
n
n
D S e t i P B o r i 2 R A a e
M
o f F
M
O 0
C
R n
AB
S n
E
i
O
K
L S A
r K
T
C A a F
N
e
L
7 W i A n
T A
i t
i
r
A
V
V
y 4 W e R
l
T
G S E
E H C I o
p
D
U R
S S L
M
O
A M t I N
S
S
T J A
T
L
C
i f
E
K
a A
t o L t O t S C A S S
S
a
i t F i
y N a S
l
s W D J
i t
C t
i
i a
p
t DR a
i o
t o e
y E
t a o
B t
t
r X
i F i n S i y
i P
n o
e
a t
n
s o
L Y
t
t
L f
o
F T
a
i U y
V
e i
a
n t r J o J n N S o i
f #
i e
D
o D
s
r o o o f F Y a 3 n e 6
1
s s
s
A n f S 0 i n e V r e 1 a E e 5 1 1
M
1 n 0 A T T
S
H H L ?ÂE S
i
M S
t l
T T
C a p
A
C
C
t L i R
A
i
S J
t C t i A
i
S R
V
O o
o
y
C t
D a J
t
N
E
i P t
y S J
o
a
t n
s
s
C i
D o
S
a L
o t
y
t e t
s
J o
E E F
i y
t # f
t a i s o t
e Y o
o
S i
f a F
i
y e t
o
o
2 r
s
S
7
f A
n S t i
F
i
e
T e
n
o r f o i
V
F
A S
H a
i
o e 3 C
r E
n
V
S f i F
2
C S
a
n S A r
e
n
E
T a S J P
3
e i 8
n
S i t r I o t E 3 T n a a e O y N s 4 n T t L e S E o i A R
P
o T V
IE
f F O E R
D
n
M
D S R i
O
r C
N
Y 1 a
T
e S J
R
K i 9 R
D
n o C t I t S N D y J a G s i t o t M e t R a o y D i C s t o f F T K e i o U n o S E i r L f F E n a L e J 2 S Y i R n r S 2 T
F
D a R O e
S
Y 6 o D
i
n O
p r V
N a
e
C A S
r
A
o
V J L
i
E W i
C
U t
n
o t
l
M s H a
u
y I
o
R
g
T s O n t
n
E C e
m
C o i e
V
K R A o
t
D A P f F
e a
V F
p
C n S E I S T L
e
i
l
J
a
r i E
l
O t 1 o t a
r e
e
n
M a L y 6 n s
y
I t E
y
X N e P o i Y o G
S
f F C S n
I
A S
E
J i i t r V o t
R
2 a a e E y
R
s 1 n t e
A
i o o N I f F E n M S i A r 2 a N e
R
4 B n
D F
L
E
V
L
D
TER
AB
R
RUB O
D
Q Y A EV R U N I S M AN R B D Y C S J i t o t a R y s t D e o io f F n S ir 3 a e 1 n MT HAMILTON RD S C S m A ta i L t t h i F o C I n R r e E 1 e 2 - k
STEVEN S S KYL C IN A E N B Y L O V C D N F re i R r D e e S k C C t S O V e o t N v C o S e G m e A l R v t u n E a p e L n S s t n a S i t F o n s e S I n y R C e P r R E r 2 e I 3 N - e G k S R S e C R t s e r e D v e r e e v n k o S s M A i N r B T OR E N DE R D N D R S D F a i i r s e S t r r a P i a c r r a t o t S t B t O C o H e L t o M V
A
g C a S c
N
a a t F t t
R
i l i g
D
a D o l o e t n n i y - o a W F n i e r 9 e st PROS Q S P C u t E a C i C t t T F o io ?¾E D R F n D i - r 8 e F S C M W G i D R O TIU Q r S e C e a i t C o F n r t a S C C e o D c t n t i F h i s t a n o - t D y e F t e n L o i s i o o F - r t o 3 S f e e n i s r u C r e 5 n a
G
S n m t y a p o
L
t
a
b a C i R
o
o L e k O V e C S n a s l G s
t
A e l s AT a o r O
s o
M v S n B o a W L P i V m r I D N B
s
S C E H h E L S S T a p L E C t R n A a C V BL D n V b t F i o E
K
o D
E
n e n
N
- F 6
N
l ir
E
l e
DY
UNI O N AVE H C C F A i i a r
R
M t e m y
D
I L S o p E T L V EI G t A O f H b a N e t l i A l o V n E C D NAI RE I M AV S J E i o t t C y a A C s M t e U D o E i R N o f AVE F T n S i N r a e E 9 n R AV C S E J i t o t
C
a y
S
s
J
t B
i
e
t
o
o t
i R
a
o
y
f
s
F
t
A n
e
S
o i
i N
o
r 1 a
f F
e H
n
7 n C
S
A
i
S
r
J
2
M
a
i
e
t o t B
2
a
n
y L s L t O e N o io S f F
A
n S
L
S i
M
r O 3 a e
A
C M S 3
D
n J i
E
t o t
N
H a y s
E
t I e L o
X
io L
P
f F
Y
n R S ir D 1 a e 3 n MO C F N i T i t E r y R e E o Y S H f t W S a Y t a SNELL AVE i n o n Jo C 1 S S s J 2 i t e A o t a y N s t e T o io A f F n S T i r 1 E a e 8 R n ESA HE B C L S L L J i Y t V o t E a y D R s t e o i A o f V F n E S i r 3 a e 5 n BERNAL RD FELIPE C
S
R C D J S i
t
J o t i t
a
o t y s a y
t
s e t o
i
e
o
o i f o F
n
f F S i n r S i
2
a r e 1 a e
7
n 1 n METCALF RD
?âE
MONTEVINA
RD
C
S
J
i
t
o
t
a
y
s
t
e
i
o
o
f
F
n
S
i r
2
a
e
8
n KÍ
Lo
C
C s
o
i A ty
u
lt
n
o o
t
s f
y
S F H
B
a i i
o
r l n l e
u
s J
n
C P o
d
o s
a
r e u o
ry
n t t e y c F t i i r o e n
F
D i D s
i
t i r
g
s ic t t r
u
icts
re
C
C
3
i
i
t
t
i
i
e
e
7
s
s
N
U
S
:
p
r
o
b
h
v C
a
e
n
e
re
m
S
i
s
e
t b
o
rv
f
y e
i
I
c
n
r
e
fl
2
u
o
A
e
0
F
re
n
1
i
f
a
c r
0
e e
s
L
S
P o r s
a
o A t l e
n
to c s t i H o
J
il n ls
o
D C i o
s
s u )
!!
t n
e
r t i y c F t V
C
A F
s ir o
i
i
r
e
r
t
e
S l
y
e
u
a
D
/
p n
D
S s
i t h s
i
e
e
s
O
t e
r
e r
t
v
i
r
u
r r c
i
i
c
t c
e t F
s
t
e
s
i
ir
d
F
e
P e
i
o
r
r
C
e
o F
f o
v o
S
I
i
n m
r d
t
m
a
f
e
p
t
l
a r
i
a u
o
l J
n
n
e
u
i
s
e n
r
s
i
c
sd
e
iction
BLACK
BEAR
A R
C
1 C
R
D l S 3
E
m
E
A t ,
K
a H a
R
L
S
t
D
U
e S i F o
M
l t I i n
M
R a t
I
a
T
t E 3 i c
R
3 o - k
D
n
HW Y
L R e e
-
x s i
S
e
R
n r g
t
v
C e
t o
a
o
F
i
d C
n
t
r
i i w r F o e D o n o 4 d
G R u e a s d er a v l
H
u o
IC
p i
KS
r e
RD ALAMITOS RD
R A e l
C
m se a
A
r d vo e
L
n ir
F S I t R a E ti o - A n l 2 m 2 aden MCKEAN
R
R
C e
D
s a e l r e v r o o ir
MONTEREY
RD
HALE AVE COCHRANE RD
R A e n s d e e r r v s o o i n r
S
S
a
a
r
n
a
ta
to
C
ga
la
F
ra
ir e
C o
P
u
ro
n
t
t
e
y
c
C
tio
e
n
n t
D
ra
i
l
s
F
tr
i
i
r
c
e
t
Protection District (CCFD)
S
S
a
a
r
n
a
ta
to
C
ga
la
F
ra
ir e
C o
P
u
ro
n
e
ty
c t
C
io
e
n
n
D
tra
is
l
t
F
ric
ir
t
e Protection District (CCFD) Vo A l C u s n a s s t o e a c e L ia r o t F m i i o r n e a CASA LOMA RD SPRINGS RD Ci F t H y ir i e l o l f S E M l t a T o t o i r r o g o n an MAIN AVE C H i
F
i t l y
i
l
r
D
e
o u f
S
n M
ta
n o
t
e
i
r -
o
g H
n
a il n l
South Santa Clara Co
0
unty
0
F
.
i
5
re Pro
1
tection Distr
2
ict (SCFD)
3 4
South Santa
5
C M l i a le ra s Coun I ty Fire Protection District (SCFD) E L ls a m k a e n UVA D S R
Chesbro
WILL O W
LLA
GAS R D Mo H rg ill an DUNNE
T
A
E
V
N
E NANT AVE
Reservoir
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
This page intentionally left blank
Management Partners, Inc. 78
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
4.7 City of Santa Clara Fire Department
4.7.1 Overview
The Santa Clara City Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency
medical services to a population of 114,700 within the 19.3 square miles of the
city limits of Santa Clara. Figure 43 is a map depicting the boundaries and fire
station locations of the City of Santa Clara. Santa Clara is a charter city operating
under the council-manager form of local government. The governing body is a
seven member City Council comprised of six council members elected at-large
for four-year terms and an at-large mayor serving a four-year term. The Fire
Chief is the director of the department and reports to the City Manager.
The City of Santa Clara Fire Department’s organization chart is shown in Figure
38 below.
Figure 38: City of Santa Clara Fire Department Organization Chart
City Council
City Manager
Fire Chief
Administrative –
Emergency
Technical
Services (212)
Services (26.5)
Emergency Volunteer/
Fire Protection Training Fire Prevention HazMat Division Administrative
Medical Services Reserve Division
(144) Division (7) Division (12) (5) Division (9.5)
Division (2) (57)
4.7.2 Budget
The Fire Department is funded primarily from the City’s General Fund. Tables 48
and 49 display budgeted expenditures by function and type respectively, as
reported in the FY 2010-11 budget.6
6 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 79
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Table 48: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditure
Administrative and Management $1,756,790
Operations $26,791,827
Fire Prevention $1,941,580
Other $3,232,527
Total Expenditures $33,722,724
Table 49: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditure
Salaries and Benefits $23,739,873
Operations and Maintenance $9,982,851
Capital $0
Total Expenditures $33,722,724
4.7.3 Stations
Service is provided from ten stations. All stations were replaced or remodeled
within the past ten years and are in good condition. There are no plans to close
any stations or reduce daily staffing.
4.7.4 Staffing
Staffing consists of eight three-person engine companies, one three-person truck
company, one four person truck company, a rescue unit and a Hazmat unit. The
department also staffs three ambulances provided by AMR with two-person
crews. The ambulances are used to transport patients when authorized by the
County EMS protocols. Initial deployment to a single alarm structure fire is 21.
Table 50 below shows the number of sworn and non-sworn personnel, as
reported in the FY 2010-11 budget.
Management Partners, Inc. 80
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Table 50: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 14.00 9.50 23.50
Operations 148.00 0.00 148.00
Fire Prevention 6.00 2.00 8.00
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total FTEs 168.00 11.50 179.50
4.7.5 Labor Agreements
Labor agreement information is displayed in Table 51.
Table 51: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
IAFF Local 1165 2 years November 14, 2010
4.7.6 Benefits
Pension and health benefits for sworn personnel are shown in Table 52 below.
Table 52: Benefits
Benefits
Pension CalPERS 3% @ 50. Employees pay 9%
Health Department pays 100% of Kaiser plan
4.7.7 Apparatus
Table 53 displays the department’s apparatus. The target service period for all
apparatus is 20 years, including 15 years on the line and five years in reserve. All
line apparatus are within the replacement policy. Apparatus maintenance is
provided by the City’s Public Works Department. Apparatus purchase is funded
through an internal service fund with an annual schedule of contributions.
Management Partners, Inc. 81
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Table 53: Apparatus
Station Apparatus Assigned Number Year
1 Engine E-1 1999
1 Medic Ambulance M-1 1995
2 Truck Aerial/Quint T-2 2009
2 Rescue Air 2005
2 Utility Tow Vehicle 2003
2 Truck Aerial/Quint RT-1 1993
3 Engine E-3 1999
3 Engine RE-2 1985
4 Engine E-4 1996
5 Engine E-5 1999
5 Medic Ambulance M-5 2002
6 Engine E-6 1996
6 Medic Ambulance M-6 1995
7 Engine E-7 1996
7 Engine RE-1 1990
8 Truck Aerial/Quint T-8 2009
8 Truck Aerial/Quint RT-2 1988
9 Engine E-9 1999
9 Hazmat Air 1997
9 Medic Ambulance RM-1 1995
9 Rescue Air 1991
9 Utility Tow Vehicle 1992
10 Engine E-10 1996
10 Engine RE3 1985
10 Engine RE3 1985
4.7.8 Service Delivery
Dispatch is provided by the Santa Clara City Police Department, with
information from medical/EMD calls transferred to the Santa Clara County
Communications Center to initiate an ambulance response. In 2009, 8,140 calls
for service were reported; 76% of them were for emergency medical services. All
calls for service are displayed in Figure 39 according to type of call.
Management Partners, Inc. 82
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Figure 39: Calls for Service in 2009
7000
6,187
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
805 824
1000
90 94 27 99 14
0
The department is a party to the Santa Clara County Master Mutual Aid
agreement. Automatic aid agreements are in effect with the San José City Fire
Department and CCFD. Table 54 lists the mutual and automatic aid that was
given and received in 2009.
Table 54: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Aid Mutual Aid Automatic Aid
Agency Received Received Given Given
Milpitas 0 0 1 0
San José 0 0 3 6
Sunnyvale 1 0 1 0
Total 2 0 6 6
Table 55 shows response standards and performance in 2009.
Management Partners, Inc. 83
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Table 55: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Measure Standard* Actual Performance
Emergency calls – non- 3 minute average 4 minutes, 32 seconds average
medical response time response time
Emergency calls -
90% 95.89%
medical
*Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established the 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls;
this standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The City has an ISO rating of 2.
The department maintains a Fire Prevention Bureau managed by a battalion
chief/fire marshal. Staffing consists of five deputy fire marshals at the captain
rank and two technicians. The bureau conducts plan check and inspection
services for new construction and annual maintenance inspections. Every
business is inspected annually and fire companies conduct certain inspections.
The department maintains a training facility that is staffed with one battalion
chief and three assistant training officers at the captain level. Three additional
personnel are on a 40-hour schedule.
4.7.9 Trends and Projections
The City’s population is projected to increase by 37% over the next 25 years to
approximately 157,200; an annualized rate of 1.5%. Figure 40 shows the projected
population growth between 2000 and 2035.
Figure 40: Projected Population City of Santa Clara 2000 to 2035
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Management Partners, Inc. 84
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Fire department expenditures peaked in FY 2008-09, and have decreased by
approximately 4% to FY 2010-11. Figure 41 shows department expenditures
during the past four fiscal years.
Figure 41: Expenditures and Budget 2007-08 to 2010-11
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (actual) (budgeted) (budgeted)
As Figure 42 shows, staffing has remained constant at 179.50 FTE.
Figure 42: Staffing
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 85
!!
!!
!!
Milpitas !! !! S S T T A R R I S P E A S N D DR !! !! WEDDELL DR AGNEW RD !!
Sunnyvale MISSION CO !! LLEGE BLVD
!! !! San
R Jose D N IV R!! O C
!!
MONROE ST
Santa !! Clara O T
C S !! !! !! FREMONT AVE !! A LV IS O
S !! T
!!
!!
Cupertino !! PARK Cupertino AVE
!! !!
!! !! E V A P S !! !! H EL P !!
Saratoga
!!
!!
T
1ST
ST A
B
E
FIRST
AVE E CARL RD
L
S T
V A D A E
HIL
A
V
E S T C S T
MAUD
M A
E
T
AV
O R B D E A U
E
X D R M O R S E A V E C R O S S M A N
DUA
L 1 A 0
N
T K H
E
L S T L E S A
A
W
V
T K 2 O N E
E
O D B D IR S D T D D R S D T R
L
A
W R E N C E Y P X E TASMAN DR LA FAY E T TE S T LICK MILL B
M
LV D
ONTAGUE
EXPY SE M E C LY C A A R V T E H Y B LVD S TA R LITE D R
O 'T O O L E
ARQUE
C
S
E
A
N
V
T
E
RAL EXPY J A Y S T
ALDO AVE
TRIMBLE
RD
JU
N C TIO N AV
A V E
E KIFER RD RT RD
EW
EVELYN AVE ASTER AVE AGATE DR B O W WALSH AVE E E
R REED AVE S D
IRIS AVE
OL F R E D E V A R A LP O P H E N S R D E A O N V E LIL H A L F O R D Y A V E AVE M R E E A Y O V
A V E
S A N T M O A X E S P Y
V L B
MAIN ST
LA FA
Y E T T E S T AIR P O R T B LV D
4TH S T
W P O BENTON ST STO
M
CKTO
O N N
R O
AVE
HOMESTEAD RD
L
V
D
E S T DAVIS ST VILLA AVE
B
R
E T A N T A U A V E N C E E X P Y TRACY D R PRUNERIDGE AVE W N I C E H T S FOREST AVE EMORY ST DANA AVE T S E C A R
E T R S
E W A STEVENS CREEK BLVD L O
V A L ALBANY DR N U
Y N E A A V LB E E STATES DR MI LL E R A V E F N C H I J O H N S O N A V E W D M I O L O L Y O I L A E R M P R S A D R R N K D O A R V W E ALK DR BLACKFORD AV O N Y T O N V A E E C R P Y S S E A V E A N D E V E E OLSEN DR E V A R E O V C L M D A N E W I L A Y OOR H O R T N T O N W A Y PARK AVE B A S O C V A M E LE IG H A V E LIN C O LN AVE S
SARAT O
GA
AVE
A
S
N T O
M A
Q A S O N I R U D
LAT
P
IM
AY
E
N
R
E
AV
AV
E
EB I C A N O L N M HAMILTON AVE
R
S
I
T
D
O
G
K
E
E
L
S
EY
ST
DR
D RI E M I A A N V E
GATON
DR
E V A S K C
IH
DVLBY LEIK
AËH OLGER WAY C M it il y p i o t f as Fire
CARIBBEAN DR H Station #4
City of Sun S n ta y t v io al n e 5 - C S - S u it t n y a n o t y i f o v n a l 6 e Cit S y C t o a la f t r i S a o a n F n i 1 t re a 0 Z A N K E R R D TAS CI S M C O W A Y AN DR B A R B E R LN City of San Jose Fire Station 29 City of Santa %&t( Clara Fire Station 6
O
City of Santa R C KÍ C St la a r t a io F n ir 8 e H A R D P K W 1S T S T D A D O ST Y
HENDY AVE C S S u t it a n y t n i o o y f n v a 2 le - C C St i l t a a y r t a i o o F f n i S r 9 e anta
LAURELWOOD
RD R O G E R S A
City of Santa V E
Clara Fire Station 2
TERM
M AR INAL TIN DR
City of Santa AV E City of Clara Fire City of San Sunnyvale - Station 5 Jose Fire Station 4 Station 20 City of Santa C S l t a a r t a io F n ir 1 e COLEMAN AVE %&t( ?ÂE City of Santa Clara Fire
Station 7
City of San City of Santa Jose Fire
Clara Fire Station 7
Station 3
City of Santa
Clara Fire Station 4 CCFD - Cupertino Fire
Station 1
City of San
Jose Fire Station 10 %&j( Figure 43: City of Santa Clara City of San Jose Fire Station 4 November 2010 Y P X C C o i C J Sty u o t i n t o s a t y f y e t S i o B o F a o f n i n u r t S a e n 1 a d C5 a n l r a y ra C C i i t t i i e e s s U Sp rb h a e n re S s e o rv f i I c n e fl u A e re n a ce s C J S o t it s a y e t ) !! i o o F f i n r S e 1 V C A Fa o 4 i i r nr t e l y e u a / n D S s t i e e s O r e t v r u r i i c t c F s t e i ir d F e P e ir r C e o F S oA N v o TS O M A S E i m r d t m a e p t a r i a o l J n n u i s e r s isdiction BIKE PATH Ci S t J y t o a s o t e f io S F n i a r n 6 e Fire Protection Districts Fire Protection Districts Spheres of Influence Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD)
?¾E I ?âE
Miles 0 0.5 1 2
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
4.8 Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
4.8.1 Overview
The Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) is a dependent
Fire Protection District governed by the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors. The district provides fire protection and emergency service to a
district population of approximately 164,489 within 137 square miles. The district
includes much of the unincorporated areas in the central and northern parts of
the County, and the cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and part of
Saratoga. The district population includes approximately 56,567 residents that
reside in unincorporated pockets surrounded by the City of San Jose. These areas
are served by the San Jose Fire Department by contract with CCFD. Service is
provided outside of the district boundaries by contract to an additional
population of approximately 132,867 living within the cities of Campbell, Los
Altos and Morgan Hill and the Los Altos Hills County Fire District and Saratoga
Fire Protection District. Figure 49 is a map depicting the boundaries and fire
station locations of the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District.
The Fire Chief reports to the Board of Supervisors sitting as the Fire District
Board of Directors. LAFCO completed the annexation of 22,000 acres in
September 2010 to the CCFD so that a new automatic aid agreement can be
negotiated with the Santa Cruz County Fire Department.
The CCFD is nationally accredited by the Center for Public Safety Excellence
(CPSE). Accreditation requires a department to go through an extensive self-
assessment process to ensure its policies and practices are consistent with the
standards established by CPSE. There are only five CPSE accredited departments
in California.
The data for the CCFD includes all cities and districts served by contract.
The department organization chart is shown in Figure 44.
Management Partners, Inc. 87
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Figure 44: Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Organization Chart
4.8.2 Budget
District funding is provided primarily through property taxes and contracts for
fire protection services. Tables 56 and 57 display FY 2010-11 budgeted
expenditures by function and type, respectively; Table 57 displays budgeted
revenues. 7
Table 56: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditures
Administrative and Management $3,874,046
Operations $53,893,487
Fire Prevention $4,035,677
Other $19,982,307
Total Expenditures $81,785,507
7 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 88
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Table 57: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditures
Salaries and Benefits $67,310,690
Operations and Maintenance $13,401,567
Subtotal Operations $80,712,257
Capital $1,073,250
Total Expenditures $81,785,507
Table 58: Revenues
Department Revenues (2010-11)
Special Parcel Tax/Assessments, etc. $49,144,000
Fire Prevention $379,000
Fees, EMS $900,000
Fees, Other -
Contracts $28,058,940
Other $1,646,500
Total Department Revenues $80,128,440
The District’s audit as of June 30, 2010 reported a $14,522,964 fund balance, a
decrease of $2,928,964 from FY 2009-10. Of the total fund balance, $3,475,204 was
designated for future expenditures and retiree medical expenditures The
remaining fund balance of $11,047,760 was undesignated and is 13.8% of its
annual general fund expenditures.
4.8.3 Stations
The department has 17 fire stations: eight in excellent condition, eight in good
condition with some renovations needed, and one in fair condition.
4.8.4 Staffing
As Table 59 shows, the department has 308 FTEs of which 279 are sworn
positions. Company staffing is three per engine, four per truck, with some
apparatus staffed using a select call/peak load methodology. The department
provides ALS with a minimum of one ALS firefighter on each apparatus. Initial
deployment to a single alarm structure fire is 15 personnel.
Management Partners, Inc. 89
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Table 59: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 10.00 6.00 16.00
Operations 247.00 0.00 247.00
Fire Prevention 18.00 3.00 21.00
Other 4.00 20.00 24.00
Total FTEs 279.00 29.00 308.00
4.8.5 Labor Agreements
Labor agreement information is displayed in Table 60.
Table 60: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
IAFF Local 1165 2 years November 14, 2010
4.8.6 Benefits
Table 61 shows pension and health benefits for sworn personnel.
Table 61: Benefits
Benefits
Pension CalPERS 3% @ 50. Employees pay 9%
Health Department pays 100% of Kaiser plan
4.8.7 Apparatus
The department has 16 engines, two trucks, two rescues, and one Hazmat
apparatus. Six engines and three trucks are in reserve. Engines are replaced at 12
years or 100,000 miles and trucks are replaced at 10 years or 75,000 miles.
Replacements are funded from annual budgets. All first- line apparatus are in
excellent condition and reserves are in good condition. The department operates
its own apparatus maintenance facility. Table 62 displays the department’s
apparatus.8
8 Apparatus with three digits are Reserve apparatus.
Management Partners, Inc. 90
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Table 62: Apparatus
Apparatus Make/Model Year
Engine 1 KME 1250 GPM 2007
Engine 2 KME 1250 GPM 2000
Engine 3 KME 1250 GPM 2003
Rescue 3 KME 1250 GPM 2007
Engine 4 Westates/HME 1250 GPM 2001
Engine 6 KME 1250 GPM 2008
Engine 7 KME 1250 GPM 2002
Engine 8 KME 1250 GPM 2003
Engine 108 KME 1250 GPM 2000
Engine 9 KME 1250 GPM 2002
Engine 10 KME 1250 GPM 2010
Engine 110 KME 1250 GPM 2000
Engine 11 KME 1250 GPM 2002
Engine 12 KME 1250 GPM 2009
Engine 112 Pierce 1500 GPM 1991
Engine 13 KME 1250 GPM 2007
Rescue 14 KME 1250 GPM 2007
Engine 15 KME 1250 GPM 2005
Engine 115 KME 1250 GPM 2000
Engine 16 KME 1250 GPM 2010
Engine 116 Hi-Tech/Spartan 1500 GPM 1992
Engine 17 KME 1250 GPM 2009
Rescue 17 Ferrara 1500 GPM 2003
Engine 117 Hi-Tech/Spartan 1500 GPM 1992
E301 International/Placer 500 GPM 4x4 2009
E305 International/Placer 500 GPM 4x4 2009
E313 International/Placer 500 GPM 4x4 2009
E314 International/Placer 500 GPM 4x4 2009
E317 International/Placer 500 GPM 4x4 2009
E307 International/KME 500 GPM 4x4 1997
E311 International/Westmark 500 GPM 4x4 1991
E306 International/Westmark 500 GPM 4x4 1991
E408 Ford F-550/Ferrera 500 GPM 4x4 2003
Management Partners, Inc. 91
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Apparatus Make/Model Year
E412 Ford F-550/KME 125 GPM 4x4 2002
Engine 30 Hi-Tech Spartan 1500 GPM 4x4 1990
HazMat 2 KME 2004
HazMat 102 Ford/Paoletti 1988
Breathing Support Spartan/KME 2005
OES 289 Westates/HME 1000 GPM 2002
Truck 1 Smeal/Ferrara 1500 GPM 2003
Truck 5 KME 1500 GPM 2002
Truck 12 Smeal/Pierce 1500 GPM 1992
Truck 14 Smeal/HME 1500 GPM 1996
Truck 111 Hi-Tech/LTI/Spartan 1500 GPM 1993
Training Hi-Tech Spartan 1500 GPM 1992
4.8.8 Service Delivery
Dispatch is provided by contract with the Santa Clara County Communications
Department. The Fire Department reported 16,533 responses in 2009, of which
10,835 (66%) were EMS calls. All calls for service that were received in 2009 are
shown below in Figure 45, according to type of call.
Figure 45: Calls for Service in 2009
12000
10,836
10000
8000
6000
4000
2,202
1,050 1,679
2000
153 354 111 168
0
Management Partners, Inc. 92
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
The CCFD maintains mutual and automatic aid agreements with Gilroy,
Milpitas, Moffett, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale,
Saratoga Fire District, SCFD and the Santa Cruz County Fire Department. In 2009
a total of 1,239 mutual/automatic aid responses were received while 1,316
responses were provided. Table 63 lists all mutual and automatic aid that was
given and received in 2009.
Table 63: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Mutual Aid Automatic
Agency Received Aid Received Given Aid Given
San José FD 7 608 23 845
SCFD 3 407 42 284
SFD 0 0 0 0
Santa Cruz County
22 102 11 19
FD
Palo Alto FD 4 34 9 26
Mountain View FD 0 45 10 33
Sunnyvale FD 0 7 4 2
Gilroy FD 0 0 4 0
City of Santa Clara
0 0 2 0
FD
Milpitas FD 0 0 1 0
Moffett FD 0 0 1 0
Total 36 1,203 107 1,209
The department has standards of coverage for deployment to various types of
incidents and by metro, suburban, and rural areas. Table 64 lists response
standards and performance in 2009.
Table 64: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Actual
Measure Standard* Performance
The first unit shall arrive on-scene with a travel
Single Unit Fire –
time of less than 8 minutes, no less than 85% of the 87.9%
Metro/Urban
time.
Single Unit Fire – The first unit shall arrive on-scene with a travel
92.3%
Suburban time of less than 11 minutes, no less than 85% of the
Management Partners, Inc. 93
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
time.
The first unit shall arrive on-scene with a travel
Single Unit Fire –
time of less than 13 minutes, no less than 70% of the 79.1%
Rural
time.
The first unit shall arrive on-scene with a travel
EMS
time of less than 7 minutes, no less than 90% of the 93.3%
Metro/Urban
time.
The first unit shall arrive on-scene with a travel
EMS Suburban time of less than 10 minutes, no less than 85% of the 86.7%
time.
The first unit shall arrive on-scene with a travel
EMS Rural time of less than 14 minutes, no less than 70% of the 81.0%
time.
Emergency calls -
County 90% standard 95.13%
medical
*Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established the 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls;
this standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The district has an ISO rating of 2 in most areas and 8 in remote areas.
The Fire Prevention Division consists of a deputy chief, an assistant fire marshal,
three senior deputy fire marshals, twelve deputy fire marshals, a hazardous
materials program supervisor, two hazardous materials specialists and two fire
protection engineers. The Fire Prevention Division, in conjunction with fire
station crews, conducts the following: fire and life safety plan reviews and
inspections of new buildings, fire safety inspections of existing buildings,
hazardous materials storage and use compliance inspections, and inspections of
fire hazard complaints. The Fire Prevention Division also reviews all proposed
development plans to ensure compliance with local regulations relative to fire
department access and fire protection water supplies. The division is the fire
marshal for County unincorporated lands.
The Training Division coordinates and/or delivers training to all department
employees. The division also assists in the recruitment and promotional testing
process. The division manages the paramedic coordinator, emergency services
coordinator, Public Education Office, and the Volunteer Division.
4.8.9 Trends and Projections
The district’s population is projected to increase by 15% to approximately 189,200
during the next 25 years (an annualized rate of .6%). The district’s service
population is also projected to increase by 15% over the next 25 years, to
Management Partners, Inc. 94
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
approximately 340,900. Figure 46 shows projected growth for both the service
and district populations between 2000 and 2035.9
Figure 46: Projected Population Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
2000 and 2035
400,000
350,000
300,000
District
250,000
Population
200,000
Service
150,000 Population
100,000
50,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Prepared by LAFCO based on 2000 census and ABAG Projections 2009
Fire Department expenditures have increased by 23% during the past four fiscal
years, as shown in Figure 47. A substantial portion of the increase resulted from
the full-service agreement for service with the Saratoga Fire District in 2008 and
from renegotiation of other contracts.
9 Population data includes only district lands, not areas served by contract.
Management Partners, Inc. 95
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Figure 47: Expenditures and Revenues 2007-08 to 2010-11
$90,000,000
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000 Expenditures
$30,000,000 Revenue
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (actual) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Figure 48, below shows staffing levels between FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11.
Staffing increased by three budgeted personnel in FY 2008-09, and then remained
constant at 308.
Figure 48: Staffing
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 96
YTNUOC OETAM NAS YTNUOC ZURC ATNAS
MATEO
COUNTY
ALAMEDA COUNTY
City of
C R a es la e v r e v r o a ir s
S A N City of Palo Alto Fra B S n a a c n y isco M St i a lp ti i o ta n s # F 3 ire
Stanford C U S i A t n t y l i a t v o o t e i f o r F s P n i i r t a y e 7 lo Cit S y A t l o a t t f o L i F P o a e F k l a n t e ir l 8 o e Cit %&j( S y A t l o a t t f o i P o F n a ir l 6 o e F A i H r L e A l o L S i t M l t o A a l s S s M t T i C s O o i O n t P S A C A S y D A 1 t t i l Y l o t a t a a t y o l f R t o t D i i t o P o F o l F C A S o f a i n o n i r r t i P l l e t o e t 5 2 a a y o t S l E F S i o o F o T C A S i l t E r f i E n a t i M l r V e t t P a L C e t E A y 3 o i t M N a o i o S S i t l O S o l F o n K t y n t N o Y o f A i n t T a L C r I o E e N s P A t e E L 4 A N f i a F V S o B Y l E L A L l o O i n V N o t r o D N A e N o s T O s R C S N F I D O E t s R i D N C r e T e O v S C R S N V SP RIN e GE C R R D t A G A t a n o R L o e L F t E s l C V m v C A F O E i u S S F o C e O S X i i M i i l n t r t e p t I T t n P n r a e R y H y t S o w Y e a s t e I P 2 L E S s o n e o i L C e V o R F C o 3 C V F S S t f V k L y f - E I R r i i n a r i i N i t X t M t e o L t r e e E u a P G t y a y e w 3 y o w Y M i e i t S o t o o o e i o - R s k i O n o u S n o F F e f R l C f t N s a C V n n e i n i e r S M D w M r v r t e T r t e i i e e v e 5 t 1 t e n a a k o o S A a o y s A i - w M C V S i N - r V u t n B u O o t T i C i E R i n C N o n s F a E f n D F t t t n E t C i R S M N a a r D a R i D D S e o F p i 2 i F n o n D n - r S - a i u i C r M M n C V t 7 e - S n S a g i o i r S t o t t e t s f a a y a u u i e f n w B o C S S e O t i F v H t o n i t n u t L i P o a i M t e F t t n p f a r I A n E y N M F n n 2 e i o A t R M R r R n Y i C i A e o D e V n 4 o E E e y o l g f R n STE d LL - I N G R D v u D 6T y a H 3 r S n T a le t t v a C C S i - C S S i DE A NZA BLV D n t n C u S P D u t a i a t p a F a r n t i y B o t e o s D i r n O o C S S F i l t A o a r t o IR y r L t e n u t O e i - t f A i n K t i L a v S o c n c n A C J S y 1 V I a t E t t N o 1 g n o t i i o i l o S t G C V S s a a e o y C y F f W O e LFE n t R t D E t v n C a F - i i a i a o R a C S S r t o l F F 5 i t l e y t r f l C S S e u t C n i i i D e R i e S r t o a o S y u t o i n l e y D 1 t t t a n a - n a - n f n y F a i A 5 o t r S o W n n S C Q S y t 9 a i i R o f r o S u n i v y a t C Q o e u e f F a n C n t a v n S 4 F U n i s a i t n a t l i t r u 2 D t e E i t t S o e a 7 o l y D Q R UIT y O n i e S T o - v n - F n S E o M - A n a i y V 8 e r f V C l 6 e e o E P C E o r C N a R i e - n F t S S k U F y n D C C S C S s a F t N i C r e o t o S n a i i l i E F C e R r - t a W t a S f C R n C J S t t e i y y E l r L r t S C o a a t C a C I t i t a i E i e i D S a o t o o t n t t a o s a i r a C i K y t y C a i t G F a S t S e f s f t t c n o m y C C i l a y t i L i E l o B o S t a S h o t o O F n F r a i l t 9 C o a a L S o p r e a f n o a e a f i i r n i A V G t a t 1 r f o F r n r a b n A s n S f V T i S e i 3 e C D 0 O a C 1 o n D R t o F t S e t S a E C F 5 V C e B e 4 a a n L n i l a a n a s V 5 i i r l D A r - C e s S r t C J S a l e n r o 8 e M y C C S o v l n a t t i t n a F o a W a t P t s a i l L a i o m S r r t a i y I T a N t e B r t C S S a y f C r A a r t i t e i o E H o o o a F h t S S C C i a n E a o F L o S a f S p n M n i a a T t F i L F i f r n t E t S r s t a A n M n e R D 2 i i S y 2 e O A a B D VL r b o a N N 4 n t C R V 5 e a t O o n a n - C C S E o i E l n D S o e a f T t n i l 6 R t C J S t a n r a a o y a F r l t i t 6 C J S t a l s a i i o y o o r e t t i F e f t s a n i C C F o o y F i S e t r i BAS C O M AVE f i a 1 n i i r e a o t r o Z F S e m A y e n UNI O N AVE f N 1 n i a K r S t E o 0 S p e R n M a 2 t f a b S R E a 9 L V E D n I S i G H A e t H t l C E a A p C l i D C J S l o t N i i i o D t S t i n t t i J o y I t a y s a N o C t y n e s G a t o A s o C S F i C J S t D NAI o RE I M M e F S R o # B f A F f i o i V a i T R t r i f o E i L t n i F S t 4 W r n s a C e O r y O S n A y C e e e i K a t M I 7 P r S J S L a U D o A i i o n 4 A e A T E L o B o F W E R n N L t l A f S A O VE R S T f a n s i Y T p r W T C J S K S e R N L t e o C J S 9 J O i t E i a D A C S o S o A t O R C M F s a t i V i R A J n T y i t K n C t s a e E t i L o t t i S y A r a A e t i i N K t y o T l D s e o a 2 F V y t i p RD o L C J S o e F f o 0 i E n i o S I o i o r f t i N n S i t f F t e r s a s t C J 5 n S f a y a e S a e i o 6 t R s B r i a 4 n L 3 i t T t a o s e D U o R F H n i y 0 N KÍ e n o S f A n D E i T r Y o S n V C J S N F e 1 A A R o A f a H t i V i L ?ÂE # E r N C M S t E s a S M A n e P y E S e E C J S 1 t t i A M a A R D t i H R o a B i D o B l t L i A o n y C J S F E O A p t S t s a V L V L o R C J S f E n y S i t i i T 1 i e o R N E t o O r o t 7 t T S s a t i Y T C e i H y o t f E a 1 H s a S e E o n F t M a A y S T S I 7 e s f i t S O T o L n L i S n T o F # C J S r N i A o A S O L E F o f F T e o 7 n i 2 V t R R S i E T 2 r f a M C J S i S n t i D s a H R E r 3 e D r o R 3 y S n E t i e e R a t S e Y 8 t A D H s a T C J S a A i C J S n o y H o F L e o t I S o C n W t i L t f i E i n A t i o s a Y t o F s a r L R P y S y e M t e f e I A A t n 3 i T D P R a C i r o O L i I V S o o E 4 F L o e F D D L U n 1 A E f M a n f i K U A n i O M 3 C J S r I r V N G S n N S e o M T E e H 1 t G i R 3 R C J S a D L C t a S s a 9 o R I 3 O E y N K n t i e n D t N t s a E C A T i y o V E E o e F K t E R f i S R n o i o F A R r T D S D f V e O n i 2 r a E R S e 6 SNELL AVE Y 1 n T a O S V F 2 R C J S Y n T C J S O D o i p o C J S U t N i r o t t C o i A s a e L r l t i A t V s a y u L i P e t E W s a t y n Y I e C T S t y n i H e O o t o i F R I g L A o T o o i t F o f E E D o F n i N e X f m V r n i R f P S n r i S T e Q e D Y S r 1 a I e S a L A 2 p e r U V 6 a 1 l E a n C J S l a I R 8 T n e o M n t C i n E t y R s a B E R y y e E t Y K E i S o o F R S I f H D E n i A R r E N S R I e C J S L E D 2 B M R L a o J t Y A i 1 L N A t S n E s a C J S V y R e o o B t t D i i L a t o s a A o F V y e V t f D s n i R E i r F o S o F n D e E 3 e f L a n i F T 5 r S n E O e 2 R a W 4 R n RU L B D Y AVE E S B A R E N RN M R A F L R U E D D D R LI E I P L E L L O R C J S T C J S D o AV o E A t i t i t s a t s a R y y e t e t D i i o o o F o F f f n i n i C J S r r S S o e e t i 3 2 a t a s a 1 y 7 n e t n i o o F f n i r S e 1 a 1 n MT HAMILTON RD METCALF RD C S S m t A a L i t t i F h o I n C R 1 r E e 2 - ek
?âE
G S a t t a o ti s o F n i r 3 e Gatos Station 22 ALMADEN
EXPY
City of San KÍ
Jose Fire
C
C
o
iti
u
e
n
s
ty
F
B
i
o
re
un
P
da
ro
ry
te
C
c
F
tio
e
i
n
g
n
D
u
is
t
t
r
r
ri
e
a
cts
l
4
F
9
C
C
i
i
i
r
t
t
:
i
i
e
e
e
s
s
S
N
U
S p
r
o
a
P
b
h
v
a
e
n
e
n
r
r
e
m
S
o
s
e
t
b
o
rv
f
a
t
e
i
I
c
n
r
e
e
fl
2
u
C
A
c
e
0
F
re
n
1
i
l
a
c r
t
0
e e
s
a
i
P
o
r
ro
a
n
te c
C
t
D
io
o
n
i
D
s
u
i
t
s )
!!
n
t
r
ri
i
c
t
c
t V
C A F
s
y
o
i i r
t
r t e
S l
y e
u
a /
p n
D S s
t h
i e
e
s O
e
r
e
t v r u
r r
i i c t c
e F
s t e
s
i
ir
d F
e
P e i
o
r r
C
e o F
f o
v o S
I
i
n m
r d t m a
f
e
p
t
l
a r i
a u
o l J
n
n
e
u
i
s
e n
r
s
i
c
sd
e
iction
BLACK
BEAR
R
CR
D
EEK
RD
H
WY
C
S
H
t
A
e
a
l
L
L
S
R
t
it
e
C R S
U
i
e
F
o
a
x s
M
t e C
i e
I
c
n
n
a
M
R
r
d F
k
g v
t
I
1
E
w
t
D
T
o
i
o
S
o
3
i n
R
r
o
-
,
t
n -
D
a
A
o 4
t
d
l
i
m
o
F
n
a
ir
3
e
3
G R u e a se d r a v l
H
o u
ICK
i p
S
r e
RD
St
A
a
LA
ti
M
o
IT
n
O
2
S
8
RD
R
A
A e
L
l s m
M
e
A
a r d v
D
o e
E
n ir
N R
C
S D t
A
a
L
t i
F
o
I
n
R
2
E
2
-
V
A
o
lm
A l C u s
a
n a
M
s
d
s t o
C
e a
e
c
K
e
n
L i
E
a r o
A
t F
N
m i i o r n e a
R
R
C e
D
s a e l r e v r o o ir
CASA LOMA RD D
MONTEREY
RD
SPR
H
IN
A
G
L
S
E
R D
AVE
C H Fi i i r t l e l y E S o l t f T
C
a M
O
o t
C
i r
H
o o o
RA
n r
N
g
E
a
R
n
D
MAIN AVE
R A
C H F
e n s
i
d
i i
e
r t
e
l
r
e
r
l y
v s o
D
o
S
i
o
n r
u t f a n M t n io o e n r - g H
A
a i
D V
l n
U
l
E NNE
S
L S o
a
a s
r
n
a
t A a
to
l t C
g
o
a
s la
F
H ra
i
i
r
l
e
l C s o
P
C u
r
o
o
n u
t
t
e
y n
c
t C y
ti o
e F
n
n ir t
D
e ra
i
D l
s
F
t
i
r
s i
i
r
c
tr e
t
ic P t rotection District (CCFD)
S
L S o
a
a s
r
n
a
t A a
to
l t C
g
o
a
s la
F
H ra
i
i
r
l
e
l C s o
P
C u
r
o
o
n u
e
ty n
c
t
t
C y
io
e F
n
n ir
D
t e ra
i s
D l
t
F
r
i
i
s
c
ir t
t
r e ic P t rotection District (CCFD) E L ls a m k a e n R S AVU
OAK GLEN AVE
WILL O W LLAGAS RD
DE
Mo
H
rg
ill
an
South Santa Clara Co
0
unty
0
F
.
i
5
re Pr
1
otection Dist
2
rict (SCFD)
3 4
South Sant
5
a
M
C
il
l
e
a
s
ra Coun
I
ty Fire Protection District (SCFD) R C e h se e r sb vo ro ir
E
W ITT AVE
DMUNDSON AVE H
S ( M C C
i
A
l
o
l
F L r
H
D g F
e
a - I
a
n R S
d
E t H
q
a
u
M i t ll i
a
o o A
r
n
t
r r
e
g e 1
r
a a
s
- n
)
MIDDLE A
FO
V
O T
E
HILL
AVE
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
This page intentionally left blank
Management Partners, Inc. 98
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
4.9 South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
4.9.1 Overview
The South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD) provides fire
protection and emergency medical service to the southern unincorporated areas
of the County with a population of approximately 24,533. Figure 55 is a map
depicting the boundaries and fire station locations of the South Santa Clara
County Fire Protection District. The district contracts for service delivery with
CAL FIRE. The Santa Clara unit of CAL FIRE also serves other areas outside the
South County District boundaries that are designated SRAs. SCFD is governed
by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. A seven-member Board of Fire
Commissioners appointed by the County Board of Supervisors manages all
affairs of the district, except land use, acquisition, or disposal, contracts with
other public agencies, and employment of counsel10.
As the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill have annexed new areas, one SCFD
station has become included within the Gilroy city limits and one within the
Morgan Hill city limits. The SCFD has automatic aid agreements with the Gilroy
Fire Department, CCFD, San Jose Fire Department and the Pajaro, San Benito
and Merced/Mariposa departments. A multi-agency group comprised of SCFD,
CCFD and the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill is studying regionalization
options.
The department organization chart is shown in Figure 50 below.
10 Pursuant to Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors on June 17, 1980.
Management Partners, Inc. 99
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Figure 50: South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Organization Chart
4.9.2 Budget
The SCFD is funded primarily by property tax. Expenditures by function and
type are shown in Tables 65 and 66, as reported by the FY 2010-11 budget.11
Table 65: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditure
Administrative and Management $1,051,713
Operations $3,459,170
Fire Prevention $95,000
Other $1,293,437
Total Expenditures $5,899,320
11 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 100
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Table 66: Expenditures by Type
Function Expenditure
Salaries and Benefits $0
Operations and Maintenance $5,804,320
Subtotal Operations $5,804,320
Capital $95,000
Total Expenditures $5,899,320
Table 67 shows revenues for FY 2010-11.
Table 67: Revenues
Source Revenue
Property Tax $3,859,000
Fees, EMS $189,777
Fire Prevention $80,000
Contracts – Mitigation Fee $51,000
Other $184,000
Total Revenues $4,363,777
The unreserved fund balance on June 30, 2010 for the SCFD was $2,285,624 for
the General Fund; this is a decrease of $473,166 from the previous year. The
unreserved fund balance for the General Fund is 39% of its general fund
expenditures for the year. As SCFD budgets major maintenance and apparatus
in the year purchased, expenditures can fluctuate significantly between years; the
department uses its reserve as necessary to fund such expenditures.
4.9.3 Stations
The district has four fire stations. The Morgan Hill station is owned by CAL
FIRE. Masten station is owned by the SCFD district and is a converted house that
the district obtained in 1980; ADA repairs and remodeling is budgeted for FY
2010-11. Treehaven is leased from Gilroy Gardens and needs work. Funding for
repairs and remodeling for this station will be negotiated with the City of Gilroy.
The Pacheco Pass station is owned by CAL FIRE.
4.9.4 Staffing
The department has 36.25 FTEs (of which 32.75 are sworn) and ten volunteers.
Table 68 shows the budgeted personnel for FY 2010-11. All apparatus are staffed
with companies of three, including a paramedic. The initial response to a single
Management Partners, Inc. 101
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
alarm structure fire is 19 personnel in the summer and 14 personnel in the
winter.
Table 68: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 0.00 1.50 1.50
Operations 29.75 1.00 30.75
Fire Prevention 0.00 1.00 1.00
Other (FC/P Amador) 3.00 0.00 3.00
Total FTEs 32.75 3.50 36.25
4.9.5 Labor Agreements
Table 69 lists labor agreements for the district. The SEIU and CAUSE labor
agreements have both expired. The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection and International Union of Operating Engineers both have tentative
agreements.
Table 69: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
SEUI 1000 2 years June 30, 2010
CAUSE State Law Enforcement Association 3 years June 30, 2008
CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (tentative) 3 years July 1, 2013
Intl’ Union of Operating Engineers (tentative) 2 years July 1, 2012
4.9.6 Benefits
Table 70 shows pension and health benefits for sworn personnel.
Table 70: Benefits
Benefits
Pension CalPERS 3% @ 50 (safety staff)
Health State’s 85-80 plan
Management Partners, Inc. 102
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
4.9.7 Apparatus
The district has four engines, one truck and one rescue apparatus. One engine is
in reserve. Engines are replaced at 12 years due to the high mileage needed to
cover the district. Replacements are funded through the General Fund and
reserves. Table 71 displays the district’s apparatus.
Table 71: Apparatus
Apparatus Year Type
SCC-LITL-U02 2005 Heavy Rescue Trailer
Admin1617 2010 SUV
B1617 2010 Pick Up
BS 1 2002 Trailer
Engine 1 2008 Type 1
Engine 2 2010 Type 1
Engine 3 2003 Type 1
Reserve Engine 4 1994 Type 1
Reserve Engine 5 1998 Type 1
Repair 1632 2009 Pick Up
SQ 2 2004 Pick Up
Truck 2 1987 Ladder Truck
Utility 1617 2003 Pick Up
Utility 1627 2008 Stakeside
Water tender 1 2000 Type 1
Water tender 2 2002 Type 1
4.9.8 Service Delivery
Santa Clara County Communications is the public safety answering point for
emergency calls within the service area of the South County Fire District. The call
is initially received by County Comm and then is transferred to the CAL FIRE
Emergency Communications Center for fire dispatch. Emergency medical
dispatch is provided by County Comm. During 2009, 3,101 calls for service were
reported with 1,108 (36%) for EMS. Figure 51 shows all calls for service in 2009
according to type of call.
Management Partners, Inc. 103
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Figure 51: Calls for Service in 2009
1200 1,108
1000 876
811
800
600
400 274
200
32
0
Structure Fire Other Fire Emergency Hazardous Other
Medical Condition
Mutual aid and automatic aid agreements are in place with the City of Gilroy,
CCFD, Pajaro Valley Fire District and the San Benito County Fire Department.
There is also an agreement to share a battalion chief between SCFD, Gilroy Fire
Department, and CCFD. The regionalization study group mentioned above is
analyzing the utilization of a full boundary drop service protocol for South
County, Gilroy and Morgan Hill. Table 72 lists automatic aid given and received
in 2009. The district combines mutual and automatic aid.
Table 72: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Aid Mutual Aid Automatic Aid
Agency Received Received Given Given
Gilroy Fire 367 234
CCFD 323 531
San José 183 22
Pajaro Fire 40 24
San Benito 56 48
Merced/Mariposa 0 17
Total 969 876
Table 73 shows response standards and performance in 2009.
Management Partners, Inc. 104
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Table 73: Response Standards and Performance for 2009
Measure Standard* Actual
Performance
Emergency calls – non- Meet response time standard on 90%
90%
medical of calls
Emergency calls - medical 90% standard 97.53%
* Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established the 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls;
this standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The district has established non-medical emergency response time standards
depending upon the nature of the call.
The District’s ISO rating is a 5 within five miles of a district station or a station
with an auto aid agreement. Outside of these areas the rating is an 8.
The district utilizes a contract employee to conduct fire inspections and
community education. Development review services are provided by CCFD.
Training is provided by CDF.
4.9.9 Trends and Projections
Projections show that the district’s population will increase by an estimated 8%
to approximately 26,500 between 2010 and 2035 (an annualized rate of .3%), as
shown in Figure 52.
Figure 52: Projected Population South Santa Clara County 2000 to 2035
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Prepared by LAFCO based upon the 2000 census and ABAG projections 2009.
Management Partners, Inc. 105
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Fire Department expenditures have increased significantly (by 65%) during the
past four fiscal years. This primarily reflects the purchase of replacement
apparatus. Figure 53 shows department expenditures between FY 2007-08 and
FY 2010-11.
Figure 53: Expenditures and Revenues 2007-08 to 2010-11
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
Expenditures
$2,000,000
Revenue
$1,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (actual) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Staffing levels have increased from 28.25 budgeted FTEs in FY 2007-08 to 36.25
budgeted FTEs in FY 2010-11, an increase of 28%. The increase reflects going to
three person companies on all apparatus. Staffing levels are shown in Figure 54,
below.
Figure 54: Staffing
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (actual) (actual) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 106
!!
!!
COLEMAN
RD
C S J i t t o a y s t e !! o io f F n S ir 2 a e 2 n C C S A O M a L D L E E n N EN A
C
V D
A
E R
LERO AV
C
E
it C y U o R f I E Sa D n R BERNAL R D !!
C J
S
o
t
i
M
t s
a
y
O
e
t N S i
o
o
F
A T
f
E
i
N n
r S
R T
e
2 A E
a
Y 7 T
n
E R R D E M SA E M T A C LE A C L H F R D
RD
SHINGLE VALLE S A
L
A Y N R IM D A S R D
E L ls a m k a e n
HICKS
R W D OOD
LO
S
M
G R
A
u e R a se d
P
D r a v l
R
o u i p
I
r e
ETA R
J
D
ose
MIN A E L H M IL A
R
L
A
D R
e l
D !!
m s
E
e a
N !
r
!
J S
v d o
R
e
o t
i n
D
r
s a
C S
e t
t A
i
a
o F
L t
i n r
i F o
e 2
I n R
8
E 22 - Al
C
M m
AS
C a
A
K
L
d E
O
e
M
A n
A
N
R
R R
D
C e D s a e
)
l r e v r o
C V A
o ir
o a ss s lu o a n c L t ia o e t m e i r o a
B
F n
AI
i
L
r
E
e
Y AV
B
L E
L
A
V
G
D
U
R S D
N
A V U
A AV
R
E
C e h
P
s e e
A
s r b v
L
o r
M
o ir
AVE M O NT D E O R
W H
U E
ILL A
G Y
O W
H
L
H E
E S
W
P
R Y
R A
T
I N V
Y
G E L A S L A V G A R S E R D D
KÍ
!! C H T S M o t i i t a l r y l o t E i o o o F l f H n i r M r P e E g i o E l r T l g a C R a O D N n n DIT R D BARRE T T ! E !
R
T
A
N C M D F
e n s
M A
d
N i i
e
u
F e
r
R
t o V
O r S
A A
T r v
e y
s
n E
o
r N
o R
P
i
g
n
n S
r
L o
D
T a E e t f A a n - A V H t V E H i E i o l i l n ll HENRY CO E S TATE PARK H EN R S E Y O T C ATE PA R K FIFIE S L T D A M N R E I D R SL C A E U D S C C O O U U N N T T Y Y
LOMA C M H O I U Q N U T ITA M R AD D ONNA RD) O V Fi o r r m e lu B n sb r t C i e y g R e L a O r I d T Y T e L R E D UVA ) S U F R i v r S D e a U s C M V o M o m IT l R u p D n a t n e y er POLE R E N IL D RED R R e W U s I e v D r a O v s G o O ir E D R O D R AK ET G R LE E N A V E A S Y T C A R M O E R D E D H W W M H E A I D T T S U C E O H R N N K U V I D L D E R LE S R S O F G C N I P F R i A A l B r D V E S U o H E S R - - y A C T S Y H H A r E E t W e r L a S S !! e S M ( H L Y e C t t a C h i R i a o A o l L D F a ( l t r N n C L i H D v g ! o ! A e 3 F a e n - n L I n a - ) R S S A d N H t E TA q a i T C M H u E l t A R l R S S L i E a D A A o S o M C U I A N u t G r G n r r r B a S B i t A n a L t e e i g V D 2 e V t E l C y 1 r D s a R r a a i r S - i o Y F o t s s C o - n ( M A e S D n ) y e M C O f O N W n G a R T A E E ! - ! R n E A S E V L S Y E L C R t M i O D t B 3 F a L l O a K E R N A V E R U M a t I r B t R i E D R r T o i o t A o E N F V !! n O i E S O n n C T - ) y E H A T C G L S N IL T C ! V L ! E a t i i A R t V H l E a A 8 s E r y V U E T t o A i R H o y o B n C f n U S i H m E T A N a V A G s E U I V B A !! L I S AV N T E L E G A W E C G A I A V L i A i E t V l M V r y E A E o P C S O N o Y y A O L T E f C R E R R Y D O H ES O E ER P C R V D D O O R R I R R D P C Y es A o R D e y r S D o v E t S F o e E N i R r G H U W A S Y O V C N R E R E D W S R D CANADA RD E T O Y O C LA K E D R !! C - S C t A a o L t y i F o o I n t R e E 21 JAMIESON RD S - C t P A a P a A L t !! c i C o F h H n I e E R c C 3 E o O 1 PASS H WY Pa L c a h k e e co A R R E O L T W HI S K E Y FL AT R D
Figu
Fi
r
r
e
e
5
P
5
r
:
o
S
te
o
A
c
u
u
t
g
N
t
u
i
o
h
s
o
v
t
e
2
n
m
0
S
1
b
0
a
e
D
r
n
2
i
0
s
t
1
a
t
0
r
C
ic
l
t
a
(
r
S
a
C
C
F
o
D
u
)
nty
R S
R D
T
MESA
RD
C S
KÍ
t h
B
a
O
e
L
t
S
s i
A
t o n n
R
u
D
t
STATE
HW
FR
A
Y
ZIE
2
R
5
LA
KE
RD
BLOOMFIELD AVE
PACHECO
PASS HWY
B A
R
D
N H E
R
I S
E L
SAN BENITO COUNTY
M ERC
Y
E
T
D
N U
C O
County Boundary Cities Urban Service Areas A Fi r r e e a S s e O rv u i t c s e id P e r o F v o i r d m e a r l Jurisdiction
!! City/District Fire Stations
Cities Cities Spheres of Influence ) Volunteer Fire Companies
Fire Protection Districts Fire Protection Districts Spheres of Influence
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD)
South Santa Clara County Fire P
0
rotect
0
io
.5
n Dist
1
rict (SCFD)
2 3
S
M
ou
il
t
e
h
s
Santa
I
Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD) S
S
A
A
N
N
T
B
A
E
C
N
R
I
U
T
Z
O
C
C
O
O
U
U
N
N
T
T
Y
Y
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
This page intentionally left blank
Management Partners, Inc. 108
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Saratoga Fire Protection District
4.10 Saratoga Fire Protection District
4.10.1 Overview
The Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFD) is an independent special district
created in 1924 to provide fire protection to properties in the Saratoga area. The
SFD is governed by a three-member Board of Directors elected at large. The SFD
serves a portion of the City of Saratoga and adjacent unincorporated areas with
approximately 14,300 residents. The balance of the City of Saratoga is served by
the CCFD. Figure 58 is a map depicting the boundaries and fire station locations
of the Saratoga Fire Protection District.
In 2005, the SFD entered into a management agreement with the CCFD and in
2008 the district entered into a full-service contract with CCFD. The district
administers an early fire alarm warning system (EWAS) on behalf of the City of
Saratoga. Figure 56 shows the SFD organization.
Figure 56: Saratoga Fire Protection Organizational Chart
4.10.2 Budget
Over 99% of the district’s revenue is derived from property tax. Tables 74 and 75
display the budgeted expenditures and revenues respectively, for FY 2010-11.
Table 74: Expenditures
Function Expenditure
Administration $181,600
Contract Services $4,683,600
Loan Payments $218,000
Total Expenditures $5,083,200
Management Partners, Inc. 109
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Saratoga Fire Protection District
Table 75: Revenues
Source Revenues
Property Tax $5,204,000
Other $30,500
Total $5,234,500
The service contract with the CCFD accounts for 96% of the district’s
expenditures. Administrative staffing and expenses are budgeted at $181,600.
The district’s audit for the year ending June 30, 2010 shows fund balances of
$1,562,156, with $998,475 unreserved and the balance designated for equipment
replacement and bond repayment. The unreserved fund balance is 19% of annual
operating expenditures.
4.10.3 Stations
The Saratoga Fire District area has one fire station with two daily-staffed
apparatus. The station handled 1,387 calls for service in 2009. Staffing and
operating information are included in the CCFD statistics.
4.10.4 Trends and Projections
Minimal population growth is projected over the next 25 years, as shown in
Figure 57.
Figure 57: Projected Population City of Saratoga 2000 to 2035
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Prepared by LAFCO based on 2000 census and Association of Bay Area Governments
2009 Projections
Management Partners, Inc. 110
SCC Central -
Monta Vista
Fire Station
EL CERRITO RD
MC CLELLAN RD
B U B
R
B
D
T S E
N
G R
L L
D
I
B L V D E
STATES
DR PHIL LN
M O
O R
PARK AVE
D E A N A Z N E Y A V E O N A V E WILLIAMS RD
Cupertino A LB H N S DOYLE RD
SWISS CREEK LN
R E G
NART RD CC S R F p A D r I
S
N i n
t
- B
a
g S O
t
s e
i
W
o
F v
n
i D e r n R e
2
C
S
J i
t
t o
a
y s
t
e o
io
f F
n
S ir
1
a e
5
n J O
R E N C E
E X P Y
San
MILULACO
S F t ir e e v V C e o n o
S
l s m u
T
C n
E
p r
V
t a e e
E
n e e
N
k y r
S
CAN R Y
E
O S e
D
C N t s e R
E
r e D v e r
N
e e v n
C
k o s
R
ir
EST LN O U M N T E
V
D
I
E
L
N
LA
R
O
D
AKS
P
L
IE
N
R
P
C
R O S
E
P E
R
C
D
T C R O D MER DR
REID
LN HER
C
R
C
I
V
M
F S a
A
D t l
N
l a e - S
A
t y E W
V
io A F
E
G e n ir U s 9 e L t L W A Y G L C UL L S Y E A V E N B R A E D R M C I
R
L O L
O
E X
N
R
N
A V A E
IE
V
W
E
A
E V A U S T TI
Y
A
?¾E
V
A
E
LLENDA
W
L
A
L
J
E A
o
VE
O U T I R D Q
s
B
e
UC
C
KN
a
A A L
m
L L E R X
p
D D
b
R
ell
Saratoga
S
P
D
a
r
is
o
r
t
a
t
r
e
t
i
o
c
c
t
t
g
i
S
a
o
t
n
F
a
i
t
r
i
e
on
CHESTER
CONGRESS
SPRINGS RD S A N B O R N R D B O H LM A N
R D
BIG BASIN W
N O R
A
TO
O Y
N R
A
D
K ST SARATOGA
P
L
E A C H
O
H IL L D R
S
G H A U M T E C D O R A S N O R N D D R R F UI T A V L E
A V E
RAVINE R D S O C Q
S
B E Y
R D
C
t
u
a
F i
t
t D
i
o
o
Q U O I T -
n
O F R A D i
8
r K e DR S M e o r
M O R E
e
A
n
VE
n te o
DR
ALLEG M
ATILIJA
WITHEY
RD
H E N
Y
C
T
OVERLOOK RD
G
L
a
o
t
s
os
MCGILL
RD
LAKE
RAN
C
H
R D MONTEVINA
RD
Figure 58: Saratoga Fire Protection D
SKY
iLsINtrict
E B ?âE
November 2010 LV
D
C
C
o
iti
u
e
n
s
ty Boundary C
C
i
i
t
t
i
i
e
e
s
s
U
Sp
rb
h
a
e
n
re
S
s
e
o
rv
f
i
I
c
n
e
fl u
A
e
re
n
a
ce
s
)
!!
V
C
A F
o
i
i
r r
t
e
l
y
e
u
a
/
n
D
S s
t
i
e
e
s
O r
e
t
v
r
u
r
i
i
c
t c
F
s
t
e i
ir
d
F
e
P e
ir
r
C
e
o F
o
v o
S
i
m
r d
t
m
a
e
p
t
a r
i
a
o
l J
n
n
u
i
s
e
r
s
isdiction BEARDSLEY
RD
RD
Fire Protection Districts Fire Protection Districts Spheres of Influence GI ST R D BLACK RD
O
N
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) S Lexington
M P Reservoir
Saratoga Fire Protection District Saratoga Fire Proection District O
T H CHASE RD CAL FIRE - Alma
I
Station 13,
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Helitack Station 33
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
4.11 City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
4.11.1 Overview
Fire and emergency medical service in Sunnyvale is provided by the City’s
Public Safety Department, which combines police and fire functions. The
Sunnyvale Public Safety Department provides fire protection and emergency
medical service to a 23.8 square mile area with a population of approximately
135,200. Figure 64 is a map depicting the boundaries and fire station locations of
the City of Sunnyvale.
Sunnyvale is a charter city with a seven-member City Council, governed by the
council-manager form of government. The Deputy Chief is the functional Fire
Chief and reports to the Public Safety Director. The Public Safety Director reports
to the City Manager. Administrative support functions are combined for police
and fire.
The department organization chart is shown in Figure 59.
Figure 59: Sunnyvale Public Safety Department/Fire Division Organization
Management Partners, Inc. 112
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
4.11.2 Budget
The Public Safety Department is funded primarily from the City’s General Fund.
Tables 76 and 77 display budgeted expenditures by function and type
respectively, as reported by the FY 2010-11 budget.12
Table 76: Expenditures by Function
Function Expenditure
Administrative and Management* $1,252,118
Operations $23,038,979
Fire Prevention $751,271
Other $0
Total Expenditures $25,042,369
*Fire and emergency services are a division of the City’s Public Safety department that includes
police services. Administrative and management costs for police and fire are combined. The
administration and management costs attributed here to fire and emergency services are estimates
of the fire proportion of the budget.
Table 77: Expenditures by Type
Type Expenditures
Salaries and Benefits $24,291,048
Operations and Maintenance $751,271
Subtotal Operations $25,042,369
Capital* $0
Total Expenditures $25,042,369
*City budget holds all capital assets separate from department budgets.
4.11.3 Stations
The City has six fire stations which were all remodeled between 1998 and 1999.
4.11.4 Staffing
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety’s Fire Service Division has 100 FTEs,
89 of whom are sworn, as shown in Table 78 below. Public safety officers are
trained and certified as police officers, firefighters, apparatus driver-pump
12 Not all departments report expenditures by function. Where such a distribution was not included
in budget documents, Management Partners asked departments to sort expenditures into functions
to provide a basis for comparing department expenditures on emergency response activities.
Management Partners, Inc. 113
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
operators and EMTs. Apparatus is staffed with two personnel and supplemented
with on-duty police patrol officers who are cross-trained. Six officers respond to
standard hazard responses; nine officers to high hazard responses; and two
patrol officers to CPR calls. In addition, voluntary off-duty officers can respond
to standard and high hazard calls. Initial deployment to a single alarm structure
fire is 18 personnel. Sunnyvale provides BLS initial response with ALS
paramedic service provided from AMR.
Table 78: Staffing
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Administrative and Management 4.00 2.00 6.00
Operations 82.00 0.00 82.00
Fire Prevention 3.00 9.00 12.00
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total FTEs 89.00 11.00 100.00
4.11.5 Labor Agreements
Labor agreement information is displayed in Table 79.
Table 79: Labor Agreements
Labor Agreements Term Expires
Sunnyvale Public Safety Officers 4 years + 2 year extension June 30,
Association 2012
Sunnyvale Public Safety Managers 3 years pending council June 30,
Association approval 2013
Sunnyvale Employees Association 4 years June 30,
2012
4.11.6 Benefits
Pension and health benefits for sworn personnel are shown in Table 80 below.
Table 80: Benefits
Benefits
Pension CalPERS 3% @ 50. City pays employee 9% and 2.25% for single highest year.
Health City pays $515/month towards medical, vision, employee assistance program,
optional life insurance. Management has fully-paid medical.
Management Partners, Inc. 114
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
4.11.7 Apparatus
The department has nine engines, two trucks, one rescue Hazmat apparatus and
two reserve engines. Engines and trucks are replaced at 20 years. All line
apparatus are within the replacement schedule. Replacement funds are budgeted
annually. The City’s General Services Department maintains fire apparatus.
Table 81 displays the department’s apparatus.
Table 81: Apparatus
Apparatus Type Year
Engine 1 Igniter 2008
Truck 1 Eagle 134 Ladder, LTI AH-100 2000
Reserve 1 Eagle 2000
Engine 2 Igniter 2008
Truck 2 Eagle 134 Ladder, LTI AH-100 2000
Rescue 2 Rescue Master 2006
Engine 3 Igniter 2008
Engine 30 Eagle 1998
Engine 4 Igniter 2008
Engine 40 Eagle 2000
Engine 5 Eagle 2004
Reserve 5 Arrow 1987
Engine 6 Eagle 2004
Engine 60 Eagle 1998
BC Vehicle Expedition 2007
4.11.8 Service Delivery
Communications is provided by the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
Dispatch division. In 2009, the department responded to 7,286 calls, of which
4,993 (69%) were for EMS. Figure 60 shows all calls for service in 2009 according
to type of call.
Management Partners, Inc. 115
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Figure 60: Calls for Service in 2009
6000
4,993
5000
4000
3000
1,491
2000
1000 620
137 43
2
0
Structure Other Fire Emergency Public Hazardous False Alarm
Fire Medical Service Material
The department has mutual and automatic aid agreements with CCFD, Santa
Clara, San José and Mountain View. Table 82 lists mutual and automatic aid
reported for 2009.
Table 82: Mutual and Automatic Aid in 2009
Mutual Aid Automatic Aid Mutual Aid Automatic Aid
Agency Received Received Given Given
Mountain
1 32 3 29
View
Santa Clara 1 3 2 12
San José 0 7 0 1
Santa Clara
1 0 2 15
County
Santa Cruz 0 0 1 0
Scotts Valley 0 0 1 0
Total 3 42 9 57
Table 83 lists response standards and performance for 2009.
Management Partners, Inc. 116
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Table 83: Response Standards and Performance in 2009
Measure Standard* Actual
Performance
Emergency calls – non- 6 minutes 14 seconds on 93% of 95% of calls
medical calls
Emergency calls - medical 90% standard 97.89%
* Response standards for non-medical emergency calls are established by the department. The
County EMS agency has established the 90% compliance standard for medical emergency calls;
this standard applies to each category, i.e., urban, suburban, etc.
The City has an ISO rating of 2.
The department has a fire marshal and Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire marshal
reports to the Fire Services Deputy Chief. The bureau has two divisions: Hazmat
and Fire Prevention. The department has a training lieutenant and a training
tower .
4.11.9 Trends and Projections
Sunnyvale’s population over the next 25 years is projected to grow by 21% to
approximately 163,300 (an annualized rate of .8%), which is shown in Figure 61.
Figure 61: Projected Population City of Sunnyvale 2000 to 2035
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Management Partners, Inc. 117
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Public Safety Department expenditures peaked in FY 2008-09, at $25,725,754 and
have decreased by approximately 3% in FY 2010-11. Figure 62 shows department
expenditures during the past four fiscal years.
Figure 62: Expenditures 2007-08 to 2010-11
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (actual) (budgeted) (budgeted)
During the past four fiscal years, staffing has increased from 86 budgeted FTEs to
100 budgeted FTEs (16%), as shown in Figure 63 below. This is due to
department reorganization that moved FTEs to Fire from Special Operations; it
did not result in any increase in overall department staffing.
Figure 63: Staffing
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
(actual) (estimated) (budgeted) (budgeted)
Management Partners, Inc. 118
City of San
Jose Fire
Station 25
CHARLESTON RD FIRST AVE
3RD AVE
C O S T S T D Y G E R D D MOFFETT BLV T Y R ELL A A V E W HI S M A N R D T S H WEDDELL M O R
D
S E A V
R
E L S T LAK 2N E D BIR ST D DR ELKO DR
B U S H
ST CENTRAL
DA
E
N
X
A
PY
ST
FERGUSON DR
DUA
LA
N
K
E
E
A
W
V
O
E
OD DR AGNEW RD
CENTRE
ST
A
N
A V E CENTRAL EXPY STEWART DR
YL V ARQUES AVE S
E
AV
CUESA TDR AL E KIFER RD CENTRAL EXPY
D D
V E
SOUTH DR E L U E N V I I C N E A A V V E E D IE R IC
R
X
D Y A V E
H I T L A D M A AVE
IRIS AVE
W O F E L R RE A E S D TE A R VE AVE MONROE A S G T ATE DR WA S L O S UT H
R
H
D
AVE
T E A M A R E LILY AVE O N V E V A M A R IM OAK AVE FREMONT AVE A R A LP O P H N E D E S O R N H A L F O R D A V E P O M E O R E V A Y S A T N M O A E S X Y P FOO
TH H
OL
ILL HOMESTEAD RD
E
X
P
Y
L A P D R R D R D Y E L D N T A U A V E E X P Y PRUNERIDGE AVE H A R N N A ALVES DR A B T A N N C E P M R E EL CERRITO R V D OSS A
R
V
D
E MC CLELLAN RD I M P E IR AL V A E B U B B R D E D A N Z A B V L D
E
STATES DR MIL L E R A V E V F N C H A I E W A L STE M V O E O N R S P C A R R E N K E O A K R V W B E L A V L D K DR BLACKFORD AVE
E R
S
S
E A V
S T E V E N S CA NYON LINDY GN L A N RT RD RAINBOW DR Y E A N V A E LB J O H N S O N A V E W D I O LL Y I L A E M R S D RD PAYNE AVE O B Y N T O N A E V P H E L P S A V E Y C P
RE
Stevens
Creek
Reservoir
L
1ST ST
J
S T
E
CARL
RD
V A
D A E HIL
A
V
M
AT
D R M A
N
M A C O N R D O R B D E A U X C R O S S 10TH ST TASMAN DR LA FAY E TTE S T T S Y ELLI S
C E
X E P
N E MAUDE AVE L A W R
RY
AVE
A M
T S
A Y
J
OLIVE
AVE
BLAIR AVE EVELYN AVE B O W E R S A
D R V E IB S
U R D R T N A R G GRANGER AVE C K A V E BENTON ST E B N E
CRISTO
R
E
Y
D
R STOKES AVE E V A Y R A TRACY D R M V D ALBANY DR BL HILL T O O F
DVLBY LEIK
City of Mountain
View Fire -
Station 5
E V
Mountain A R O N D L A Z O O K R D
View
Moffett Field
CARIBBEAN
DR
AËH City of Santa City of Clara Fire City of Sunnyvale - Station 10 Sunnyvale - Station 6 Station 5 MANILA DR C LY KÍ City of Mountain D E
View Fire - A Station 1 V E EVELYN AVE City of Mountain View Fire -
Station 4 Sunnyvale City of Santa
Clara Fire
Station 8
City of Sunnyvale -
City of Station 2
Sunnyvale - Station 1 City of Santa
City
V
S
o
i
t
e
f
a
w
M
t i
F
o
o
i
n
u
re
n
2
t
-
ain HENDY
AVE
C
St
la
a
r
t
a
io
F
n
ir
9
e
City of Santa C Su it n y n o y f vale - Sun C n it y y v o a f le - Santa C St la a r t a io F n ir 5 e Station 3 Station 4 Clara Los D R Altos G O A City of Santa A E V A S A R T C S l t a a r t a io F n ir 7 e O D R E A L A V N Y R N
E N B U S City of Santa
Clara Fire
Station 3
City of Santa
%&j( Clara Fire Station 4 CCFD - CCFD - Monta Cupertino Fire Vista Fire Station 1 Station 7 Figure 64: City of Sunnyvale Novembe?¾Er 2010 County Boundary Cities Urban Service Areas A Fi r r e e a S s e O rv u i t c s e id P e r o F v o i r d m e a r l Jurisdiction
City of Sunnyvale Cuper C t iti i es n Sp o heres of Influence ) !! V C o it l y u / n D t i e s e tr r i c F t ir F e ir C e o S m ta p ti a o n n i s es San E X P Y S Lo a s n t A a l t C os la F H ra i i r ll C e s o C P u o r n u o ty n t t e C y c e F t n i i r t o e ra n D l F i D s ir t i r e s ic P t t r r i o c te ts ction District (CCFD) Fire L S LE L T P N I G R D o a r s n o t A a t l e t C o c s la t i H r o a il n l C s o D C u i o n s u t t y n C r t i C y c i t eJ F t y no s ir t s e r o S a e f D l p FF S i h s iir t a e r re i n e r c P e t r s o t o ec f ti I o n n f l D u i e st n ri c ct e (CCFD) Jo C J S o s t it s a y e e t i o o F f i n r S e 1 a 4 n S A N T O M A S S Station 15
I
CCFD - SevMeilens
0 0.5 1 Springs F2ire
Station 2
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review CAL FIRE and Volunteer Fire Companies
4.12 CAL FIRE and Volunteer Fire Companies
Approximately 627 square miles of unincorporated land with approximately
6,000 people are outside the boundaries of a public fire agency. The
unincorporated communities in these areas consist primarily of single-family
homes on unimproved roads, often with inadequate water sources in the rural
and wilderness areas. Projected population growth in these areas is low, given
County land use policies. Fewer than 700 calls for service to these areas are
received annually.
Fire and EMS are currently provided to some of these areas by CAL FIRE and
one of five volunteer fire companies (VFCs) and from adjacent fire departments.
AMR provides ambulance response.
CAL FIRE’s Santa Clara County unit (which covers Alameda, Contra Costa,
Santa Clara, southern San Joaquin, and western Stanislaus counties) has 8 of its
12 stations in Santa Clara County. Fire equipment assigned to Santa Clara
County proper includes 9 engines, 1 bulldozer, and 1 helicopter. Santa Clara Unit
staff consists of 120 full time employees and 116 6 monthly firefighters from mid
May thru Mid November. CAL FIRE provides wildfire, BLS, and rescue response
in the SRA between May and November.
The five volunteer fire departments are:
Casa Loma VFC Spring Valley VFC
Ormsby Fire Brigade Uvas VFC
Stevens Creek VFC
Table 3 on page 24 describes the general areas of the unorganized population
nodes. The CCFD and SCFD boundary and station maps include station
locations of these VFCs. Four of the five volunteer companies responded to the
request for information: Casa Loma, Stevens Creek, Spring Valley and Ormsby.
The volunteer companies are staffed by local residents. Budgets are extremely
limited for these organizations. There is no designated or fixed source of funding
for the volunteer companies and they are limited in their abilities to self-fund
donations from their local residential and business communities. The County of
Santa Clara provides workers’ compensation coverage.
Management Partners, Inc. 120
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
5 Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
LAFCO of Santa Clara County identified specific issues for assessment to be
addressed in the fire and emergency medical services review. These are:
Funding and providing service to the underserved area of the County,
Status of and best practices for roles and oversight of volunteer fire
companies,
Regional models for fire and emergency medical service in the South
County region,
Issues related to fire districts contracting with other districts for service,
and
Assessment of other opportunities to improve service effectiveness or
efficiency for fire service providers in the county.
The presence of nine service providers inherently results in some duplication of
facilities, programs and functions. The significant cost associated with providing
fire and emergency services and the continued weak financial base of public
agencies in Santa Clara County provides substantial motivation for cities and
districts to examine current service delivery and implement measures that can
increase the economy and efficiency of service delivery.
This section of the report reviews the issues identified by LAFCO as well as other
issues of material interest to fire and emergency medical services identified
during this review.
5.1 Volunteer Companies and Underserved Areas
5.1.1 Background
The 2004 LAFCO fire service review looked at the status of volunteer fire
companies (VFCs) in the County and service to underserved areas that are
outside the jurisdiction of a public fire agency. One of the VFCs in existence in
2004, the San Antone VFC, has disbanded. CCFD has initiated annexation
procedures for nearly all areas currently in their sphere of influence in the
western hillside areas up to the Santa Cruz County line. The annexation was
Management Partners, Inc. 121
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
approved by LAFCO and became effective in September 2010 . Beyond these,
conditions have not changed since the last review.
The issues regarding volunteer companies are linked with the broader question
of service delivery to underserved areas. While volunteer companies can get on
scene in time to provide medical aid and provide an initial attack on fires , they
are dependent on responses from the South and Central County Fire Districts,
the cities of San José and Milpitas and CAL FIRE. Given the travel distance from
adjacent public fire departments, response times to these areas are generally very
long (responses by fire agency companies and AMR are often in excess of 20 to 30
minutes).
The response to calls by public fire departments to these areas has two negative
impacts on these agencies. First, with extended call response times, apparatus
that is relied upon for service delivery within the jurisdiction’s boundaries is
unavailable for deployment. Second, these agencies receive no compensation for
the cost of response.
The volunteer companies are staffed by local residents. Budgets are extremely
limited for these organizations. There is no designated or fixed source of funding
for the volunteer companies and they are limited in their abilities to self-fund
donations from their local residential and business communities. The County of
Santa Clara provides workers’ compensation coverage to the volunteers. A
potential concern of the County is the extent to which providing workers’
compensation coverage to the volunteers exposes the County to potential liability
for the VFC actions.
The equipment provided by each volunteer fire company is completely
dependent on their own ability to purchase and maintain that equipment. The
range of equipment varies by type and style; most companies have acquired
automatic electronic defibrillators (AEDs) for each response unit; some have
acquired sets of “jaws.”
Although the volunteer companies do not have ongoing interagency training due
to their limited numbers and resources, they coordinate with CAL FIRE for
training in the off season and often pay for a certified trainer during fire season
to keep their fire suppression skills current. CAL FIRE also provides additional
opportunities for volunteers to attend enhanced training provided to CAL FIRE
personnel. All of the volunteers maintain at least first responder emergency
medical certifications. Some of the volunteers are certified Emergency Medical
Technicians (EMTs) capable of providing BLS service.. Of the four companies
that responded to the request for information, all have budgeted for and
acquired additional emergency medical training for their organizations.
Management Partners, Inc. 122
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Communications for dispatching volunteer agencies is provided primarily at no
charge from CAL FIRE, which activates the volunteers’ pagers. PSAPs
throughout the County forward requests for service to CAL FIRE. Volunteer
companies are equipped with VHS radios for their apparatus and provide
handheld units to their volunteers as their local budgets allow.
VFCs are not involved in fire prevention activities. Some provide public
education on fire issues such as defensible space information, but none do any
enforcement. The defensible space issues are enforced by full-time agencies
where appropriate.
The financial and volunteer personnel capacities of the departments vary widely.
Spring Valley VFC reported an operating budget of approximately $20,000
annually and the cash flow to sustain a standard of rebuilding apparatus when
acquired; they maintain a large contingent of active volunteers. They have a
strong working relationship with CAL FIRE. In fact, CAL FIRE utilized their
services to backfill a fire station during high fire season when they were
otherwise unable to staff the station when multiple large fires caused units to be
deployed out of the area. The remoteness and sparse density of Casa Loma VFC
provides significant challenges on all fronts. A smaller population means a
smaller source of donations. The volunteer contingent of the Casa Loma agency
is only twelve personnel and they are widely dispersed in a very remote area.
In some interviews conducted for the report, a desire for greater cooperation
from the County EMS Office was expressed regarding EMS certifications. One
interviewee stated that the use of AEDs by their volunteer company had been
denied by the County EMS agency because of the requirement of having a
medical director sign off on the training. Another interviewee stated that County
EMS does not recognize paramedics as having the qualifications of emergency
medical technicians (a lower skill level) without obtaining separate EMT training
and certification and paying fees into the system.
A representative from the County EMS agency stated that while state law does
require approval of a medical director, they were not aware of the denial of any
requested AED. The EMS representative also stated that while fees and
continuing education are required, paramedics do not need to undergo EMT
training. More dialog between the VFCs and County EMS to address issues of
training or certification of volunteers would increase the effectiveness of the
VFCs.
5.1.2 Alternatives
Interests in improving upon the current conditions are to:
Management Partners, Inc. 123
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Improve the quality of fire and emergency medical service to
communities,
Minimize the dependency of these areas on other public fire agencies, and
Provide some financial compensation to those agencies responding into
these areas.
The 2004 fire service review examined alternatives to the current condition of fire
and emergency services to the underserved areas. The alternatives were:
Create a new fire district or expand existing fire protection district(s) to
cover all underserved areas that are outside an organized fire protection
agency.
Create a JPA between the cities of Milpitas and San José, the County of
Santa Clara, the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the South
Santa Clara County Fire Protection District.
Create a County Service Area (CSA) to cover the underserved areas of the
County.
Other counties have acted to provide more structure and support to the
volunteer companies. The Santa Cruz County model may be a good fit for Santa
Clara County. In Santa Cruz, the County formed a CSA that included all lands
not within the boundaries of an existing fire agency. The County also established
an assessment for each property in the CSA based upon the size and estimated
suppression needs of each parcel. As part of the CSA formation, all volunteer
companies came under the umbrella of the County Fire Department. The County
uses a portion of the assessment revenue to fund apparatus acquisition and
maintenance and training for the VFC. The County also provides insurance
coverage. Assessment revenue also goes to partially fund two-person CAL FIRE
companies that support the VFC. The volunteer companies maintain community
visibility and do occasional fund raising supportive of their mission.
Putting a system similar to Santa Cruz County’s in place in Santa Clara County
would entail the following actions:
Create a CSA in Santa Clara County by the County Board of Supervisors
covering all underserved areas.
Grant supervisory authority over the volunteer companies in the CSA to
the respective County fire district based upon their location in the district
spheres of influence: Casa Loma, Spring Valley, Uvas and Ormsby to the
SCFD; Stevens Creek to the CCFD.
Management Partners, Inc. 124
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Place a special tax for fire and emergency medical service before the
voters of the CSA (which would require two-thirds voter approval). The
tax could be structured such that a portion of the proceeds are distributed
to the volunteer fire companies to improve their response capacity while
another portion is distributed to the impacted agencies to offset the cost
of remote responses.
There are approximately 2,218 privately-owned and 371 publically owned
parcels in these underserved areas. Private parcels range in size from under one-
tenth of an acre to 3,032 acres. A total of 296,287 acres are owned privately. An
assessment amount for each property could be based on the size of the property
and the extent of development. For example, an annual assessment of $1 per acre
would generate approximately $300,000 countywide. Creating greater self-
sufficiency of the volunteer companies could reduce the number of responses
required from the public agencies. Distribution of some CSA funds to the public
agencies would provide some offset for the cost of providing remote service.
5.2 Service Delivery Options for the South County Region
The cities and adjacent unincorporated areas of Morgan Hill and Gilroy
constitute the “South County” region. Three fire/emergency services
departments currently serve different parts of this area.
CCFD serves the City of Morgan Hill by contract.
The Gilroy Fire Department serves the City of Gilroy.
SCFD, through a contract with CAL FIRE, serves some unincorporated
areas in South County.
The agencies have different staffing practices, response standards and apparatus
deployment policies. CAL FIRE operates on the two-platoon 72-hour work week
employed by the state. Gilroy and CCFD operate on the three-platoon, 56-hour
work week. There is a high degree of interdependence between the agencies due
to the large geographic area and range of suburban and rural development. This
interdependence is evident in the high degree of mutual/automatic aid between
the agencies.
This area was studied in the 2004 Countywide Fire Service Review. Three
alternatives to the current system were identified and analyzed to provide for a
uniform regional service delivery model:
Create a new fire district covering the South County area region (Gilroy,
Morgan Hill, and SCFD) or expand an existing agency to cover the same
area.
Management Partners, Inc. 125
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Create a joint powers agency between the cities of Morgan Hill and
Gilroy and SCFD with service contracted to a single entity.
Create a CSA to cover the South County region, which requires two-
thirds voter approval for a special tax.
The situation has remained unchanged since the 2004 review. In May 2009 a staff
working group was established to determine the benefits of regionalization in
achieving enhanced and more effective services. The group consists of one
member each from Gilroy, Morgan Hill, CCFD, and SCFD; they support an ad
hoc committee of elected officials.
In September of 2009 the group reached the following conclusions:
The three fire/EMS providers are interdependent because of station
locations, low concentration of resources within the region and
mutual/automatic aid agreements.
From the standpoint of a regional response time, current station locations
and the number of fire stations are adequate for first-due, single-unit
response.
The analysis did not support the concept of moving South County Engine
1 south toward San Martin.
The majority of known future Morgan Hill development through 2030 is
adequately covered within a six-minute response for the first arriving
unit.
New development in southern Gilroy will require that a fourth station be
built to maintain response times and adequate resources for this area.
Ladder truck service was not analyzed. The best that can be inferred is
that some level of truck service could be provided from current station
locations using the three existing truck apparatus and staffing from an
engine company.
The most significant potential future issue will be increased call volume.
When simultaneous calls occur, additional resources from neighboring
stations will be required, increasing response times for both first arriving
and effective response force.
The working group formed a sub-group of operating personnel from the three
service providers to discuss a “full boundary drop” system that would have the
area served by the closest responding unit regardless of the political jurisdiction
of the incident. The sub-group confirmed the viability of a truly integrated
response system. To accomplish this objective would require the development of
standardized plans for dispatching, incident command standards and resource
deployment. The group identified three policy areas for discussion.
Management Partners, Inc. 126
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Battalion chief coverage: There are always two battalion chiefs covering
the South County area. SCFD provides 24/7/365 coverage from a district
or CAL FIRE battalion chief.
Gilroy and CCFD rotate providing 24 hour coverage; Gilroy 4 days every
six day cycle and CCFD 2 days every six day cycle. Communication
system: Currently initial fire dispatch is provided from three PSAPs —
Gilroy, County Comm and CAL FIRE.
Response equity: the working group reviewed “net aid provided” for
2005 to 2009. According to the group’s analysis, the Gilroy and South
County Department each provided over 500 net responses; Central Fire
received over 1,100 responses.
The three departments have implemented a common shared battalion chief plan.
No further progress has been made on the communications and service equity
issues. Although not a hard requirement for a boundary drop system, to operate
such a system at maximum efficiency and effectiveness, a single
communication/dispatch system is essential. While each agency is currently
dispatched from different communication centers, they are on a common band
and frequency. This would allow for an easy transition to a single system.
Any of the current communication operations could serve this role. Given the
broader goal of maximizing centralized fire/EMS in the County, the County
Comm center is the most logical entity to provide common dispatch.
Consolidating communications for fire only would most likely result in some
increased cost for Gilroy. The City would incur additional costs for contracting
with County Comm and would not experience offsetting savings in their current
operations. Significant savings for Morgan Hill and Gilroy would likely occur if
police were included in the consolidation. The CAL FIRE communication center
currently used by South County Fire also serves state lands areas outside the
district’s boundaries.
The financial stress on the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill make service cost a
significant factor in evaluating alternatives to the current system. As shown in
Table 84, there are differences in the cost of the three agencies to provide service.
How these cost measures were developed and a discussion on the limitations of
their use is included in a later section of this report.
Management Partners, Inc. 127
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Table 84: Cost Factors for Provider Agencies in South County
Agency Service 2010/11 Number Number of Number of Operating Cost Per: Sworn
Pop. Operating of Sworn Daily Personnel
Capita Company Sworn
Budget3 Stations Operations Staffed per 1000
Personnel
Personnel Companies Residents
Gilroy 49,800 $6,832,205 3 36 Three 3 $137 $2,277,402 $189,783 0.69
person
companies
CCFD1 38,200 $4,420,156 2 21 Two 3 $116 $2,210,078 $210,484 0.55
person
companies
SCFD2 24,533 $3,459,170 4 29.75 Four 3 $141 $864,793 $116,275 0.85
person
companies
Source: Department provided information
1 Reflects the operating portion of CCFD's contract with the City of Morgan Hill
2 A portion of one company is paid for by the state of California
3 Reflects the portion of the operating budget devoted to emergency response operations. Does not include administration and prevention.
Management Partners, Inc. 128
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
The CCFD is the lowest cost provider on a per capita basis. SCFD is the lowest
cost per company, and per sworn personnel; this reflects the difference between
the two-platoon shift structure of CAL FIRE versus the three platoon structure of
Gilroy and CCFD.
5.2.1 Additional Option
In addition to the alternatives identified in the 2004 MSR, a service model option
for the South County is for Gilroy, Morgan Hill and SCFD to contract with a
common provider agency. This approach would achieve the uniformity of
service delivery sought by the working group. Equity in mutual/automatic aid
can be achieved in the contract negotiations. If CAL FIRE were selected as the
common provider, the preliminary analysis by Management Partners suggests
that alternative would result in savings for Morgan Hill and Gilroy in excess of
$2 million annually. This estimate is based on CAL FIRE’s lower cost to maintain
a fire company than CCFD and the City of Gilroy. Savings of this magnitude
would also enable the creation of a single communications function for the area,
as such savings would more than cover the cost of County Comm assuming
dispatch responsibilities for Gilroy.
There are several options available to the policymakers of the jurisdictions
responsible for fire and EMS in the South County to maintain appropriate service
at reduced costs. Crafting a solution that meets the interests of all responsible
agencies requires agreement on whether to create a new government entity—
either a new or expanded district or joint powers agreement, and selection of a
common provider for service delivery.
5.3 Fire Districts Contracting for Service with Another Fire District
The Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFD) and Los Altos Hills County Fire
Districts (LAHFD) both contract with the CCFD for service. LAFCO has
requested a review of these two arrangements to determine the possible
consequences of annexing the two districts into the CCFD.
5.3.1 Saratoga Fire Protection District
SFD is an independent special district created in 1924 to provide fire protection
to properties in the Saratoga area. It is governed by a three-member elected
board. SFD preceded incorporation of the City of Saratoga, which occurred in
1956. The area of Saratoga not in the SFD is in the CCFD.
In 2005, SFD entered into a management agreement with the CCFD. Under that
agreement, SFD maintained its department and workforce while CCFD assumed
responsibility for management of SFD department operations. In 2008, following
success with the management agreement and looking for further economies and
Management Partners, Inc. 129
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
efficiencies, SFD and CCFD entered into a full-service contract, whereby SFD
employees were transferred to CCFD. In essence, this contract is similar to those
CCFD has with various municipalities in the county. The City of Saratoga is now
served by a single provider, CCFD.
SFD remains as an independent special district. Almost all (96%) of the district’s
FY 2010-11 budget of $4,865,200 is for the service contract with CCFD. As of June
30, 2010, the district had $998,475 in unreserved fund balance. At 19% of annual
operating expenses, the unreserved balance is reasonable. SFD administers an
Early Warning Alarm System (EWAS) for the City of Saratoga. The EWAS is a
city-mandated ordinance that requires a fire detection system for new
construction and certain remodels and additions.
The 2004 MSR identified the following options for the SFD:
1. Dissolution of SFD and annexation to County Fire.
2. The City of Saratoga withdrawing from both districts and making a
decision about a unified approach to service delivery within the City.
3. Expansion of the SFD into the CCFD area of the City.
Conditions have changed since the 2004 review: the SFD has entered into a full
service contract with CCFD; and CCFD has annexed all lands adjacent to the
SFD. Given these conditions, either maintenance of the status quo or dissolution
of the SFD and annexation of the lands to the CCFD are the viable options.
Consolidation of SFD with CCFD would result in estimated savings of
approximately $118,000 annually in district administrative costs, and would
make accountability for service more transparent. The chair of the district’s
board stated that SFD is satisfied with the current arrangement and is not
interested in any change.
At the start of the service review, the district’s website appeared to have not been
updated since 2002 and lacked any current public information regarding
meetings, governance and finances. According to the district’s business manager,
the commission meetings are usually held on the third Tuesday morning of
every month. The agendas are posted on a message board on the side of the
building. Regular meetings were held in 2009. As of August 16, there have been
some changes to the website: agendas for the July and August meetings were
posted; the District office manager has stated that the most recent audit and
budget will be included along with a meeting calendar as they upgrade the site.
With the annexation of unincorporated land adjacent to the SFD by the CCFD,
the Saratoga district is completely surrounded by the CCFD, with no room to
expand its boundaries or SOI. Annexing the Saratoga district to the CCFD would
Management Partners, Inc. 130
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
reduce administrative costs for fire protection to district lands and remove any
public confusion regarding which agency is providing fire and emergency
medical services. Administration of the EWAS would need to be addressed.
5.3.2 Los Altos Hills County Fire District
LAHFD was created as a dependent district of Santa Clara County in 1939 to
provide fire protection and prevention services to the Los Altos Hills
community. A seven-member commission appointed by the County Board of
Supervisors is responsible for the oversight of fire protection activities within the
district.
LAHFD contracted with the City of Los Altos for fire service until 1996, when the
City of Los Altos contracted with the CCFD for services. At that time, the
LAHFD also contracted with the CCFD for service, which continues today. In
addition to contracting with CCFD, LAHFD has two contract employees to
manage and provide services outside of the CCFD contract. These services
include weed abatement, yard waste disposal and wood chipping.
The 2010-11 budget for the LAHFD is $11,436,481. Of this amount, $4,500,000 is
for the contract with CCFD for fire and emergency services, $3,365,000 is
budgeted for the additional projects and programs provided by the district, and
$338,481 is budgeted for district operating expenses. As of June 30, 200109, the
district audit reported a total fund balance of $17,748,277, a decrease of
$2,213,027 in comparison to the prior fiscal year end. Unreserved fund balance
was $6,768,277, 59% of annual operating expenditures. This is a very healthy
unrestricted balance. Several reserved fund balances also exists as follows: $1
million for insurance, $1 million for equipment, $3 million for emergency
operations, $3 million for building and maintenance, and $3 million for water
mains and fire hydrants.
The 2004 MSR reviewed the option of annexing the LAHFD area into the CCFD.
This option remains. Annexation of LAHFD into CCFD would result in savings
of up to $254,068 annually in administrative costs, and would make
accountability for service more transparent. Maintaining the district provides
greater certainty about continuing the local supplemental programs and
provides flexibility to contract with another provider agency. The fire consultant
for LAHFD stated that the district is satisfied with the current arrangement and
seeks no change.
At the start of the service review, the district’s website showed no commission
meetings scheduled for the balance of 2010 and no budget or financial
information was available. The district’s consultant stated that regular monthly
Management Partners, Inc. 131
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
meetings are held, with notices placed on three public bulletin boards and the
fire station. The district’s calendar has since been updated to include commission
meeting; financial information remains unavailable. The consultant stated that
financial information is available by calling the district.
5.4 Communications
Emergency communications in Santa Clara County is fragmented and
complicated. The numerous combinations of agencies involved in fire unit first
responder dispatch, ambulance dispatch and EMD service are discussed on
pages 31 through 33.
The fragmentation of communications is further complicated by the fact that the
fire departments in the County operate on four bands and frequencies, as shown
in Table 85 below.
Table 85: Fire Department Communication Band and Frequency
Band and Frequency Fire Department
VHF: 150 - 160 MHz County Fire (County Comm)
Gilroy
Palo Alto
Mountain View
San José
CAL FIRE
UHF: 450-459 MHz Milpitas
UHF (T-Band): 480 - 512 MHz Sunnyvale
800 MHz Santa Clara
Source: County of Santa Clara Communications Department
The fragmentation of communications among different agencies on different
frequencies is a major barrier for achieving efficiencies, reducing response times
and improving the overall effectiveness of the fire/EMS system. As reported
previously, the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA),
comprised of all primary and secondary PSAP agencies in the County, was
formed to improve system-wide functionality. SVRIA has the goal of creating a
“virtual” consolidated communications system. SVRIA has been submitted for
an FY 2010 UASI grant funding request for approval and the County has
allocated $810,000 to begin this process. The first phase is to develop CAD-to-
CAD compatibility among all communications centers. This will enable all CAD
systems to communicate with each other and eliminate the need to transfer calls
between agencies. Grant funds to begin the work, if approved, will be available
in 2011.
Management Partners, Inc. 132
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Consolidation of all public safety communications (police, fire and transport)
into a single countywide center would provide the best opportunity to maximize
resource utilization, improve response times and reduce cost.
Many of the other opportunities for efficiencies and economies identified in this
report either require or would be significantly enhanced by a single countywide
communications center. These include boundary drops, consolidating stations
between jurisdictions and combining departments.
The best example of a single communication center is in San Mateo County. In
1999 the 17 cities and fire districts established the San Mateo County
Communications Division as the countywide fire/EMS center. All fire and
ambulance units are dispatched from this center. The single communications
system facilitates boundary drops. Although comprised of multiple departments,
the system operates as one entity. The fire departments have agreed on system-
wide response and station ordering based on the closest unit responding,
regardless of political jurisdiction.
The most significant issues to address in developing a countywide
communications system in Santa Clara County are technology costs, operating
costs and local control. With differing bands and frequencies in use, transition to
a single system will be costly. In cities, the fire call volume is a small portion of
overall dispatch activity; police activity is estimated to account for up to 90% of
all calls in some combined agencies. This dynamic often means the staffing and
cost of the current police communications unit will remain the same and
additional costs will be incurred to staff a central fire/EMS center. This issue can
be addressed by consolidating all communications (fire, EMS and police) into a
common center. This usually results in significant savings to all participating
agencies.
There are good working models in California where public safety
communications for multiple agencies have been consolidated. The San
Diego/Riverside Emergency Communications Agency provides communication
services to over 200 municipalities and districts including the City of San Diego.
All law enforcement and fire agencies in Monterey County are served by a
common communications center.
Many cities have been reluctant to give up direct operating control of their police
communication functions. Given the existence of successful models and
opportunity for improved fire/EMS service, better law enforcement coordination
and cost savings, cities may choose to reconsider this reluctance.
Management Partners, Inc. 133
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Recognizing the shortcomings of the current system, all agencies are working
together to improve communications interoperability. While requiring significant
capital investment in communications infrastructure, consolidating all public
safety communications into a single provider would improve fire/EMS service
responsiveness, create the opportunity for additional cooperative efforts and
offer potential significant savings.
5.5 Consolidation of Stations and Apparatus
In some cases, often due to adjacent jurisdictions maintaining capacity to serve
their entire communities, stations and engine companies are located in close
enough proximity that they could be combined and, with fewer apparatus, be
capable of meeting response standards to all areas. With the cost of maintaining
an engine company for most agencies exceeding $2 million per year,
consolidation would result in significant savings to the affected agencies.
Consolidation opportunities can include stations and/or apparatus within the
service area of a single provider or between two adjacent service providers. In-
boundary consolidations are easier to implement as they can be accomplished by
the sole service provider. Consolidations across service boundaries are more
difficult to implement as they require agreement between two separate agencies.
Inter-jurisdictional consolidations can also be constrained by the lack of a
common communication system. Community and labor concerns typically
become significant issues when reviewing station consolidations; some residents
will perceive the outcome as having a negative impact on them and their
property.
A preliminary review of stations and apparatus has identified station pairings
where consolidation may be feasible. The threshold criteria used to identify
potential consolidations included a distance of one mile or less between stations
and a call volume that would not exceed ten calls per day for any apparatus in
the consolidated station. For consolidation to meet established service standards,
relocation of an existing station may be necessary. Depending on market
conditions, the sale of existing station sites may produce enough revenue for the
new station.
Stations 3, 4, and 7 in the City of Santa Clara offer a potential consolidation
opportunity. The stations are in close proximity to each other. The total call
volume for the three apparatus in the stations was 3,148 in 2009, which translates
to an average daily demand of 8.6 calls. Stations 1 and 4 in Milpitas offer a
potential opportunity. They are approximately one-half mile apart and
responded to 1,717 calls in 2009 with three apparatus.
Management Partners, Inc. 134
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
The following inter-jurisdictional station pairs are recommended for further
study based on the initial assessment of physical proximity and the capacity of
existing apparatus.
1. San José Station 29 and Santa Clara Station 6
2. San José Station 15 and CCFD Fire Station 2
Another station pairing meeting the distance and call volume criteria are CDF’s
Almaden station (22) and the San Jose station # 28. CDF plans to eventually move
their station 6-8 miles south; this coupled with the differing shift schedules
between the departments would make consolidation difficult.
Station/apparatus consolidation requires detailed analysis of the impact on
service. It is beyond the scope of this report to perform this level of analysis. A
more detailed study of the station parings may identify additional opportunities
to provide service at a reduced cost. A detailed countywide review of engine
response call capabilities and locations county wide may identify other
opportunities for consolidation and savings.
5.6 Competitive Service Contracting
Some jurisdictions that are responsible for fire/EMS services fulfill this
responsibility by contracting with another agency for service delivery. The cities
of Los Altos, Campbell and Morgan Hill and the Saratoga and Los Altos Hills
Districts contract for service with the CCFD. SCFD contracts with CAL FIRE.
Municipalities currently providing services through their own departments have
the option to contract with another agency. The primary consideration in
contracting for service is that the purchaser receives the services they desire at a
lower cost than the current system. The cost of fire and emergency service
departments vary based on a number of factors, including the number of stations
and apparatus, compensation structures, special programs and equipment and
operating practices (such as the use of overtime). Competitive bidding for fire
and emergency services may allow agencies to provide desired services at a
lower cost than their current delivery model.
Comparing costs of fire protection service providers is always difficult and any
methodology used for a high-level review is fraught with limitations. Cost
comparisons are difficult because of different budgeting and accounting
practices in jurisdictions, including how apparatus are purchased and
maintained and whether central city management and overhead costs are
identified in fire department budgets. Comparisons between municipal
departments and fire districts are difficult because districts are responsible for all
Management Partners, Inc. 135
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
general management functions and expenses that may not show up in the
budgets of municipal departments.
As part of the objective of identifying opportunities for economies and
efficiencies in the fire and emergency services, Management Partners compared
the costs of the nine provider departments on a number of measures, using a
consistent methodology. Given the limitations of the scope of the engagement
and the inherent difficulties noted above, these comparisons should only be used
as broad indicators of the relative costs for different departments. The only
definitive way for an agency interested in contracting to compare costs is to
develop a specification for the desired services and ask departments to submit
a bid based on that specification.
Budget, staffing and apparatus deployment data for the 2010-2011 fiscal year
were provided by each agency for the service review. Using the reported
information and agency budget documents, expenditures were categorized as
administrative, operating, prevention and other. The results of the categorization
were sent to each agency for validation. In comparing costs between
departments, only operating costs were used to represent the cost of emergency
responses services and factor out administrative and prevention costs. After
initial data gathering departments were resurveyed with clarification regarding
the definition of “operating” costs. Operating costs are intended to capture the
agency’s direct costs to maintain their emergency response capability, including:
personnel costs including overtime for all firefighting personnel up to and
including shift battalion chiefs; services and supplies necessary to support the
emergency response system; and capital outlay related to the emergency
response system. Operating cost comparisons were made on a number of
measures with the intention of providing a number of perspectives on agency
costs. These are displayed in Table 86. Figures 65, 66 and 67 display the per
capita, per three-person company equivalent and per sworn personnel costs for
each provider.13
There are a number of issues that impact the operating costs of a department.
The primary drivers are: the number and type of apparatus used; the number of
personnel assigned to each apparatus; and the compensation structure for the
workforce. A change in any one of these can impact the cost structure for a
department. Different cost measures provide different insights on the cost of
maintaining emergency response services:
13 Apparatus includes trucks, engines, rescues and transports. Where multiple apparatus are cross-
staffed, only one was counted.
Management Partners, Inc. 136
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Cost per capita is a traditional measure and shows the relative cost to serve the
community on a population basis. The limitation of looking only at per capita
costs is that the basic infrastructure (equipment, apparatus) required to serve a
population of 25,000 is often sufficient to serve a population of 40,000. The total
cost of maintaining the same response capability may be greater in the
department with a larger population, but because the cost is spread out over a
larger population, the cost per capita will be lower.
The measures of cost per daily apparatus and cost per 3 person company
equivalent provide some indication of the relative operating cost of the main
components of the service delivery system: the number of apparatus used and
the cost of staffing the apparatus. Each department uses a variety of apparatus
and daily staffing to provide emergency response services. Each department also
has its own compensation structure. Staffing an engine with a four person crew
versus a three person crew would result in a higher cost per apparatus.
However, the use of specialized apparatus with smaller crews on some
departments will offset this cost difference in the aggregate. The 3 person
company equivalent was agreed to by the TAC to neutralize the impact of
different staffing levels on apparatus. Cost per sworn personnel can provide an
indicator of the number of staff and the compensation structure in the agency’s
emergency response system.
Management Partners, Inc. 137
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank
Management Partners, Inc. 138
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
Table 86: Cost Factors for Provider Agencies
Number of Number of Operating Cost Per: Sworn
2010/11 Number of
Service Number of Sworn Three Person Capita Daily Staffed Three Person Sworn Personnel
Agency Operating Daily Staffed Apparatus Staffing5
Pop.1 Stations Operations Company Apparatus Company Personnel per 1000
Budget2 Apparatus4
Personnel3 Equivalents6 Equivalents Residents
Gilroy 49,800 $6,832,205 3 36 3 3 apparatus with 3 person crews 3 $137 $2,277,402 $2,277,402 $189,783 0.72
4 apparatus with 3 person crews
Milpitas 69,000 $12,258,554 4 63 6 1 apparatus with a 2 person crew 5 $178 $2,043,092 $2,451,711 $194,580 0.91
1 apparatus with a 1 person crew
Mountain 1 apparatus with a 2 person crew
72,100 $16,445,640 5 70 7 7 $228 $2,349,377 $2,349,377 $234,938 0.97
View 6 apparatus with 3 person crews
9 apparatus with 3 person crews
Palo Alto 77,779 $18,959,463 8 105 10.57 10.1 $244 $1,805,663 $1,877,175 $180,566 1.35
1.5 apparatus with 2 person crews
3 apparatus with 5 person crews
26 apparatus with 4 person crews
San José 1,037,567 $126,926,383 34 630 52 57.3 $122 $2,440,892 $2,215,120 $201,470 0.61
7 apparatus with 3 person crews
16 apparatus with 2 person crews
3 apparatus with 2 person crews
Santa Clara 114,700 $26,791,827 10 148 13 7 apparatus with 3 person crews 13 $234 $2,060,910 $2,060,910 $181,026 1.29
3 apparatus with 4 person crews
16 apparatus with 3 person crews
CCFD 240,789 $53,893,046 17 247 21 23 $224 $2,566,336 $2,343,176 $218,190 1.03
5 apparatus with 4 person crews
SCFD8 24,533 $3,459,170 4 29.75 4 4 apparatus with 3 person crews 4 $141 $864,793 $864,793 $116,275 1.21
Sunnyvale9 135,200 $22,977,192 6 82 12 12 apparatus with 2 person crews 8 $170 $1,914,766 $2,872,149 $280,210 0.61
Source: Fire agency data provided to Management Partners.
1 ABAG Projections 2009 was used for city populations. District populations were developed by LAFCO using ABAG and other data. The population figure for the City of San Jose includes areas in the CCFD served by the SJFD through
contract. The population for the CCFD includes the district population less areas served by SJFD and includes the contract cities and contract districts. Palo Alto population includes Stanford.
2 Reflects the portion of the departments' budgets for emergency response operations inclusive of compensation, overtime, services and supplies and capital outlay. Does not include administration and prevention costs.
3 Reflects sworn personnel assigned to emergency response operations
4 Includes Truck, Engine, Rescue, Transport
5 Reflects the number of personnel assigned to each apparatus daily
6 Converts the number of sworn staffing on all apparatus into a 3-person company equivalent
7 The PAFD staffs 10 companies daily on 24 hour shifts. One transport company is staffed on a 12 hour shift. For four months of the year, an additional engine is staffed on a 24 hour shift.
8 A portion of one engine company is paid for by the State of California
9 The City of Sunnyvale employs a Department of Public Safety which provides emergency response through personnel assigned to fire apparatus and other personnel provide police patrol. The uniqueness of this approach make comparisons with
traditionally organized fire departments difficult
Management Partners, Inc. 139
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Focus Issues and Service Efficiency Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank
Management Partners, Inc. 140
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Competitive Service Contracting
Figure 65: Operating Cost per Capita
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Source: Agency reported financial information and ABAG population data
Figure 66: Operating Cost per Three Person Company Equivalent
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Source: Agency reported budget and expenditure information and agency budgets on websites
Management Partners, Inc. 141
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Strategic Paramedic Placement
Figure 67: Operating Cost per Sworn Operating Personnel*
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Source: Agency reported staffing
* Includes only sworn personnel identified as “operating,” exclusive of administrative and
prevention sworn personnel.
The significantly lower cost per staffed apparatus and 3-person company
equivalent for SCFD is reflective of the two-platoon, 72-hour week staffing model
compared with the three-platoon, 56-hour week used by the other departments.
The existence of multiple providers, coupled with the financial pressure on
agencies to maximize resource utilization, creates a competitive market. As
agencies look for ways to reduce the cost of service delivery, contracting for fire
and EMS may be a viable strategy for some. Again, recognizing the limitations of
this analysis, the information provides an opportunity for higher-cost agencies to
evaluate the practices of lower cost agencies to identify opportunities to reduce
their service cost.
5.7 Strategic Paramedic Placement
With the exceptions of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, the practice of all agencies is
to have at least one firefighter/paramedic on each engine. This has resulted
generally in response times for EMS calls exceeding the County 90% standard; in
2009 the range was 94% to 98%. Since response times are consistently above 95%
for most agencies it may be possible to both meet the County EMS first-
responder standards and reduce the cost of service by strategically placing fewer
paramedics on engines through-out the County.
Management Partners, Inc. 142
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Fire Suppression Training
Identifying the number and location of paramedics necessary to achieve the 90%
standard will require detailed countywide analysis and response modeling. This
type of analysis could be done in conjunction with the start of the new transport
contract between the County/EMS and a private provider.
5.8 Fire Suppression Training
Each agency provides fire suppression training for its personnel. The amount of
resources devoted to training varies. A common theme from the interviews with
fire chiefs is that training budgets have suffered significantly from budget
reductions. Most agencies report being able to only provide the minimum
required training. The South County region lacks an adequate training facility at
present.
The operation of joint training programs and shared training facilities could
improve County-wide service delivery and allow training dollars to go farther.
Some agencies have good training facilities with the capacity to handle multiple
departments. CCFD, the City of San José and the City of Santa Clara have
facilities that could handle multiple agencies and staff that could serve as a
nucleus for broader training programs. Mountain View, Palo Alto and CCFD
have discussed the potential for a shared facility at Moffett Field.
The use of shared facilities would provide greater opportunities for joint training
between departments. Joint training improves emergency response capability in
mutual/automatic aid incidents by building familiarity between fire companies.
County fire agencies use a joint academy to train new employees. This concept
could be expanded to create a countywide training program.
Important factors in establishing joint training facilities and programs include
facility location and standardized fire suppression practices. Company training is
usually accomplished by taking units out of service. This decreases the coverage
available in the jurisdiction. A joint facility must be located so it is convenient to
the participating agencies. This allows the unit in training, if required by an
emergency, to return to service. A second factor is that departments may have
different practices related to fire suppression practices. Agencies participating in
a joint training program would want to standardize practices in the interest of
having a common curriculum.
Opportunities to improve overall response effectiveness and reduce operating
costs exist in developing shared training facilities and programs. Joint training
can be accomplished on a countywide basis through a JPA or by cooperative
agreements between agencies.
Management Partners, Inc. 143
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Prevention
5.9 Prevention
The development of shared fire prevention functions is an opportunity to
improve efficiency and economy. Prevention functions include reviewing and
inspecting new construction, inspecting required business and multi-family
units, investigating arsons as well as providing community education. At a
minimum, consolidating the management and support of fire prevention
bureaus can produce cost savings. A common plan check function is another
opportunity for improving service and potential savings. The Uniform Fire Code
is used by all agencies.
Agencies have their own policies on fee collection for certain prevention services
and maintain different fee schedules. Prevention fees provide a source of
additional revenue to support fire and EMS. Integrating prevention services
would provide the opportunity to standardize policies and fees. Standardizing
policies would provide consistency for businesses that operate in multiple
jurisdictions. Establishing fees at a level sufficient to cover the cost of service
would reduce any general revenue subsidy.
Because of budgetary cuts many departments have significantly reduced or
eliminated community education. Pooling prevention resources and sharing
education staff may be an option to accomplish this important function.
5.10 Apparatus Maintenance
All nine providers have apparatus maintained in-house. For city fire
departments this is a citywide maintenance operation. CCFD has its own
maintenance facility and maintenance of SCFD apparatus is performed at the
CAL FIRE maintenance facility. Maintenance of fire apparatus is specialized,
requiring certified fire mechanics, and recruitment of qualified personnel can be
difficult.
A number of factors are important in setting up a shared apparatus maintenance
function. Having a shop of sufficient capacity to handle multiple agencies is
necessary. To the extent any of the current maintenance providers are operating
one or two shifts a day, adding a second or third shift can provide additional
capacity without major facility costs. Evaluating the opportunities for agencies to
share apparatus maintenance facilities and staff would be worthwhile, given the
potential economies that could accrue to those agencies in shared facilities.
5.11 Apparatus Purchasing
Generally, each department develops specifications for their apparatus and each
unit is custom manufactured. Agencies will also “tag on” to apparatus purchase
Management Partners, Inc. 144
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Emergency Preparedness
bids of larger organizations, accepting their specification and achieving savings.
With engines costing $500,000 to $750,000 each, the opportunity for multiple
agencies to develop a common apparatus specification and competitively bid the
purchase of a number of uniform vehicles offers the potential for significant
savings. Development of a common apparatus fleet over time would also help
facilitate a shared maintenance function and generate savings through the
standardization of parts. Development of common apparatus is worthy of
further exploration by the fire chiefs in the County.
5.12 Emergency Preparedness
All fire departments in the County are responsible for planning for natural or
other disasters and maintaining the capacity to respond when a significant event
occurs. Departments have generally assumed responsibility for increasing
community preparedness, recognizing that a significant incident will require a
triage for the deployment of resources and that households and neighborhoods
need to be self sufficient for a period of time.
In a metropolitan area, a major disaster like an earthquake will impact multiple
jurisdictions. Agencies participate in joint disaster exercises to practice
coordination between jurisdictions. In some departments, personnel dedicated
exclusively to emergency preparedness have been the casualties of budget cuts.
Some redundancy exists in the disaster preparation. Each department prepares
its own plan using the same basic elements, coordinates training, and conducts
similar community education efforts. Sharing disaster preparedness staff among
several agencies offers the opportunity to reduce preparation costs, better
coordinate disaster response, and reinstate important community education
efforts. The County OES assuming a larger role in preparing and maintaining
model plans for fire agencies, coordinating training and supporting the public
education efforts of the departments is another opportunity for efficiency and
economy.
5.13 Other Service Delivery Methods
In the interest of improved efficiency and in response to constrained financial
conditions, public agencies are increasingly looking for alternatives to the current
method of delivering services. Alternative service delivery can take many forms.
The most common include integrating the services of multiple organizations into
a single entity, changing long-established business practices and outsourcing
functions or entire services. Many of these opportunities have already been
discussed. Following is a brief summary of other alternative delivery approaches
available to fire and emergency service providers.
Management Partners, Inc. 145
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Other Service Delivery Methods
5.13.1 Combining Departments
Combining separate departments into a larger operating unit can also result in
cost savings in management, administration and support. Each agency maintains
its own management/command structure consisting of a chief, assistant chiefs
and battalion chiefs. Each agency is also purchasing and maintaining information
technology and common support items and materials. Combining departments
creates the opportunity to eliminate this duplication. There are many examples
of merged fire departments in California.
In reviewing consolidation opportunities, care must be taken to analyze the
overall financial impact. Savings resulting from the elimination of duplicate
management and support costs can be eroded by higher operating costs. As was
shown in Figures 65, 66 and 67 above, agencies have different cost structures.
Savings can also be eroded by agreements to set the employee compensation
structure in a manner that reflects the highest salaries and benefits of the
merging agencies. Municipal departments must be careful to analyze the “go
away” costs of a merger, as some of the cost items included in fire department
budgets are provided by central departments and the personnel providing these
functions would not be eliminated.
5.13.2 Shared Command
An alternative to consolidating departments is the sharing of command staff
between multiple agencies. A contractual agreement between agencies to have a
single command structure for their operations can produce the financial benefit
of eliminating management redundancy without having to address various
issues that arise when departments are consolidated. There is a complexity in
this approach, as managers would need to manage multiple labor agreements.
5.13.3 Shared Battalion Chiefs
Short of a shared command staff is the opportunity for agencies to share
battalion chiefs. Smaller departments often maintain a battalion structure capable
of supporting a greater number of companies. Two similarly situated
departments can often come together and share a single battalion management
structure. This can be done on a 24/7 basis or with an arrangement for after-hours
sharing only.
5.13.4 Boundary Drops
All fire departments in Santa Clara County are party to mutual aid and
automatic aid agreements. Under a mutual aid agreement, agencies agree to
provide personnel and apparatus when requested by other parties. In automatic
aid, agencies identify in advance which areas will receive assistance from
Management Partners, Inc. 146
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Other Service Delivery Methods
participating agencies. When calls are received by the initial responding agency,
the partner agency is notified and the agreed upon unit(s) are automatically
dispatched as backup to the initial responding unit.
Boundary drops are a higher level of aid. The name refers to the dropping of city
limits boundaries between party agencies and, in accordance with a previously
approved plan, the closest unit to the incident is dispatched as the initial
responder regardless of the responder’s political jurisdiction. Given the
positioning of stations between jurisdictions, this can often improve response
times to emergency calls. Boundary drops are a best practice in emergency
service delivery. While boundary drops can be established without a common
communication function, their use and utility is enhanced when such a function
is in place.
5.13.5 Alternative Staffing Models
Most California fire departments employ a staffing model to provide 24/7/365
coverage consisting of three platoons staffed with personnel working 24-hour
shifts and a 56-hour work week. Staffing is typically uniform and does not vary
by time of day or day of week.
Other approaches to staffing are available that can meet response standards at
reduced cost. CAL FIRE uses a two-platoon structure with personnel working 24-
hour shifts and a 72-hour work week. Overtime is built into the schedule to
maintain constant coverage. Paying overtime costs less than maintaining a third
platoon.
Private ambulance companies have long used system status staffing (rather than
constant staffing). This is a dynamic resource deployment plan based on the
analysis over time of service demand by time of day and day of week. More
response units are in service during times of high demand; fewer at lower
demand times. This is the staffing pattern used by AMR to meet the County’s
EMS response standards.
Emergency travel times can vary significantly in a metropolitan area by time of
day and day of week. When roads are less congested and travel time is faster, it
may be possible to post fire apparatus at different locations than the fixed
stations and meet response standards with fewer units.
Alternative staffing models need to be carefully analyzed to determine if
anticipated service and financial objectives are met. They also require that labor
contracts be renegotiated with firefighters. Alternative staffing models typically
experience strong resistance from labor as they represent a significant change in
long-established practices.
Management Partners, Inc. 147
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Service Review Determination Criteria
6 Service Review Determinations
6.1 Service Review Determination Criteria
6.1.1 Legislative Requirements
The legislation establishing the service review process, as amended in 2008,
requires the LAFCO to make determinations on the agencies under review in the
following six categories:
Growth and population projections for the affected area;
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
Financial ability of agency to provide services;
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities;
Accountability for community services, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies; and
Any other matter affecting or related to efficient service delivery.
Methodology and Assumptions
In making required determinations for the fire service review for Santa Clara
County fire agencies, Management Partners assessed each agency in each
category using criteria described below.
Growth and population projections for the affected area
The amount and percent of population growth projected by the
Association of Bay Area Governments between 2010 and 2035.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The age and condition of existing stations as rated by department
management.
The age of current line apparatus in relation to the agency’s apparatus
replacement schedule.
Management Partners, Inc. 148
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Service Review Determination Criteria
The number and distribution of stations and apparatus in the service
area.
The overall capacity of stations and apparatus to accommodate projected
growth, assuming each apparatus can handle, on average, up to ten calls
per shift.
The extent to which the fire department meets locally established
response performance standards for structure fire calls and County
established standards for EMS calls.
The extent of mutual/automatic aid received and provided.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
Department type: Municipal department, County-dependent district or
independent district.
Budget: The degree of stability in department expenditures and budgets
between 2007-08 and 2010-11. Departments considered stable are those
that experienced a reduction of not greater than 5% in expenditures
between the four years.
Staffing: The degree of stability in department staffing between 2007-08
and 2010-11.
Apparatus replacement: Whether or not the agency has an apparatus
replacement fund where annual contributions are made to provide for
replacement purchase.
Fund balance and reserves (for fire districts): the audited undesignated
fund balance as of June 30, 2009 and the percent of annual operating
expenses of the unreserved balance. A reserve of 15% to 25% is
considered reasonable.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
Potential station consolidation: Where proximity of stations and call
capacity of apparatus between stations within a single jurisdiction or
within adjoining jurisdictions appear to support an evaluation of
consolidation (one mile or less between stations and distribution of call
volume among remaining apparatus is not greater than ten calls per
shift).
Training: Whether the agency has a training facility and/or training
program to potentially accommodate the training of other departments;
identification of natural training partners.
Apparatus maintenance: As all agencies are currently maintaining their
own apparatus, this was identified as a possible universal shared
facility/service.
Management Partners, Inc. 149
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Communications: The compatibility of an agency’s radio band/frequency
with other departments in the county.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
Accountability: The accountability chain between the fire department and
the elected governing body.
Public Access: The agency’s compliance with open meeting and public
records laws, frequency of meetings, availability of information on the
website and public outreach.
Governance and Service Delivery Options: The potential to restructure
the governance structure of responsible agencies and/or service providers
or change the service provider for a city or district with the goal of
increasing service efficiency.
6.2 City of Gilroy Fire Department
Growth and population projections for the affected area
Gilroy’s population is projected to grow 40% by 2035 to approximately
69,600 residents; an annualized growth rate of 1.6%.
The City of Gilroy has a substantial amount of vacant and underdeveloped land
within its current boundary. LAFCO policies encourage the utilization of these
lands first, before expanding outward.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
Two of the department’s three stations have deferred maintenance; the
third was constructed in 2004. A fourth station is planned if sufficient
development takes place to generate revenue for construction.
Apparatus are on a 20 year replacement schedule. All line apparatus are
less than 11 years old.
The department’s standard is to respond to 90% of non-medical
emergency calls within five minutes. From July 2009 to February 2010 the
department responded within five minutes on 88% of calls.
The County EMS standard is to respond within the established time
standard on 90% of medical emergency calls. In 2009, the department met
the standard on 97.65% of calls.
In 2009 the department received 117 and provided 284 mutual/automatic
aid calls; over 90% of auto/mutual aid calls were with the SCFD.
Management Partners, Inc. 150
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Gilroy Fire Department
Present and planned capacity of infrastructure and response capacity are sufficient to
serve projected population growth if stations and apparatus and auto/mutual aid
agreements are maintained.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The Fire Department is a unit of the City of Gilroy.
Department funding has declined by 16% and staffing has declined by ten
positions between 2007-08 and 2010-11. As a result of budget and staffing
reductions, the Sunrise station was open less than one-third of the time in
FY 2009-10.
The City and firefighters labor union have reached an agreement effective
July 1, 2010 to staff all apparatus with three-person companies instead of
four. With this agreement the Sunrise station will be restored to full
operation.
The City has an apparatus replacement fund and contributions are made
annually.
There is uncertainty regarding the long-term financial stability of cities. The City of
Gilroy currently has the financial resources to provide services at current levels.
Pursuing opportunities to integrate services with other departments and change
service delivery models offers the potential to maintain adequate services in a
financially constrained environment.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The department is currently sharing a battalion chief with SCFD and
CCFD.
A working group of south county agencies is exploring options to
integrate fire and emergency medical services.
Opportunities for shared facilities exist for training with the CCFD and
SCFD. There is no adequate regional training facility in the south county.
Opportunities for shared facilities exist for apparatus maintenance with
the CCFD and SCFD.
Opportunities for shared communication service and facilities exist with
CCFD, SCFD and the City of Morgan Hill. As all of these agencies use a
common band and radio frequency, the cost of establishing shared
communications is less than those cases where a common band and
frequency are not in use. Consolidation of police and fire communications
would result in savings to the City.
Management Partners, Inc. 151
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Los Altos Hills County Fire District
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow current service levels to be
maintained at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
typically requires some initial capital investment by the partners.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is
accountable for operations and performance to the City Administrator.
The City Administrator is accountable to the City Council.
The City complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance, budget and department information is available on the
City’s website.
Opportunities for operational efficiencies include annexing to the SCFD
or contracting with another service provider such as CAL FIRE or CCFD.
A working group consisting of the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and
the SCFD and CCFD is evaluating opportunities to jointly improve
economies and efficiencies in the south county region.
Accountability is clear and the City conducts business in a transparent manner.
Combining fire and emergency medical operations with other providers through
annexation, joint powers agreements or contracts is an option that may provide
operational efficiencies. These options are under review by a joint working group of
agencies in the geographic area.
6.3 Los Altos Hills County Fire District
Growth and population projections for the affected area
The population in the district is projected to increase by 2.8% to
approximately 11,798 residents between 2010 and 2035.
The development pattern of the Town of Los Altos Hills is overwhelmingly low
density residential. The unincorporated lands within the district are limited in
development potential due to the County’s strict land use policies and permanently
protected open space lands border the district’s SOI to the south.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The district contracts with CCFD for fire suppression and emergency
medical services and directly provides supplemental services. The district
owns and maintains one station. The station is in excellent condition and
funds are reserved for maintenance.
Management Partners, Inc. 152
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Los Altos Hills County Fire District
The district funds apparatus that are used by the CCFD. Apparatus
replacement policies meet or exceed those of the CCFD.
Present and planned capacity of infrastructure and service are sufficient to serve
projected population growth if the station and apparatus are maintained.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The district is a dependent special district governed by the County Board
of Supervisors.
The district has a property tax base that is adequate to fund the service
contract with CCFD and provide supplementary services to residents
including brush clearance and hydrant maintenance.
The district has substantial reserves. Some are dedicated for specific
purposes, such as apparatus replacement and water supply
improvements. Undesignated reserves are substantial, constituting 59%
of annual operating expenses. In recent years reserves have been used to
fund supplemental services.
District finances are more than adequate to provide services for the current and
projected population. The undesignated reserves substantially exceed what is
typically found in similar public agencies.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The district’s facilities and service delivery are integrated by contract into
the operation of the CCFD.
Given the contractual relationship with CCFD, there are no immediate opportunities
for further facility or service sharing.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The district is a dependent special district governed by the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
A seven-member district commission is nominated by District 5
Supervisor and appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The
commission, with consultant assistance, oversees the CCFD contract and
local programs.
The district posts meeting announcements consistent with state law.
Meeting information, minutes and financial information were not
available on website at the time of review. The website has been updated
Management Partners, Inc. 153
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
to show commission meetings on the calendar. Department and program
information is available on the website.
The district is an integral part of the Los Altos Hills community.
The district could be consolidated with the CCFD resulting in the
elimination of costs necessary to administer the district. The district could
contract with another provider for service such as Palo Alto or CAL FIRE.
The district can improve transparency by including more information on its website.
Administrative costs could be reduced by consolidating with the CCFD.
6.4 City of Milpitas Fire Department
Growth and population projections for the affected area
Population is expected to grow 54% by 2035 to approximately 106,000
residents, an annualized rate of 2.1%.
The City of Milpitas cannot expand outwardly because it is bounded by other cities
and a voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary. The growth potential that remains is
for in-fill development, redevelopment, and expansion on underdeveloped parcels.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The City maintains four stations, all of which are in good condition.
The City has a 20-year replacement cycle for apparatus. All current line
apparatus are consistent with the replacement cycle.
The department does not have an established time standard for response
to non-emergency calls. The average response time in 2009 was 4
minutes, 2 seconds.
In 2009, the department responded to emergency medical calls within the
established County EMS standards on 98.98% of calls.
The department reported receiving four mutual/automatic aid calls in
2009 and responding to 275. Most were responses into underserved lands
of the County which takes a unit out of service. The City receives no
compensation for these responses.
Department funding and staffing have been stable.
Present infrastructure and response capacity are sufficient to serve projected
population growth assuming continued maintenance of stations and apparatus. The
department is significantly impacted by responses outside of their service area.
Management Partners, Inc. 154
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Milpitas Fire Department
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The Fire Department is a unit of the City of Milpitas. Department funding
is primarily from the City’s General Fund.
Department funding decreased 7% between 2009-10 and 2010-11.
Staffing has been stable.
A replacement fund is maintained for apparatus replacement and annual
contributions are made to the fund.
There is uncertainty regarding the long-term financial stability of cities. The City of
Milpitas currently has the financial resources to provide services at current levels.
Pursuing opportunities to integrate services with other departments and change
service delivery models offers the potential to maintain adequate services in a
financially constrained environment.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
Funding for training has been reduced substantially due to budget
reductions. The City has a training facility. Natural partners for shared
training are the City of San José and the City of Santa Clara fire
departments.
Department apparatus are maintained by the City’s maintenance unit.
Opportunities for a shared maintenance facility and service may exist
with the City of San José and the City of Santa Clara fire departments.
The radio band and frequency used by the department is not compatible
with any other agencies in the County; this could increase the cost of
implementing a shared communication system.
Stations 1 and 4 are in close enough proximity and have sufficient
response capability where consolidation of stations and elimination of a
company may be possible. Automatic aid from San José station 29 would
probably be a necessary component of this consolidation.
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow for the maintenance of current
service levels at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
typically requires some initial capital investment by the City.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is
accountable for operations and performance to the City Manager. The
City Manager is accountable to the City Council.
Management Partners, Inc. 155
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
The City complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance, budget and department information is available on the city’s
website.
Contracting for service with another service provider or combining with
other fire departments through a JPA are potential opportunities to
improve efficiency. Given physical proximity, the City of San José Fire
Department is the most natural partner.
Accountability is clear and the City conducts business in a transparent manner.
Combining fire and emergency medical operations with other providers through joint
powers agreements or contracting for service with another agency are options that
may provide operational efficiencies.
6.5 City of Mountain View Fire Department
Growth and population projections for the affected area
City population growth of 26% is projected between 2010 and 2035 to
about 90,600 residents; approximately 1% per year.
The City of Mountain View cannot expand outwardly because it is bounded by other
cities. The growth potential that remains is for in-fill development, redevelopment,
and expansion on underdeveloped parcels.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The City maintains five fire stations. A new station 5 is under
construction to replace a temporary structure. There are no deferred
capital improvements or major repairs needed.
The apparatus replacement cycle is 15 years. All engines were
manufactured in 2009 and the line truck has 4,300 miles. A new Hazmat
unit will be placed in service in 2010.
The department’s established response standard for non-medical
emergencies is to arrive within 6 minutes of dispatch on 100% of calls.
The department met this standard on 98% of calls in 2009.
In 2009, the department was in compliance with County EMS medical
emergency response standards on 96.8% of calls.
The department responded to 97 mutual/automatic aid calls in 2009; 45%
of responses were reported to CCFD and 28% to Palo Alto. The
department does not track mutual/automatic aid received.
Management Partners, Inc. 156
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Mountain View Fire Department
Present and planned infrastructure and service capacity are sufficient to serve
projected population growth if stations, apparatus and mutual/automatic aid
agreements are maintained.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The department is a unit of the City of Mountain View and is largely
funded from the City’s General Fund.
Budget and staffing have been stable between FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11.
The City makes annual contributions to an apparatus replacement fund.
There is uncertainty regarding the long-term financial stability of cities. The City of
Mountain View currently has the financial resources to provide services at current
levels. Pursuing opportunities to integrate services with other departments and
change service delivery models offers the potential to maintain adequate services in a
financially constrained environment.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The department shares a reserve truck and does some joint training with
the City of Palo Alto.
The department maintains a training facility with a tower. The most likely
partners with whom a training facility and program might be shared are
Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and CCFD.
Apparatus are maintained by the City’s fleet maintenance unit. The most
likely partners with whom a fleet maintenance facility and program
might be shared are Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and CCFD.
Department communications are provided by the City’s police
department. Communications are on the same band/frequency as County
Comm, Palo Alto, San José and Gilroy.
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow current service levels to be
maintained at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
typically involve some initial capital investment by the partners.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is
accountable for operations and performance to the City Manager. The
City Manager is accountable to the City Council.
The City complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance, budget and department information is available on the
City’s website.
Management Partners, Inc. 157
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Contracting for service with another fire department or consolidating
with other departments through a JPA are potential opportunities to
improve efficiency. Given physical proximity, the cities of Palo Alto and
Sunnyvale and CCFD are the most natural partners.
Accountability is clear and the City conducts business in a transparent manner.
Combining fire and emergency medical operations with other providers or
contracting with another service provider may provide operational efficiencies.
6.6 City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Growth and population projections for the affected area
City population is projected to grow 36% between 2010 and 2035, an
annualized rate of 1.4%, to approximately 84,000 residents.
The City of Palo Alto cannot expand outwardly because it is bounded by other cities
and open space. The growth potential that remains is for in-fill development,
redevelopment, and expansion on underdeveloped parcels.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The City maintains eight stations. Five stations are in fair condition
requiring maintenance; three are in poor condition with two not meeting
essential building standards (stations 3 and 4). The City’s capital
improvement program contains funding to bring stations 3 and 4 to good
condition.
Engines are replaced at 20 years, trucks at 15 years. All apparatus are
consistent with the replacement schedule.
The department’s established time standard for all emergency calls,
including medical, is to respond to 90% of calls in 8 minutes or less. The
City reported meeting the standard on 91% of calls in 2009.
The department received 171 mutual/automatic aid responses in 2009;
44% were from the Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD) in San
Mateo County. The department provided 141 mutual/automatic aid
responses in 2009, evenly distributed between the CCFD, MPFPD and
Mountain View.
The department has the infrastructure and service response capacity to meet
projected demand. Investment to maintain fire stations and a plan to ensure funding
for timely replacement of apparatus is necessary to sustain this capacity.
Management Partners, Inc. 158
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Palo Alto Fire Department
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The Fire Department is a unit of the City of Palo Alto.
Approximately two-thirds of the fire department’s budget is funded by
the City’s General Fund; one third is derived from contracts for services
and fees. The department’s budget increased between FY 2007-08 and FY
2010-11; this is largely the result of increased pension contributions.
Staffing has been stable.
The City has discontinued the apparatus replacement fund.
There is uncertainty regarding the long-term financial stability of cities. The City of
Palo Alto currently has the financial resources to provide services at current levels.
Funding for station maintenance and equipment replacement are necessary to
continue service at current levels. Pursuing opportunities to integrate services with
other departments and change service delivery models offers the potential to maintain
adequate services in a financially constrained environment.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The department currently shares a reserve truck with the Mountain View
fire department and the departments do some joint training.
Opportunities exist to share training facilities and programs. The natural
partners are Mountain View and CCFD.
Opportunities exist to share apparatus maintenance and service. The
natural partners are Mountain View, CCFD and the Menlo Park Fire
Protection District
Opportunities exist to consolidate communication facilities and services.
Potential partners include Mountain View, County Comm and San José,
as they operate on the same band and frequency.
Given physical proximity and call response capacity, there may be an
opportunity to consolidate stations 2 and 6 and eliminate a company.
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow current service levels to be
maintained at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
will involve some initial capital investment by the City.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is
accountable for operations and performance to the City Manager. The
City Manager is accountable to the City Council.
Management Partners, Inc. 159
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
The City complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance, budget and department information is available on the city’s
website.
Consolidating with other fire departments through joint powers
agreements or contracting for service with another agency are potential
opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce cost. Given physical
proximity, the City of Mountain View Fire Department and CCFD are the
most natural partners. The Menlo Park Fire Protection District may be
another option, but its location in San Mateo County may present
complications.
Accountability is clear and the City conducts business in a transparent manner.
Combining fire and emergency medical operations with other providers through joint
powers agreements or contracting with another agency for service are options that
may provide operational efficiencies.
6.7 City of San José Fire Department
Growth and population projections for the affected area
City population is expected to grow by 41% to approximately 1,380,900
residents between 2010 and 2035, an annualized rate of 1.6%.
The City of San José has a substantial amount of vacant and underdeveloped land
within its boundaries. LAFCO policies encourage the utilization of these lands first,
before expanding outward. The City is in the process of updating its General Plan
with the intent of accommodating future growth and development within its existing
boundaries.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The City maintains 34 fire stations. The department reported that 13 are
in excellent condition; 14 are in fair condition; and seven are in poor
condition.
The department staffs 52 apparatus daily including 30 engines, 9 trucks, 5
medic units, 4 light units, 2 brush patrols, 1 Urban Search and Rescue unit
and 1 HazMat unit. The apparatus replacement policy is 17 years for
engines and 20 years for trucks. All line apparatus comply with the
replacement policy.
The established response time standard for non-medical emergency calls
is 8 minutes or less on 80% of calls. This includes total time from receipt
Management Partners, Inc. 160
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of San José Fire Department
of the 911 call-in communications. In 2009, the department reported
meeting the standard on 82% of calls.
The department met the County EMS established response time for
emergency medical calls 95% of the time in 2009.
The department reported receiving 3 mutual/automatic aid responses and
providing 61 responses in 2009; over 80% of mutual/automatic aid was
with CCFD. Mutual/ automatic aid information is underreported as the
department has had data processing and staffing issues relating to
capturing information.
Future annexations may require the construction of additional stations
and placement of additional apparatus in service to maintain current
response standards.
Present and planned capacity of infrastructure and response capability are sufficient
to serve projected population growth, assuming continued maintenance of stations,
apparatus and staff deployment practices are sufficient to meet established response
standards.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The department is a unit of the City of San José and is funded primarily
from the City’s General Fund.
The department budget has been reduced by approximately 4% between
FY 2008-09 and FY 2010-11 and staffing has been reduced by
approximately 12%. Budget reductions in July 2010 resulted in the
elimination of a four engine and one truck company. The City is
implementing a dynamic deployment protocol to maintain adequate
response standards.
The City does not maintain an apparatus replacement fund. Bond
proceeds have been used to fund replacement.
There is uncertainty regarding the long-term financial stability of cities. The City of
San José has the financial resources to provide services at current levels. Pursuing
opportunities to integrate services with other departments and change service
delivery models offers the potential to maintain adequate services in a financially
constrained environment.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The department maintains a good training facility and program. There
may be opportunities to provide training to other fire departments.
Management Partners, Inc. 161
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Apparatus are maintained by the City’s fleet maintenance unit. There
may be opportunities to provide apparatus maintenance to other
departments.
The police department is the PSAP. Fire and emergency medical calls are
transferred to the fire department’s communications division. San José
may be able to offer communication services to other departments.
CCFD, Gilroy, Palo Alto and Mountain View use the same band and
frequency as San José.
Given physical proximity and call response capacity, there may be an
opportunity for consolidating station 29 with Santa Clara station 6, and
station 15 with CCFD station 2. This opportunity may be tempered by
recent budget cuts.
Given the size and scale of the department and support services, the department may
be in a position to offer shared facilities to other departments.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is
accountable for operations and performance to the City Manager. The
City Manager is accountable to the City Council.
The City complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance, budget and department information is available on the
City’s website.
Accountability is clear and the City conducts business in a transparent manner.
Offering services to other agencies may be an opportunity to offset the fixed costs of
the department.
6.8 City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Growth and population projections for the affected area
City population is expected to grow 37% between 2010 and 2035, to
approximately 157,200 residents, an annualized growth rate of about
1.5%.
The City of Santa Clara cannot expand outwardly because it is bounded by other
cities. The growth potential that remains is for in-fill development, redevelopment,
and expansion on underdeveloped parcels.
Management Partners, Inc. 162
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Santa Clara Fire Department
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The City maintains 10 stations; all stations are in good condition. No
deferred maintenance or repairs are needed for eight stations, and
funding is in the City’s capital improvement program to upgrade two
stations.
The apparatus replacement policy is 20 years; 15 years on the line and
five in reserve. All line apparatus are less than 15 years old.
There is no established time response standard for non-medical
emergency calls. In 2009, the average call response was reported at 4
minutes, 3 seconds.
The department was in compliance with the County EMS response
standard for medical emergency calls on 95.89% of calls in 2009.
The department reports receiving two mutual/auto aid calls in 2009 and
providing 12 responses in that year.
Present infrastructure and response capacity are sufficient to serve projected
population growth assuming continued maintenance of stations and apparatus.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The Fire Department is a unit of the City of Santa Clara and is funded
largely from the City’s General Fund.
The department’s budget and staffing have been stable between FY 2007-
08 and FY 2010-11.
The City makes annual contributions to an apparatus replacement fund.
There is uncertainty regarding the long-term financial stability of cities. The City of
Santa Clara currently has the financial resources to provide services at current levels.
Pursuing opportunities to integrate services with other departments and change
service delivery models offers the potential to maintain adequate services in a
financially constrained environment.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The department maintains a training facility and dedicated training staff.
Opportunities exist to share training facilities and programs; natural
partners are Sunnyvale, Milpitas and CCFD.
Apparatus maintenance is provided by the City’s fleet maintenance unit.
Opportunities exist to share apparatus maintenance and service; natural
partners are Sunnyvale, CCFD and San José.
Management Partners, Inc. 163
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
The department uses a radio band and frequency not used by any other
agency in the county. This complicates the ability to share or consolidate
communication facilities and functions.
Stations 3, 4 and 7 are all in close proximity and have sufficient response
capability that some station consolidation and elimination of a company
may be possible. There may also be an opportunity to consolidate station
6 with San José.
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow current service levels to be
maintained at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
will involve some initial capital investment by the City.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is
accountable for operations and performance to the City Manager. The
City Manager is accountable to the City Council.
The City complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance, budget and department information is available on the
City’s website.
Consolidating with other departments through a JPA or contracting for
service with another provider are potential opportunities to improve
efficiency and reduce cost. Given physical proximity, the City of San José
and Sunnyvale fire departments and CCFD are the most natural partners.
Accountability is clear and the City conducts business in a transparent manner.
Combining fire and emergency medical operations with other providers through joint
powers agreements or contracting with another provider is an option that may
provide operational efficiencies.
6.9 Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Growth and population projections for the affected area
The population within the district boundaries served by CCFD is
expected to grow 7% between 2010 and 2035 to approximately 111,804
residents. The total population served by the CCFD, including contract
services, is projected to grow to approximately 290,000
Areas within the service area of the district with significant development
potential will be annexed by the adjacent city prior to development.
Management Partners, Inc. 164
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
An annexation of 22,000 acres in the Santa Cruz mountains to the CCFD
became effective in September 2010; this will not require additional
department resources.
The land use policies of the cities within the district do not call for significant
increases in development densities. The district also includes some unincorporated
islands within the City of San José, which will be eventually annexed to the City. The
development potential of the unincorporated hillside lands within the district that are
located directly east of San José and Milpitas, is limited due to the County‘s land use
policies, similar to the growth potential of the unincorporated lands within the
district in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The district provides service from 17 stations. Eight stations were rated as
excellent, eight as good, and one as fair.
Apparatus replacement guidelines are 12 years or 100,000 miles for
engines and 10 years or 75,000 miles for trucks. All line units are in
compliance with the guidelines.
The department’s established time standard for an urban single structure
fire is a travel time of 8 minutes or less on 85% of calls. The department
reported meeting the standard on 87.9% of calls in 2009.
The department met the EMS established response standards on 95.13%
of calls in 2009.
The department received 1,239 mutual/automatic aid responses in 2009;
50% were from the San José fire department, 33% were from SCFD and
8% were from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department. The department
provided 1,316 automatic /mutual aid responses in 2009; 66% were to San
José and 25% to SCFD.
Present and planned capacity of infrastructure and response capacity are sufficient to
serve projected population growth assuming continued maintenance of stations,
apparatus and staffing levels are sufficient to meet established response standards.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The Fire Department is a dependent special district governed by the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
Approximately two-thirds of the Fire Department’s budget is funded by
district property taxes; one-third is derived from contracts for services,
reimbursements and fees.
Management Partners, Inc. 165
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
The department’s budget increased by approximately 17.5% between FY
2007-08 and FY 2010-11; this largely reflects entering into the full service
contract with the Saratoga Fire Protection District in 2008 and
renegotiating other service contracts.
Staffing has been stable.
The district makes annual contributions to an apparatus replacement
fund.
As of the most recent available audit, June 30, 2009, the district had a fund
balance of approximately $17.5 million. Of this amount, approximately
$15.2 million was undesignated; this represents 19% of annual operating
costs.
The district has had a stable financial base, although it will be affected by the
downward property assessments. The district has a prudent reserve. If property taxes
remain relatively stable, finances should be adequate to provide services at current
levels.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The district maintains a training facility and dedicated training staff.
Opportunities exist to share training facilities and programs. There are
multiple potential partners for sharing training.
The district maintains an apparatus maintenance facility. According to
the department, the facility is at capacity. Opportunities may exist to
partner with other agencies on a shared maintenance facility or add an
additional shift to the current maintenance crew and provide
maintenance service for other departments.
Emergency communications are provided by County Comm. County
Comm operates on the same band and frequency as the fire departments
of Gilroy, Palo Alto, Mountain View and San José.
Given physical proximity and response capacity, there may be an
opportunity to consolidate station 2 with San José station 15, thus
eliminating one company.
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow current service levels to be
maintained at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
typically requires some initial capital investment by the partners.
Management Partners, Inc. 166
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is
accountable for operations and performance to the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors.
The County complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance and financial information is not readily available on the
district’s website.
The CCFD has completed the accreditation process of the Commission on
Fire Service Accreditation International.
Department personnel are integrated into the communities they serve.
Consolidating with the LAHFD and SCFD would result in a single
countywide dependent district and provide some savings in
administrative and support costs.
Accountability is clear. While district personnel are connected to the respective
communities served, as a dependent district under direction of the County Board,
governance is remote from district residents. Including information on Board
meetings and district finances on the website would increase clarity and
transparency on district governance and funding. Combining fire and emergency
medical operations with other providers through joint powers agreements or
contracts is an option that may reduce some of the district’s administrative and
support costs.
6.10 South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Growth and population projections for the affected area
Population growth of 8% to approximately 26,524 residents is projected
within the district’s boundaries between 2010 and 2035.
The unincorporated lands within the district directly surrounding the cities of
Morgan Hill and Gilroy are developed with mostly low-density rural-residential
development or agricultural uses. Lands located outside of the district’s boundary but
within its SOI consist of mostly remote areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the
Diablo Range that are difficult to access, hard to serve, and have limited development
potential.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The district maintains four stations. Three stations are in good condition
and one requires maintenance.
Management Partners, Inc. 167
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Four engines are staffed daily. The apparatus replacement is 12 years,
reflecting the high mileage accumulated to remote responses.
The department’s established time standard for non-medical emergency
calls varies depending upon call classification as urban, suburban or
rural. The performance standard is to respond to all calls within the
established standard 90% of the time. The department reported meeting
response standards on 90% of calls in 2009.
The department responded to medical calls within the County EMS
standards on 97.53% of calls in 2009.
The department received 969 mutual/ automatic aid responses in 2009;
71% were from CCFD and Gilroy. The department provided 876 mutual/
automatic aid responses in 2009; 87% to CCFD and Gilroy.
The present capacity of infrastructure and service performance is sufficient to serve
projected population growth provided stations, apparatus and mutual/automatic aid
agreements are maintained.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The fire district is a dependent district of Santa Clara County governed by
the Board of Supervisors. A seven-member commission approved by the
board has been delegated authority over the operational activities of the
district and monitoring the service contract with CAL FIRE.
The district is funded primarily by property taxes. The budget increased
significantly in FY 2009-10 reflecting station maintenance and apparatus
purchase.
Staffing has increased in recent years.
CAL FIRE provides the lowest cost of fire and emergency medical
services in the County.
The district does not have an apparatus replacement fund; replacements
are paid for through the annual budget and reserves.
The most recent available audit reported that as of June 30, 2009 the
district had an undesignated fund balance of $2,758,790. At 75% of annual
operating costs, this is a sizable balance. The lack of an apparatus
replacement fund provides some basis for a larger undesignated balance.
Assuming relative stability in funding, and maintenance of the contract with CAL
FIRE, the district should have the financial capability to meet future service
demands.
Management Partners, Inc. 168
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The district is currently sharing a battalion chief with the Gilroy Fire
Department and CCFD. A working group of south county agencies is
exploring other service integration opportunities.
Opportunities for shared facilities exist for training with the CCFD and
Gilroy. There is no adequate regional training facility in the south county.
Opportunities exist for shared facilities and service for apparatus
maintenance with the CCFD and Gilroy.
Opportunities for shared communication service and facilities exist with
CCFD, Gilroy and the City of Morgan Hill. As all of these agencies use a
common band and radio frequency, the cost of establishing shared
communications would be is less for these than those cases where a
common band and frequency are not in use.
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow current service levels to be
maintained at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
typically requires some initial capital investment by the partners.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Fire Chief who is an
employee of CAL FIRE. The service contract with CAL FIRE is with the
County of Santa Clara. The appointed commission has authority over
district operations and is the ongoing liaison with CAL FIRE.
The district complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance and budget information is not readily available on the
district’s website. Registering on the website is required to access meeting
information.
The district is exploring regional service delivery with Gilroy and CCFD.
Accountability is difficult to follow given the existence of an appointed district
commission, the Board of Supervisors and a contract service provider. While CAL
FIRE personnel are connected to the respective communities served, as a dependent
district under direction of the County Board, governance is very remote from district
residents. Including information on the website about board meetings and district
finances would increase clarity and transparency on district governance and
funding. Combining fire and emergency medical operations with other providers
through joint powers agreements or consolidation with other dependent County
districts is an option that may provide operational efficiencies. Given the low cost
structure of the contract with CAL FIRE, achievement of significant savings through
service integration may be difficult.
Management Partners, Inc. 169
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Saratoga Fire Protection District
6.11 Saratoga Fire Protection District
Growth and population projections for the affected area
Population in the district is projected to increase by less than 1% to
approximately 14,355 residents between 2010 and 2035.
The district’s boundary includes all lands within its SOI. There is no potential to
annex additional lands as it is completely surrounded by the CCFD.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
The district owns one station that is in excellent condition.
The apparatus used by the CCFD to serve the district is provided through
the service contract.
Present infrastructure and service capacity are sufficient to serve projected
population growth if the station and apparatus are maintained.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The district is an independent special district in Santa Clara County.
The district has a property tax base that is adequate to fund the service
contract with CCFD and other administrative expenses.
The most recent available audit reported an unreserved fund balance for
the district of $998,475. At 19% of annual operating expenses, this is a
prudent reserve.
Unless a significant decrease in property tax occurs, District finances should be
adequate to provide services for the current and projected population.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
The district’s facilities and service delivery are integrated by contract into
the operation of the CCFD.
Given the contractual relationship with CCFD, there are no immediate opportunities
for further facility or service sharing by the district.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The district is an independent district governed by a three-member
elected Board of Directors.
Management Partners, Inc. 170
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
The district posts meeting announcements on the message board on the
side of the station.
Meeting agenda, minutes and financial information were not available on
the District’s website at the time of review. The website has since been
updated to include board meeting information.
The district could be dissolved and consolidated with the CCFD, which
would result in eliminating district administration costs.
The district can improve transparency by including more governance and financial
information on the website. Administrative costs could be reduced by dissolving the
district and consolidating with CCFD.
6.12 City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Growth and population projections for the affected area
The City’s population is expected to grow 21% to approximately 163,300
residents between 2010 and 2035, an annualized rate of less than 1%.
The City of Sunnyvale cannot expand outwardly because it is bounded by other
cities. The growth potential that remains is for in-fill development, redevelopment,
and expansion on underdeveloped parcels.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
service, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
Fire and emergency medical services are provided by the City’s Public
Safety Department. Patrol officers trained in fire suppression are an
integral part of response capacity.
The City maintains six fire stations. All stations were remodeled in 1998
and 1999.
The department staffs twelve apparatus on a daily basis with two-person
crews. The apparatus replacement cycle is 20 years; all line apparatus is
ten years old or less.
The department’s established time standard for all non-medical
emergency calls is to respond to 93% of calls in 6 minutes, 14 seconds or
less. The City reported meeting the standard on 95% of calls in 2009.
The department reported receiving 45 mutual/automatic aid responses in
2009; 73% were from Mountain View. The department provided 66
mutual/automatic aid responses in 2009; 48% to Mountain View, 26% to
CCFD and 21% to Santa Clara.
Management Partners, Inc. 171
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Present capacity of infrastructure and response capability are sufficient to serve
projected population growth if stations and apparatus and mutual/automatic aid
agreements are maintained.
Financial ability of agency to provide services
The Fire Department is a unit of the City of Sunnyvale and is funded
primarily by the City’s General Fund.
The department’s budget has been stable.
Staffing has increased 14% between FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. (This
staffing increase is due to departmental reorganization that shifted staff
between divisions in the Public Safety Department; it was not an increase
in total staff)
Annual contributions are made to an apparatus replacement fund.
There is uncertainty regarding the long-term financial stability of cities. The City of
Sunnyvale currently has the financial resources to provide services at current levels.
Pursuing opportunities to integrate services with other departments and change
service delivery models offers the potential to maintain adequate services in a
financially constrained environment.
Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
Opportunities exist to share training facilities and programs. The City’s
natural partners are Mountain View, Santa Clara and CCFD.
Opportunities exist to share apparatus maintenance and service. The
City’s natural partners are Mountain View, Santa Clara and CCFD.
Department communications are not on the same band and frequency of
any other fire and emergency medical service providers in the County.
Establishing shared facilities and services would allow current service levels to be
maintained at a lower cost. Implementing shared service and facility arrangements
will involve some initial capital investment by the City.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies
The Fire Department is under the direction of the Director of Public
Safety who is accountable for operations and performance to the City
Manager. The City Manager is accountable to the City Council.
The City complies with open meeting and public records laws.
Governance, budget and department information is available on the
City’s website.
Management Partners, Inc. 172
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review City of Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Consolidating with other fire departments or contracting with another
provider are potential opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce
cost. Given physical proximity, the City of Santa Clara and City of
Mountain View fire departments and CCFD are the most natural
partners. The City’s Public Safety structure presents unique issues that
would need to be addressed in a consolidation.
Accountability is clear and the City conducts business in a transparent manner.
Combining fire and emergency medical operations with other providers through joint
powers agreements or contracting for service with another agency are options that
may provide operational efficiencies.
Management Partners, Inc. 173
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Los Altos Hills County Fire District
7 Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
Following are the determinations and recommendations regarding the Los Altos
Hills County Fire District (LAHFD), Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection
District (CCFD), South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD) and
Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFD). The LAHFD, CCFD and SCFD are
dependent County districts governed by the County Board of Supervisors. The
SFD is an independent special district with an elected board of directors.
7.1 Los Altos Hills County Fire District
7.1.1 Current District Boundary
The Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHFD) provides fire protection and
emergency medical services to the Town of Los Altos Hills and to the
unincorporated area adjacent (i.e., the Loyola and San Antonio Hills areas) to the
Town through a contract with the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection
District (CCFD). The district also provides fire protection service to the Los
Trancos Woods area, which is adjacent to both San Mateo County and the City of
Palo Alto.
7.1.2 Current SOI Boundary
LAHFD’s SOI was established by LAFCO in 1983 and there have been no
changes to its SOI since then. LAHFD’s SOI is coterminous with its boundaries
except that it includes some agricultural and open space unincorporated lands to
the south that are outside the district’s boundaries, and excludes the Los Trancos
Woods area as well as the unincorporated area to the east of I-280 that is within
the SOI of Los Altos. The district has not recommended any changes to its SOI.
7.1.3 SOI Boundary Recommendation
It is recommended that LAFCO retract the SOI for the District to exclude the
lands annexed to the City of Los Altos and concurrently detached from the
LAHFD in the June 19, 2006 annexation of Los Altos Pocket No. 1: Blue Oak Lane to
the City of Los Altos. See Figure 68.
Management Partners, Inc. 174
M A C R T
D
IA
EER
G F
C R
I G
E
L
E
i T C I
K
g E
R
i L
D
E ` ` è C N A A N u â è ì
L
A R î
A
R â D = í I
C
Ê O ^
R N
æ
E
ì r W å
S
î î
T I A
è ô e
N
A = ì Y
D
_
A
F =
R P
e è i
L
6 P r í â %&j( U å e å R æ ì I 8
T
S
H
È =
E
P
N
S `
D A
~
R
I
A
M
N L
r : è ë A o ô í
O
t æ R R e î D
R
ô c
S
=
T
e
A
c ti R
E I
â
N
o ë O c
G
Ê
T
V n B =
A
a
H
I
F
o
I
L
L
S
L
D
V R D
E
I
â
E
C ì
W A R A
i
V A
î m L
E
A L s
N
ë A M A
R
â D I
C
Æ t N E B
A
r
I
î R
S
= A O i
S
A E m c R O R i
D T A
D R R
A
R t ^
R R O
S
A
R
s M
C
D e N
A E L W I
e
N
C
D C
c
S D
A R
I E O E
a
E
M n
N
` `
R T L
R
S
S
F M
D R
â â
O R N
D î î
T
P
â â d Ê Ê
A O
E
L
R
ì ì
C
E
R
N
= =
D
a N r p A
E
A
Nê ë o
D
N
N
t Å DÝ
L
I v
R
~
Z
M i ÊE
N
e æ M
A
o C
S
ë R
O L
D
D
Ê = M
A
m O
D N
R
p
O
D
B
ì
E
R V N n I Ê
E
= S b è C C ë
A
A
L
ï Ò I E N e
R
=
L
O
L
â f P Æ f C æ r T
D
N
E P
C Ê
A L
Ò o I
X
å 2 I
N
R = íO ^ M
A
0 Ê
a
N ë r M Ê æ
N
1
l
A
R ~ Æ
D
D 0
t
L H Ê ì
l E
L
o o
F A
R
W
l
O
o
i
P
i
t
r E I
L
M e H l S
o
M c l T
s
P M Ê s i W F Ê r
A
è
s
o î I
L
ì
M
D N t
T
=^
E V
e
A Y E L S G
D
N A IK O A A K HILL A V E
å c I
N
î
D
W è
R
t S
U
i ì
E O
A o =
E S N
e Y O
B
) ! n !
C L A
â
B A
å
A
å D
R
ì
F
D
I A
F R
= T
C
i L `
F
A
R
D R
L
R M
s P
A N U E
A
L A
O ` s
A
L
V E
^ c AO
T A
è T M
E
t A
M
è R â â D ë D í
M
A r ë
W
î
P
M
Ê å L ô Ê i æ
M
í
A N U
D m N
E
c
L E
~
L A
L =
A
O
R
î æ a p
D
ô ì
S
t
Y
î s =
N
= â Ê Ê L
A
c ì l
C
ë Ê N î
T
e
T
â S ï ë í ë ë â Ê â = Æ î Æ
R
p c ì n = î Ê a = â â h
D
È c ë =
D
Ê â m
E
e Ê ì d â
E B
ë = ë î = r Ê
E
` ë è c
S L
e â =
L
è Æ ï m p è
M T
s
R
î
I
ä â ë
R
È
A
î =
D
ä
A
~ E Ê
N
o ê i
C
î
D
~ ë â ~ ^ e
A
f è =
A
å
A
g æ e æ
V
I
D
í
E
â n n ì Ê c ë C A
A
M f P ì O â a
VI S
ì
T A
l
L N
t u
D
Q È F
MI R A N D
â
A R
e
D R
U Æî n A âè c I
L
æ L e
A
L
L
N
A
C
N
H
V N
R A
A E
O P
DI X N O N W A Y
B
C
I S N L
B T
U E
B U
R
L
D N
U R E
D A
S
S
T O R W O O O D L J N E A A
E R
U K N N
T D
A L
C
R L N
D
N
Y
S A D A
D B R
P
I V T O T Q T
U E
R
E A M R
E
E R
R U I
S
W A N
R K
N E
S
V E
F
G
E
Y A L W A E
D
V E A
I
R
A Y O LT A T A S
E
I L V
L
R N
N L
W S
D
A O S A N T A RI T A Y A V E
D B
A
U R R
V
K
i Ò
E
E ë
R
~ è
D
æ ä È = L O S ALT O S A V E ì i C A R M E L A V E
M
= ^ o
A
P e
M
N
Ê E V A N E D N I O L
R
O
c Æ
E
R
U O A K S T
S
è
U
a T
N
N
IV A E
O P ä
R S
T
(cid:8217)
1 E
D
I
A
T V W
ì L
S A Y T
C E S
H
A ä =
A S
P L O p L
T
A
A
Y
A E V A Y I R R E H C
2
O Ê N
M
R M
N
V R ê
P D
U E O æ
L
I
E O O
S
Ý
L
C
A T
N È
T
P
N L B
3 Z
Ê K
R
VI E W S T O
L
A N L
D
T
A W
Ê
O
S
A
ë
R
D
S
E
N
E
A M H
Ê
Z
È
T N G
O S
E A
A
A I
4
A
A
A =
T
=
T
I L
V
A
H
è Ò V A
N
V
N
A L
S I V N
è
S
E V M E
E
E
O
V Ò
T E C S
= ë
Y
E
U O
E A
T
f =
L L T
æ
S E
o
N E H P
C
T S
Ò
A A T
Ê å T
V
í
L E
ä
M
Ê A æ è
A
L
A
S
T Y N D AL L S V T
Æ ï H
N
E
l C A S E o Ê
F
~
P
G
t R
L R
V E R A C R U Z A V E t i l
E
W
Y
å
E
t
E
o t a A
P M
y C O
E
L
o s t R
O
A O
L P A S
A
S E N S T L
s i o T D
N
B o
M
s
L E
A
T
F f U A n L
D
R A S
V I i L
A
N E E
R
R
r
R T D V H
A o e V L
V
A W A
A
Y
E R G I
O
A
C
L
B
s
I
E I
L A
L
N
T I
S T
O D
I L
E
R
M N
N
L
C W
P
M I
V
A J
A
A O A
I
D L E
V
R
E
R D V Y D
EL E A N O
R
R E A V E
E A L
W
P H N A P
G
I R O R
V
A
A
A
I V R T A
A
S
L
C E
V
T H T D
L
L
I
E
O O R
I
L
O R W L
E
D
A E D A L
Y
R
R
V O S S D E C I
S
N S D I T T N
T
R E
G O R
D
O
O N W A Y
L A S D M J W L R A A A M Y R R ALI CI A W A Y
H
O I D C
A
N I H
O S A G E W A
N
V E
D W
T
C D A A A
H
D S R V S U N KI S T Y L N I I T
O
S E A
C
M T W
R S
E A
B U
R D V A
Y
N
A
A
L O N
L
E E N E
C
N S
o I
A L
R
V T
O V
E U V A E L
A
E I M
A
A
N
N
D u A L
S
K O S
D
R
O R
i
U
T K
N R A
A e
B T R
R
E
R n
D
R D
V
U
E
O
E
D
O O
E N
A E A
M
P
W
V L
E
S
O w
V E
A V E t R R
A
A N O D R
E
Y T D
I E
O
T
R
C
a
D
N
A
C
O
C
A
A T
A
L
D D
i I
V
F C L A R K n A V
R
E
R
O
E
RN R E I N A J J U G
HI G
A D
GI N S
S A V E S S T Y O O T R N F S D F R
P A R M A W A Y
A T V E
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
7.1.4 SOI Determinations
1. The Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, including Agricultural
and Open Space Lands
The district encompasses the Town of Los Altos Hills and unincorporated
areas adjacent to the Town. The district also provides service to the
unincorporated Los Trancos Woods area which is adjacent to both San
Mateo County and the City of Palo Alto. Existing and planned land uses
in the district are overwhelmingly residential, with some permanently
preserved open space and parklands, and with no commercial or
industrial facilities.
Finding: Planned land uses in the district are predominantly single-
family residential. There are some agricultural and open space lands in
the district’s SOI.
2. The Present and Probable Need For Public Facilities and Services in the
Area
The district provides fire protection service through a contract with
CCFD. The district is nearly built out and contains lands permanently
preserved as open space or parklands. Demand for service will remain
fairly constant with the possibility of slight reductions as the City of Los
Altos annexes their remaining unincorporated islands and these areas are
detached from the district.
Finding: Fire protection service needs in the area will hold constant or
decrease slightly in the future.
3. The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public
Services that the Agency Provides or is Authorized to Provide
The district contracts with CCFD for fire protection and emergency
medical services. The district also provides on-site brush chipper service,
garden debris drop off service, hillside weed clearance, fire prevention
information materials, and is replacing undersized water mains and
installing new water mains and fire hydrants where needed. One station
is owned and maintained at 12355 El Monte Road on the campus of
Foothill College. This station houses the apparatus, equipment, and tools
used to support the district's fire, rescue, and emergency medical needs.
The district serves land that has been largely developed or permanently
preserved. The infrastructure serving the district’s service area has the
Management Partners, Inc. 176
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
capacity to serve the development. The district continues to upgrade and
expand water distribution infrastructure.
Finding: The present capacity of public facilities and provision of service
appears to be adequate.
4. The Existence of any Social or Economic Communities of Interest in the
Area if the Commission Determines that they are Relevant to the
Agency
The district serves the Town of Los Altos Hills and adjacent
unincorporated areas. Some of these unincorporated areas are also
adjacent to the City of Los Altos and will someday be annexed into the
City of Los Altos. The district also provides service to the unincorporated
Los Trancos Woods area which is adjacent to both San Mateo County and
the City of Palo Alto. Residents within the district’s boundaries share
strong ties with the cities of Los Altos and Palo Alto, as well as Los Altos
Hills, which is where the majority of them reside.
Finding: The district is part of the social and economic community of the
Cities of Los Altos and Palo Alto, and the Town of Los Altos Hills.
5. The Nature, Location, Extent, Functions and Classes of Services to be
Provided
The district, through a contract with CCFD, provides fire protection
services, emergency medical service response, on-site brush chipper
service, garden debris drop off service, hillside weed clearance, fire
prevention public education, and replacement and installation of water
mains and hydrants.
7.2 Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
7.2.1 Current District Boundary
The Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) provides fire
protection and emergency medical services to areas in the central and northern
parts of the County, including the cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, a part of
Saratoga, Monte Sereno and other unincorporated areas. CCFD also provides fire
protection and emergency medical service by contract to the cities of Campbell,
Los Altos, Morgan Hill, the Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHFD) and the
Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFD). CCFD contracts with the cities of San José
and Milpitas to provide fire service to the urbanized unincorporated islands that
are surrounded by these cities and/or adjacent to these cities, as well as lands
Management Partners, Inc. 177
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
within the lower foothills. CCFD is designated as the fire marshal for all
unincorporated lands.
7.2.2 Current SOI Boundary
CCFD’s sphere of influence was established by LAFCO in 1983. The district’s SOI
boundary generally follows the Los Altos Hills boundary agreement line on the
north, the Santa Cruz County boundary on the west, the San José boundary
agreement line on the south and the city limits of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and
Cupertino on the east. The district’s SOI boundary does not include the
unincorporated islands or contract cities. In September 2010, LAFCO completed
annexation of 22,000 acres to the CCFD. This annexation resulted in CCFD
annexing all lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains which were located within its
SOI except for lands located in the southeastern end of CCFD’s SOI. These lands
were excluded from the annexation due to lack of access for CCFD to serve the
lands.
7.2.3 SOI Boundary Recommendation
It is recommended that LAFCO retract the SOI for CCFD to exclude lands on the
southeastern edge to be consistent with the district’s boundary as established by
the annexation effective on September 28, 2010 (CCFD SOI Amendment &
Annexation 2010-01) Additionally, the SOI for CCFD should be retracted to
exclude the lands that were annexed to the City of Los Altos and concurrently
detached from CCFD in the June 19, 2006 annexation of Los Altos Pocket No. 2:
Woodland Acres to the City of Los Altos. See Figure 69.
Management Partners, Inc. 178
YTNUOC
ZURC
ATNAS
Los Los 4TH ST Altos Altos W Hills Sunnyvale S
C
a
la
n
r
t
a
a ASHING
TON
HEDDING ST
JULIAN
ST
ST Lands Recommended for Removal from CCFD's Sphere of Influence SAN CARLOS ST
Cupertino %&j(
San
Jose
Stevens Creek Campbell
Reservoir
Saratoga
EVA ?¾E H G IEL
Vasona
Monte Reservoir
Sereno
Los
Gatos
?âE
Lexington
Reservoir
GRueasderavluoipre
LLaannddss RReeccoommmmeennddeedd ffoorr RReemmoovvaall ffrroomm CCCCFFDD''ss SSpphheerree ooff IInnfflluueennccee
ELlsamkean
EVAN
AIDIREM
FREMONT AV
O
FE
L
R D E
K
L B IE Y L DV COLEMAN AVE 1ST ST 7TH ST
DR W HOMESTEAD RD PARK AVE S L TE N IL G FOREST AVE TS E CAR
EXPY
WILLOW
ST
SOUTHWEST
AVE
CAMPBELL AVE C M O
B
SA
MT EDEN RD
HILLSDALE AVE
WAY BIG BASIN BRANHAM LN
BLOSSOM HILL RD
AMBROSE
RD
RD
CREEK
BEAR
IDYLWILD
RD
MTN
CHARLIE RD
SUMMIT
RD
EVAN OINU
BLVD PRUNERIDGE AVE N A Z A E D
YPXE
CE
EXPY
SAN
T O
MAS
N
LA W
RE
HAMILTON AVE
LINCO
LN AV AVE
N AID
CU EM
IR
RTNER AVE
CE RD D R
CONGRESS SPR PIE R INGS RD QUIT O CAMDEN AVE
BO
HLM
AN
DR
SARATOGA
LOS
GATOS
RD
BLOSSOM
HILL RD
KENNEDY
RD
SHANNON
RD
MONTEVINA
RD HICKS
RD
BLACK RD
ALM SODA SPRINGS
RD
A
HWY
BR
ID G E
R D
ALDERCROFT
HEIGHTS
RD
E
City of Santa City of Santa Clara Fire Clara Fire Station 7 Station 1
CC V S F i t D s a t t - a i o M F n i o r 7 e nta C C Fi C u re p F e D S r t t - a in ti o on 1 Ci C S ty l t a a o r t a f i o S F n a ir n 3 e taCi C S ty l t a a o r t a f i o S F n a ir n 4 e ta Sa S n C t J a i o t t y i s o e o n f F 7 i C re i S ty t a o t f i J o S F o n i a s r n e e S 1 J t o o a s C f t e i S i o t F a y n i n r 3 e 0 STEVENS CREEK BLVD City of San Jose Fire
Station 10
City of San
Jose Fire
City of San Station 4 CCFD - City of San Jose Jose Fire
Seven Fire Station 15 Station 14 Springs Fire
CAL FIRE -
Station 2
CCFD - SARATOGA
AVE
C S F S i a t i r t a n e y t J i o o o f n s e 6
Stevens Creek West Valley STEVENS
CANYON RD Vo
S
lu
ta
n C
t
t o
i S
e
o
m
t
e
n
C
e
r p
v
r
2
F a e
e 3
i n e
n
re k y
s Sta F t i i r o e n 9
Sun C n a C y m i o t
C
y p a
i t
b k o
y
s e f
o
l F
F
l
f
i
i
r
r C
e
e a S m ta p t b io e n ll
Station
City of San
Jose Fire Station 9
CCFD - SKYLINE S P
D
a r
i
o
s
r
t
a t
r
e t
i
o
c
c
t
t g i
S
a o
t
n F
a
i
t
r
i
e
on
Winche S s t t a e t r i o F n ir e 5
BLVD
City of San Jose
Fire Station 17
CCFD - CCFD -
Quito Shannon Fire
Fire Station 6
Station 8
CCFD - Los
Gatos Fire Station 3
CAL FIRE -
Alma Station
13, Helitack Station 33
CCFD -
Redwood
Fire
Station 4
Figure 69: Recommendation for CCFD SOI Amendments
November 2010
County Boundary Cities Urban Service Areas A Fi r r e e a S s e O rv u i t c s e id P e r o F v o i r d m e a r l Jurisdiction
!! City/District Fire Stations
Cities Cities Spheres of Influence ) Volunteer Fire Companies
Fire Protection Districts Fire Protection Districts Spheres of Influence
Los Altos Hills County Fire District Los Altos Hills County Fire District
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD)
Saratoga Fire Protection District Saratoga Fire Proection District
I
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
7.2.4 SOI Determinations
1. The Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, including Agricultural
and Open Space Lands
The district serves portions of the unincorporated area and the cities of
Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos and a portion of Saratoga. The
district also provides fire protection service by contract to the cities of
Campbell, Los Altos, Morgan Hill as well as the Los Altos Hills County
Fire Protection District (LAHFD) and Saratoga Fire Protection District
(SFD). CCFD also contracts with the cities of San José and Milpitas to
provide fire service to the urbanized unincorporated lands that are
surrounded by these cities and adjacent to these cities.
Each city and the County will determine the types of land uses planned in
their portions of the district’s service area. Cupertino is the more densely
developed of these communities and has the greatest employment-
producing land uses. Saratoga, Los Gatos, and Campbell are
predominantly residential with a well-defined downtown core and very
limited industrial uses. Monte Sereno and the Los Altos Hills area are
substantially low density residential. Morgan Hill is primarily residential,
with a mixture of commercial and industrial land uses. The
unincorporated islands consist of primarily residential land uses and
limited commercial land uses. The remaining unincorporated lands that
the district serves are more remote and are designated “hillsides” or
“ranchlands” in the County General Plan. Under the various cities’
existing General Plans and the County General Plan, lands uses in the
district are not expected to change.
Finding: Planned land uses in the district are predominantly single-
family residential, with limited commercial and industrial development.
There are some agricultural and open space lands in the district’s SOI.
2. The Present and Probable Need For Public Facilities and Services in the
Area
The district serves portions of the unincorporated area and the cities of
Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, and a portion of Saratoga. Each of
these cities is considered built-out and their land use policies do not call
for increases in development densities. The district also provides fire
protection service by contract to the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Morgan
Hill as well as the Los Altos Hills County and Saratoga Fire Protection
Districts. These areas, with the exception of the City of Morgan Hill are
Management Partners, Inc. 180
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
expected to experience minimal growth. CCFD also contracts with the
cities of San José and Milpitas to provide fire service to the urbanized
unincorporated areas that are surrounded by these cities and adjacent to
these cities. These areas are considered built-out or limited in
development potential under the County’s policies. Under the cities, the
County, and LAFCO’s policies, the islands will eventually be annexed
into their respective city.
There are lands inside the district’s SOI boundary that are outside of its
service boundary. These lands are unincorporated and are subject to the
County’s strict policies that only allow for very low-density development.
Given the low level of development and difficulty in accessing these
areas, they will remain outside the district boundaries. It is unlikely that
County Fire will experience significant service population growth in the
lands that they directly serve.
Finding: Fire protection service needs in the area will hold constant in the
future.
3. The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public
Services that the Agency Provides or is Authorized to Provide
CCFD provides fire protection, emergency medical service and various
related services. The district has comprehensively identified infra-
structure needs. The district has 17 fire stations, 16 front line fire engines,
two front line trucks, three front line rescue units and one Type 1
hazardous materials unit. There are no significant infrastructure needs
identified by CCFD.
Finding: The present capacity of public facilities and provision of service
appear to be adequate.
4. The Existence of any Social or Economic Communities of Interest in the
Area if the Commission Determines that they are Relevant to the
Agency.
The district serves the cities of Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, a
portion of Saratoga, and portions of the unincorporated County. The
district also provides fire protection service by contract to the cities of
Morgan Hill, Campbell, Los Altos, the Los Altos Hills County Fire
Protection District and the Saratoga Fire Protection District. Residents
within the district’s boundaries share strong ties with their respective
cities and the County. The district also interacts with cities of San José,
Management Partners, Inc. 181
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
Milpitas and contracts with these cities to serve the “unincorporated
islands” and adjacent lands in the lower foothills. The unincorporated
islands share a community of interest with the city that will ultimately
annex them. Residents of the lands within the lower foothills share a
community of interest with the adjacent cities.
Finding: The district is part of the social and economic community of the
cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte
Sereno, Morgan Hill, San José, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and the Los Altos
Hills County Fire Protection District.
5. The Nature, Location, Extent, Functions and Classes of Service to be
Provided
The district provides fire protection services, emergency medical service
response, hazardous materials response, technical rescue response, arson
investigations, public education, communication/dispatch, training, fire
code and law enforcement, engineering services, vehicle/fleet
maintenance services, and regional incident command resources.
7.3 South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
7.3.1 Current District Boundary
The South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD) provides fire
protection and emergency medical services to unincorporated areas in the
southern portion of Santa Clara County. The northern part of SCFD consists of
an area known as “Coyote Valley.” The southern part of SCFD consists of the
unincorporated area directly surrounding the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy,
the unincorporated rural residential community of San Martin, the Corde Valle
estate development, the remote area of the Santa Cruz Mountains and a portion
of the remote area of the Diablo Range.
7.3.2 Current SOI Boundary
SCFD’s SOI was established by LAFCO in 1983. There have been only minor
changes made to its SOI boundary since then. SCFD’s SOI is not coterminous
with the existing boundaries of the district. The district’s SOI includes all of
South County except the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and the more remote
areas of the Diablo Range. The district’s SOI is located generally south of Bailey
Avenue along Little Uvas Creek and extends southeast along Pacheco Highway
to the County line, extends east along the Diablo Range ridge line up to the San
José boundary agreement line and extends west to the Santa Clara County/Santa
Cruz County border.
Management Partners, Inc. 182
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
7.3.3 SOI Boundary Recommendation
It is recommended that LAFCO reaffirm the existing SOI for the South Santa
Clara County Fire Protection District.
7.3.4 SOI Determinations
1. The Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, including Agricultural
and Open Space Lands
The district’s boundary and SOI boundary include unincorporated lands
designated by the County General Plan as “agriculture, public open space
lands, rural residential, and regional parks.” The district also includes
remote areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range that are
designated “hillsides” and “ranchlands” in the County General Plan. The
boundaries also include the unincorporated rural residential community
of San Martin and rural residential estate development of Corde Valle, a
semi-private golf course, and a winery. Some limited commercial and
industrial uses are located in San Martin and along Pacheco Pass
Highway.
Finding: Under the existing County of Santa Clara policies, the
unincorporated area within the District’s boundary and SOI will remain
non-urban in character and predominantly in rural residential,
agricultural, and open space uses.
2. The Present and Probable Need For Public Facilities and Services in the
Area
The district provides fire protection and emergency medical services by
contracting with CAL FIRE, the operating unit of the State Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). The district serves unincorporated
lands directly surrounding the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. These
lands are developed with mostly low-density rural-residential
development, consistent with the County’s minimum lot size
requirements. The County, cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and LAFCO
all have policies that require urban development to occur within a city
and not within the unincorporated area. Therefore, cities must annex
lands before they can be developed with an urban use. SCFD also
includes the unincorporated rural residential community of San Martin
and the Corde Valle Estate development. The district also includes some
remote areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range that are
difficult to access and hard to serve and therefore have limited
Management Partners, Inc. 183
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
development potential. The district does not serve lands within the cities
of Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
SCFD is expected to see very little growth within its existing boundaries.
Demand for service will remain fairly constant with the possibility of
slight reductions as the cities of San José, Morgan Hill and Gilroy annex
land and these lands are detached from the district. It is also possible that
in the future service needs may increase slightly if additional remote
lands are annexed to the district. However, these remote lands can only
be developed at very low densities (120 acres minimum lot size based on
slope density) under the County’s policies.
Finding: Fire protection service needs in the area will hold constant or
decline in the future due to annexation to cities or may increase slightly if
additional remote lands are annexed to the district.
3. The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public
Services that the Agency Provides or is Authorized to Provide
SCFD contracts with CAL FIRE for fire protection and emergency medical
services. The district utilizes four stations. Station 1 (in Morgan Hill on
Monterey Street) is the CAL FIRE Headquarters Station. The district owns
Station 2 (south of San Martin and north of Gilroy on No Name Uno) and
leases Station 3 (west of Gilroy on Hecker Pass). A fourth station, owned
by CAL FIRE and located on Pacheco Pass Highway, opened in 1985.
The district serves lands that are largely developed with low-density
rural residential, agricultural, and open space uses. The infrastructure
serving the district’s service area has the capacity to serve the
development and residents within the district.
Finding: The present capacity of public facilities and provision of service
appears to be adequate and the district is replacing and installing new fire
protection infrastructure where warranted.
4. The Existence of any Social or Economic Communities of Interest in the
Area if the Commission Determines that they are Relevant to the
Agency
The South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District serves all of South
County with the exception of the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and the
remote area of the Diablo Range and Santa Cruz Mountains. Within the
district’s boundaries are areas such as the community of San Martin that
Management Partners, Inc. 184
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
functions as a social and economic unit. The vast portion of the district,
however, consists of patchwork of low-density rural residential
development that is socially and economically independent of one
another. Areas of the district that are inside a city’s Urban Service Area
share a community of interest with the city that will ultimately annex
them.
Finding: Portions of the district are socially and economically a part of
the South County cities and the community of San Martin.
5. The Nature, Location, Extent, Functions and Classes of Services to be
Provided
The district, through a contact with CAL FIRE provides fire protection
services, emergency medical service response, hazardous materials
response, water rescues, arson investigations, public education,
communication/dispatch, fire code and law enforcement, and engineering
services.
7.4 Saratoga Fire Protection District
7.4.1 Current District Boundary
The Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFD) provides fire protection and
emergency medical services to approximately half of the City of Saratoga and to
the adjacent unincorporated lands west and southwest of the City. In 2008 the
SFD contracted with CCFD for all fire and emergency medical services. Under
the contract, the SFD maintains ownership of the single station and CCFD staffs
the station with an engine and rescue.
7.4.2 Current SOI Boundary
SFD’s sphere of influence (SOI) was established by LAFCO in 1983 and is
coterminous with its boundaries. There have not been any changes to its SOI
since then. The district has not requested any changes to its SOI. The SOI
generally follows Mt. Eden and Pierce Road to Highway 9, follows Highway 9 to
Sanborn Road and then follows Sanborn Road to the Saratoga/Monte Sereno
Boundary Agreement Line. With the annexation of 22,000 acres by the CCFD
effective September 2010, the SFD will be completely surrounded by the CCFD;
there is no potential for the district or for its SOI boundary to expand.
Management Partners, Inc. 185
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
7.4.3 SOI Boundary Recommendation
It is recommended that LAFCO establish a zero SOI for the SFD as it is
appropriate for the district to be dissolved and included in the Santa Clara
County Central Fire Protection District.
7.4.4 SOI Determinations
1. The Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, including Agricultural
and Open Space Lands
Existing and planned land uses in the district are overwhelmingly
residential, with some educational, municipal, and commercial facilities
as well as parklands and permanently preserved open space. The area is
substantially developed. No new major development is anticipated.
Finding: Planned land uses in the district are predominantly single-
family residential. There are no agricultural lands or preserves in the
district’s SOI.
2. The Present and Probable Need For Public Facilities and Services in the
Area
The Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District provides fire and
emergency medical services through a contract. The district is nearly
built-out and contains largely residential development. New
development in the unincorporated area will continue to be very limited
due to the County’s very strict land use policies that require large
minimum lot sizes (5 acres, 20 acres, or 160 acres depending on the
location and slope) for new residential development. Demand for fire
protection service will remain fairly constant.
Finding: Fire protection service needs in the area will hold constant in the
future.
3. The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public
Services that the Agency Provides or is Authorized to Provide
The district contracts with the CCFD for fire protection and emergency
medical services. District lands are served primarily by the fire station in
Saratoga, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The station is staffed with two 3-
person companies operating an engine and rescue. The station was
completed in fall 2004 and meets current seismic, health and safety
standards. Nearby CCFD stations provide additional response.
Management Partners, Inc. 186
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Sphere of Influence Determinations and Recommendations
The district serves land that has been largely developed or permanently
preserved. The infrastructure serving the district’s area has the capacity
to serve the development and residents within the district.
Finding: The present capacity of public facilities and provision of service
appears to be adequate.
4. The Existence of any Social or Economic Communities of Interest in the
Area if the Commission Determines that they are Relevant to the
Agency
The district has a long history of social and economic interdependence
and interaction with the City of Saratoga. The district administers an
Early Warning Alarm System (EWAS) for the City of Saratoga. The
EWAS is a city-mandated ordinance that requires a fire detection system
in newly constructed homes over 5,000 square feet, remodeled homes
expanded over 50% of the original square footage, any new construction
in the Hazardous Hillside Area, and new commercial construction. The
system detects fires in the incipient stage and immediately notifies the
CCFD. There are approximately 700 alarm accounts on-line.
Finding: The district has historically been part of the social community of
the City of Saratoga. The presence of the district in the community has
been reduced with the service contract with the CCFD.
5. The Nature, Location, Extent, Functions and Classes of Service to be
Provided
The district, through a contract with CCFD, provides fire protection
services, emergency medical service response, rescue response, arson
investigations, and public education. Communication and dispatch
services are provided by County Communications, also as part of the
CCFD contract.
Management Partners, Inc. 187
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Conclusion
8 Conclusion
The current infrastructure of stations and apparatus, based on Management
Partners’ assessment of station location, number of apparatus and call volume,, if
properly maintained should be adequate to handle most projected growth in
population and service demand between 2010 and 2035. There are areas in Gilroy
and San José where planned new development will require that new stations be
constructed to provide service at current levels.
The unprecedented revenue loss experienced by public agencies in California,
coupled with expenditure increases to maintain current pension benefits, have
required cities to make significant expenditure reductions, including reductions
in fire department budgets. To this point, most fire and emergency service
providers have accommodated budget reductions without having a significant
impact on emergency response performance. Changes in overtime practices and
off-hours battalion chief coverage and reductions in training, prevention and
emergency preparedness have been the primary focus of cuts in municipal
departments. Although less sharply impacted because of a more stable revenue
base, fire districts are beginning to experience less robust revenue.
The projected continuation of fewer financial resources for local government will
require fire and emergency service providers to continue to look for ways to
make further budget reductions. Given the structure of the current fire service
delivery system and the limited flexibility in fire department budgets, this could
lead to budget reductions that would degrade emergency response performance.
As an alternative, there are several opportunities available to the cities and fire
districts in Santa Clara County to achieve economies and efficiencies without
service degradation. Most of these opportunities require departments to
integrate various common functions through the development of partnerships,
JPAs, or other cooperative strategies.
The economy and efficiency opportunities that have the broadest application
include consolidating communications, conducting joint training and
maintaining apparatus jointly. Consolidation of communication functions offers
the opportunity to significantly improve the service delivery system. It would
also create other economy and efficiency opportunities such as boundary drops.
Management Partners, Inc. 188
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Conclusion
Communication consolidation would require the inclusion of police
communications to achieve decreased costs.
Finding a solution to the fragmented delivery system in the south of the County
appears to be progressing based on a working group including the cities of
Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the Central and South Fire Districts. Strengthening
the capacity of volunteer fire departments to improve service in underserved
areas and providing some compensation to those public agencies that provide
responses into those areas will take the development of new revenue from the
affected underserved properties.
Public accountability, as measured by the ease of access of the public to
information on governance, governing board meetings and financial information
is strong in the municipal departments. Fire districts can take steps through
improvements in their websites to improve access and transparency of
operations.
Management Partners, Inc. 189
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment A: Definitions and Acronyms
Attachment A: Definitions and Acronyms
Like every discipline, fire and emergency services are replete with terms and acronyms that
may not be familiar to the general population. To aid the reader, Table 87 lists definitions of
terms and Table 88 lists acronyms used throughout this report.
Table 87: Definitions
Definitions
Advanced Life Pre-hospital emergency medical services intended to stabilize patients prior to
Support (ALS) transport to a hospital or trauma center. Includes administration of drugs and
intubation.
Ambulance or Vehicle used to transport patients to hospitals/trauma centers.
Transport
Apparatus Specialized vehicles used to provide fire and emergency services: primarily
engines, trucks and rescues.
Automatic Aid An ongoing agreement between agencies that one department will respond
automatically into the other jurisdiction to a service call.
Basic Life Support Pre-hospital emergency medical services intended to stabilize patients prior to
(BLS) transport to a hospital or trauma center. Services are at a lower level than ALS
services and require less training.
Battalion A grouping of multiple fire companies under a common command.
Boundary Drop When two agencies agree that the closest unit will be the first responder to an
incident and take responsibility for the incident regardless of political jurisdiction.
CAL FIRE The State of California fire and emergency service provider; California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Company A grouping of sworn firefighting personnel under supervision of a company
officer. A company is typically the personnel assigned to staff a piece of
apparatus.
County Comm. County of Santa Clara Communications Department, the
communications/dispatch center for the Santa Clara County Central Fire District
and countywide emergency ambulance dispatch, except for the City of Palo Alto.
Emergency Medical A person possessing the certifications necessary to provide BLS service.
Technician (EMT)
Engine The primary vehicle used by fire departments. It has water in a booster tank, a
pump, hoses, and ground ladders.
Fire district A government jurisdiction formed under the Health and Safety Code that is the
responsible jurisdiction for a prescribed geographic area.
Hazmat Hazardous materials/toxic chemicals dangerous to life and the environment. Type
1 materials require specialized equipment.
Management Partners, Inc. 190
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment A: Definitions and Acronyms
Definitions
Mutual Aid One or more agencies providing support to another agency upon request at no
cost.
Paramedic A person meeting State certification requirements to provide advanced life
support services.
Platoon A grouping of fire personnel typically working on the same shift rotation
schedule.
Public Service Calls Calls made for reasons including vehicle and residential lockouts, smoke detector
battery changes, invalid assists, etc.
Pre-hospital First responder paramedic and transport services in advance of admittance of a
emergency medical patient to a hospital.
care
Provider agency or A fire department that is a direct provider of fire and emergency services. Some
department responsible agencies contract with another agency for service delivery.
Rescue A rescue vehicle is similar to a truck, but does not carry the large aerial ladder. It
is similar to an engine, but carries all of the rescue and extrication gear carried by
a truck.
Responsible agency The government ultimately responsible for providing fire and emergency
or jurisdiction services—a city, county or fire district.
Sphere of Influence Defined by the state law as the probable physical boundaries and service areas of
(SOI) a city or district. In Santa Clara County, inclusion of an area in a city’s SOI is not
necessarily an indication that the area would be annexed to the city or receive
urban services.
State Responsibility Unincorporated lands outside the jurisdiction of an incorporated city. Cal Fire is
Area (SRA) the responsible agency for wildfire suppression response to these areas.
Structure Fire A fire in a building.
Truck Trucks have ground ladders and a large aerial ladder. Trucks also carry rescue
and medical gear.
Urban Service Area This boundary delineates incorporated and unincorporated areas authorized to
(USA) receive urban services, facilities, and utilities, or areas proposed to receive such
services within 5 years from a city.
Table 88: Acronyms
Acronyms
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AED Automatic Electronic Defibrillator
Management Partners, Inc. 191
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment A: Definitions and Acronyms
Acronyms
ALS Advanced Life Support
AMR American Medical Response
ARF Aircraft Rescue Firefighting engine
BLS Basic Life Support
CAD Computer Aided Dispatch
CCFD Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
CSA County Service Area
EMD Emergency Medical Dispatch
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EMT Emergency Medical Technician
FD Fire District
FTE Full Time Employee equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
HIT Hazardous Incident Team
ISF Internal Service Fund
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LAHFD Los Altos Hills County Fire Protection District
MIS Management Information System
MSR Municipal Service Review
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
PSAP Public Safety Answering Point
QRV Quick Response Vehicles
RFP Request For Proposals
SRA State Responsibility Area
SCC Santa Clara County
SCFD South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District
SFD Saratoga Fire Protection District
SOI Sphere of Influence
STAR Supplemental Transport Ambulance Resource
SVRIA Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority
Management Partners, Inc. 192
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment A: Definitions and Acronyms
Acronyms
USA Urban Service Area
VFC Volunteer Fire Company
Management Partners, Inc. 193
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment B: Interviews
Attachment B: Interviews
Gilroy
Date of Interview: 4-8-2010
Interviewee: Chief Dale Foster
Location: Gilroy FD, 7070 Chestnut, Gilroy
Date of Interview: 5-19-2010
Interviewee: Dale Foster
Phone
Milpitas
Date of Interview: 5-12-2010
Interviewee: Interim Chief Jeff Clet, Assistant Chief Scott Brown, others
Location: Milpitas FD HQ
Date of Interview: 5-18-2010
Interviewee: Scott Brown
Phone
Mountain View
Date of Interview: 4-12-2010
Interviewee: Deputy Chief Richard Alameda
Location: Mountain View FD HQ
Date of Interview: 5-18-2010
Interviewee: Rich Alameda
Phone
Ormsby Volunteer
Date of Interview: 4-27-2010
Interviewee: Robert Guerrero, Fire Chief Ormsby Volunteer
Location: Phone
Palo Alto
Date of Interview: 4-12-2010
Interviewee: Chief Nick Marinaro
Location: HQ office at City Hall
Management Partners, Inc. 194
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment B: Interviews
Date of Interview: 5-18-2010
Interviewee: Roger Bloom
Phone
San José
Date of Interview: 4-8-2010
Interviewee: Chief Darryl Von Raesfeld
Location: San José Fire Dept.
Date of Interview: 5-20-2010
Interviewee: Ty Mayfield
Phone
Santa Clara
Date of Interview: 4-6-2010
Interviewee: Chief Phil Kleinheinz
Location: Santa Clara FD HQ
Date of Interview: 5-18-2010
Interviewee: Bill Kelly
Phone
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Date of Interview: 4-7-2010
Interviewee: Chief Ken Waldvogel
Location: Santa Clara Co HQ on Winchester
Sunnyvale
Date of Interview: 4-12-2010
Interviewee: Deputy Chief Ron D’Alba
Location: Public Safety HQ, Sunnyvale
Date of Interview: 5-19-2010
Interviewee: Mark Bridges
Phone
Casa Loma Volunteer
Date of Interview: 4-19-2010
Interviewee: Casa Loma Volunteer - Kylee Vicha
Location: Phone
Management Partners, Inc. 195
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment B: Interviews
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District/CAL FIRE
Date of Interview: 4-5-2010
Interviewee: CAL FIRE (Santa Clara Unit) Chief Steven Woodill
Division Chief Derek Witmer
Location: CAL FIRE & South Santa Clara County Fire District Headquarters
Date of Interview: 5-18-2010
Interviewee: Derek Witmer
Phone
Santa Clara County Emergency Medical Services Agency
Date of Interview: 4-23-2010
Interviewee: Josh Davies and John Blain
Location: EMS Office, San José
Santa Clara County Communications Department
Date of Interview: 6-1-2010
Interviewee: Bert Hildebrand and others
Location: County Comm. HQ, San José
Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services
Date of Interview: 8-17-2010
Interviewee: Kirsten Hofmann, Director
Phone
Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office
Date of Interview: 8-16-2010
Interviewee: Jenny Lam, Deputy County Counsel
Phone
Santa Cruz County Fire Department
Date of Interview: 8-19-2010
Interviewee: Kathleen Lineberry, Deputy Chief
Phone
Management Partners, Inc. 196
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
This attachment includes the information from each department that was used as the basis for
this Municipal Service Review. The information came from entries made directly by department
personnel, documents provided to Management Partners by the departments, and information
from department websites. After being compiled by Management Partners, each department
received a draft of their information for review and verification.
There are some differences in the level of detail as well as how information is arrayed. This
reflects the nature of responses. In some cases there are inconsistencies in reported data. One
such area is the reported number of automatic and mutual aid calls. The number of calls
between two agencies may differ as some agencies reflected a broader range of aid calls than
others. In some cases the calls for service provided for the total department is not the same as
the total calls for service identified for each station in that department.
Gilroy Fire Department Detail
Gilroy Fire Department Summary
Type of Agency Municipal
Governing body City Council
Area covered 16.2 square miles
Service area description Services the City of Gilroy
Population (2010) 49,800
Budget 2010-11 $7,645,370
Staffing (FTEs) 38.00
Number of fire stations 3
Apparatus Engines type 1 – 3
Engines type 3 (4x4) – 1
Trucks – 1
Rescue Ambulance – 1
Brush Patrols - 2
Reserve Apparatus Engines – 1
Calls for service – (2009) 2727
ISO rating 4
Mutual aid arrangements With South Santa Clara County Fire District 6/07
Dispatch arrangements Gilroy Police
Management Partners, Inc. 197
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Gilroy Fire Department Details
Department Revenues (2009-10)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. 0
Fire Prevention 0
Fees, EMS 0
Fees, Other $138,000
Contracts 0
Other 0
Total Department Revenues $138,000
Fire Station - #1 - Chestnut Station
Location 7070 Chestnut Street, Gilroy, Ca. 95020
Description (# bays This station houses a fire engine staffed with a minimum of four personnel, a
and staffing reserve Ladder Truck, a Type 4 Brush Patrol and the Departments' Administrative
capacity) staff. It has 3 bays and living quarters for 9 with slight modification.
Condition Following improvements have been deferred:
Remodel kitchen and dayroom
Remodel sleeping quarters to provide private quarters
Seismic bay upgrades
Utility upgrades
Construct training facility (room and tower)
Staffing levels Emergency Response: One fire engine with a minimum of three firefighters,
which include 1 captain, 1 engineer and 1 firefighter/paramedic.
Summer Season: During the warm weather months (generally May-October) the
3 personnel respond 2 in the engine and 2 in a Type 4, 4-wheel drive Brush Patrol
in task force configuration.
Reserve: A ladder truck is stored at this station. This truck can be staffed by the
engine crew for specific incidents or for major emergencies with recalled off-duty
firefighters and paid-call firefighters.
Administration: The fire chief, 2 division chiefs, 1 administrative support staff are
located in this station.
Equipment (age and Engine 61, 2007 Hi-Tech Type I Pumper
condition) Truck 61, 2004 American LaFrance/LTI 75’ Quint
Brush Patrol 61, 2005 Type 4 4x4 Pumper
Calls for service 1,162
Management Partners, Inc. 198
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #2 - Las Animas Station
Location 8383 Wren Avenue
Gilroy, Ca. 95020
Description (# bays It has two bays with living quarters for four
and staffing
capacity)
Condition Constructed in 1977. The following improvements have been deferred:
Remodel kitchen and dayroom
Remodel sleeping quarters to provide private quarters
Utility upgrades
Staffing levels This station houses a fire engine staffed with three firefighters.
Emergency Response: One fire engine with three firefighters.
Summer Season: During the warm weather months (generally May to October)
the three personnel respond two in the engine and two in a Type 4, 4-wheel drive
Brush Patrol in task force configuration.
Reserve: A reserve fire engine is housed at this station to be used when scheduled
and unscheduled maintenance is being done on the primary fire engine. It can also
be staffed by recalled off-duty and paid-call firefighters during major emergencies.
Equipment (age Engine 71, 2002 Hi-Tech Type I Pumper
and condition) Engine 72, 1987 Type 1 Pumper (Reserve)
Brush Patrol 71, 2007 Type 4 Pumper (4x4)
Calls for service 1,311
Fire Station - #3 Sunrise Station
Location 880 Sunrise Drive
Gilroy, Ca. 95020
Description (# bays Two bays with living quarters for four
and staffing
capacity)
Condition Constructed in 2004. Gilroy's newest fire station in the North West quadrant of the
City. Opened in the summer of 2004.
Staffing levels This station was open less than 1/3 of the time in 2009/2010 due to budget cuts –
when it was open it was either staffed with two to run a rescue ambulance or three
to run an engine.
Emergency Response: Engine 81 is operated when staff is available with 1 fire
captain, 1 engineer and 1 firefighter/paramedic.
Summer Season: During the warm weather months (generally May to October)
three personnel respond in a Type 3, 4-wheel drive Brush Engine if staffing
available
Management Partners, Inc. 199
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #3 Sunrise Station
A rescue ambulance is housed at this station. Rescue 81 is a light rescue unit that
also has structure fire support, basic Hazmat, and patient transport capabilities.
This unit is also known as the STAR (Supplemental Transport Ambulance
Resource).
The STAR aspect of this unit enables the fire department by County contract in
certain circumstances, to transport life threatened patients when the County
contract ambulance provider is delayed and thereby supplementing the County
EMS ambulance system.
Equipment (age Engine 81, 1999 Hi-Tech Type I Pumper
and condition) Engine 83, 1999 West-Mark Type III Pumper (4x4)
Rescue 81, 2003 Type 1 Ambulance
Calls for service 254
Fire Station - # 4 Southwest – NOT YET BUILT
Location Southwest area
Description (# bays and Probably two bays with living quarters for four
staffing capacity)
Condition Fire Station #4 was planned but has not been built. It was to be funded by
development impact fees that have not materialized.
Staffing levels n/a
Equipment (age and n/a
condition)
Calls for service n/a
Management Partners, Inc. 200
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Gilroy Fire Department Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year City Population
2000 41,464
2005 48,200
2010 49,800
2015 55,000
2020 58,700
2025 62,100
2030 66,000
2035 69,600
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $444,664
2008-09 (est.) $713,546
2009-10 (budgeted) $138,000
2010-11 (budgeted) $138,000
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $9,418,534
2008-09 (est.) $8,860,207
2009-10 (budgeted) $7,382,534
2010-11 (budgeted) $7,645,370
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 48.00
2008-09 (est.) 38.00
2009-10 (budgeted) 38.00
2010-11 (budgeted) 38.00
Management Partners, Inc. 201
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Capital Improvement Program
Due to budget reductions, the following capital improvements have been deferred indefinitely:
Remodel of outdated kitchen and dayrooms for Chestnut and Las Animas fire stations.
Remodel of sleeping quarters to provide private sleeping quarters for the Chestnut and Las
Animas fire stations.
Seismic upgrades to the Chestnut fire station apparatus bay.
Utilities upgrades for the Chestnut and Las Animas fire stations.
Construction of a training facility attached to the Chestnut fire station. This would include a
training room and a training tower.
Management Partners, Inc. 202
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Milpitas Fire Department Detail
Milpitas Fire Department Summary
Type of Agency Municipal
Governing body City Council
Area covered 13.6 square miles
Service area description Services the city of Milpitas
Population (2010) 69,000)
Budget 2010-11 $14,287,448
Staffing (FTEs) 80.00
Number of fire stations 4
Apparatus Engines – 3
Trucks – 2
Rescue – 1
BC - 1
Reserve Apparatus Engine type 1 – 3
Type 3 - 1 Type 4 - 1
Calls for service - total 4,439
ISO rating 3
Mutual aid arrangements Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Master Mutual Aid agreement,
Auto aid to SJFD, CAL FIRE. Mutual aid with Fremont FD.
Dispatch arrangements Milpitas Communications Center
Milpitas Fire Department Details
Department Revenues (2009-10)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. 0
Fire Prevention 0
Fees, EMS $2,000
Fees, Other 0
Contracts 0
Other $220,000
Total Department Revenues $222,000
Management Partners, Inc. 203
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #1
Location 777 South Main Street
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 10 years old
Condition no problems
Calls for service 1,386
Fire Station - #2
Location 1263 Yosemite Drive
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built late 1970’s
Condition Seismic upgrade 15 years ago. Needs plumbing work
Calls for service 1,267
Fire Station - #3
Location 45 Midwick Drive
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built late 1970s
Condition Seismic upgrade 15 years ago. Needs plumbing work
Calls for service 1,170
Fire Station - #4
Location 775 Barber Lane
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built 1987
Condition no problems
Calls for service 331
Management Partners, Inc. 204
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Milpitas Fire Department Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year City Population
2000 62,698
2005 64,800
2010 69,000
2015 74,700
2020 82,300
2025 90,400
2030 98,100
2035 106,000
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $248,744
2008-09 (budgeted) $225,000
2009-10 (budgeted) $222,000
2010-11 (budgeted) $220,000
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $14,679,555
2008-09 (budgeted) $14,477,048
2009-10 (budgeted) $15,313,409
2010-11 (budgeted) $14,256,448
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 80.00
2008-09 (est.) 80.00
2009-10 (budgeted) 80.00
2010-11 (budgeted) 80.00
Capital Improvement Program
Citywide five year capital improvement plan. Nothing current planned for Fire Department.
Management Partners, Inc. 205
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Mountain View Fire Department Detail
Mountain View Fire Department Summary
Type of Agency Municipal
Governing body City Council
Area covered 12 sq. miles
Service area description Services the City of Mountain View
Population served (2010) 72,100
Budget 2010-11 $20,598,741
Staffing (FTEs) 88.50
Number of fire stations 5
Apparatus Engines – 5
Trucks – 1
Hazmat – 1
Rescue – 1
Battalion Chief – 1
Reserve Apparatus Engines – 2
Trucks – 1 (share with Palo Alto)
Calls for service - total 7,794 (This reflects all responses by units, including move-ups and
covers. Mountain View reports 4831 calls for service in 2009)
ISO rating 2
Auto aid arrangements With Los Altos, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County
Dispatch arrangements Mountain View police
Mountain View Fire Department Details
Department Revenues (2009-10)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. 0
Fire Prevention $193,309
Fees, EMS 0
Fees, Other 0
Contracts 0
Other $741,368
Total Department Revenues $934,677
Management Partners, Inc. 206
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #1
Location 251 S. Shoreline Blvd
Condition and planned expansion of 4 bays (3 long/1 short)
capacity
Staffing levels 9
Equipment (age and condition) 1 Truck, 1 Engine, 1 Rescue, 1 Battalion Chief
Calls for service 3,684
Fire Station - #2
Location 160 Cuesta Drive
Condition Good - 2002 2 bays
Staffing levels 3
Equipment (age and condition) 1 Engine, 1 Reserve
Calls for service 1,233
Fire Station - #3
Location 301 N. Rengstorff Avenue
Condition Good—constructed in 1962
Staffing levels 3
Equipment (age and condition) 1 Engine
Calls for service 1,450
Fire Station - #4
Location 229 N. Whisman Road
Condition Good—constructed in 1968
Staffing levels 3
Equipment (age and condition) 1 Engine, 1 Reserve Engine
Calls for service 841
Management Partners, Inc. 207
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #5
Location 2195 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Condition Currently a doublewide. New Fire Station 5 under construction with
completion date expected in Fall 2011
Staffing levels 3
Equipment (age and 1 Engine, I Hazmat
condition)
Calls for service 571
Mountain View Fire Department Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year City Population
2000 70,708
2005 71,800
2010 72,100
2015 76,100
2020 80,200
2025 84,100
2030 87,300
2035 90,600
Department Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $1,902,882
2008-09 (actual) $931,797
2009-10 (budgeted) $934,677
2010-11 (budgeted) Not provided
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $17,388,459
2008-09 (actual) $18,878,738
2009-10 (budgeted) $19,703,570
2010-11 (budgeted) $20,598,741
Management Partners, Inc. 208
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 89.00
2008-09 (est.) 89.00
2009-10 (budgeted) 89.00
2010-11 (budgeted) 88.50
Capital Improvement Program
Formal five year plan. Includes Station 5 construction.
Other Information
Workers Compensation
Self Insured Retention Level is $500,000 (This means that the City pays the claims directly up to $500,000).
We then carry excess Workers’ Compensation insurance above $500,000 through CSAC Excess Insurance
Authority. Any decisions on claims or mutual aid agreements must be brought before the CSAC Board of
Directors.
Liability Program
Self Insured Retention Level is $1,000,000. We then are a member of the ACCEL Liability Pool for the next
$4,000,000. All decisions with regards to claims, payments, litigation, mutual aid agreements must go
before a Board of Directors of approximately 12 Cities. Above the level of $5,000,000 the City has
purchased liability excess insurance and any decisions regarding claims that fall above $5,000,000 is
strictly the decision of the insurance carrier.
Management Partners, Inc. 209
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Palo Alto Fire Department Detail
Palo Alto Fire Department Summary
Type of Agency Municipal
Governing body City Council
Area covered 50 sq. miles
Service area Services the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, Stanford Linear Acceleration
description Center, Unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, and part of Los Altos Hills
(only summer)
Population served 77,779 (Palo Alto population = 61,600. Department serves Stanford and other
(2010) unincorporated areas by contract.)
Budget 2010-11 $27,007,487
Staffing (FTEs) 121
Number of fire 8
stations
Apparatus Engines – 7
Engines – 1 (summer only)
Trucks – 1
Rescue – 1
Ambulance – 2 ALS, 1 BLS
Reserve Engines – 2
Apparatus Type 3 – 1
Ambulance – 1
Rescue – 1
Share reserve truck with Mountain View FD
Calls for service - 7,549
total
ISO rating 2
Mutual aid Palo Alto – purchase of ladder truck; Santa Clara County
arrangements
Dispatch Palo Alto Police Department
arrangements
Management Partners, Inc. 210
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Palo Alto Fire Department Details
Department Revenues (2009-10)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. $0
Fire Prevention $0
Fees, EMS $1,754,463
Fees, Other $1,209,113
Contracts $7,194,280
Other $58,500
Total Department Revenues $10,216,356
Fire Station - #1
Location 301 Alma St, Boundaries: Downtown/University Ave
Description (# bays and staffing Number of bays: 3. Year built: 1965
capacity)
Condition Fair – well maintained, but has some maintenance issues.
Staffing levels 5 day/3 night (after 2000 hrs)
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line1 engine; 1 transport
Reserve: Medic 3
Calls for service 2,605
Fire Station - #2
Location 2675 Hanover, Boundaries: Page Mill Rd/ Stanford Research
Park
Description (# bays and staffing Number of bays: 3. Year built: 1965
capacity)
Condition Fair – well maintained, but has some maintenance issues
Staffing levels 8 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line: I engine; I rescue; 1 transport
Reserve: Patrol 8 (Type IV), BS2 (Breathing Support), Haz Mat
Trailer, Tech Rescue Trailer
Calls for service 910
Management Partners, Inc. 211
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #3
Location 799 Embarcadero, Boundaries: Northwest/ University Heights/
Hwy 101
Description (# bays and staffing Number of bays: 2. Year Built: 1942
capacity)
Condition Old, has some maintenance issues, scheduled for replacement,
does not meet essential buildings standards.
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line: 1 engine
Reserve: Res Eng 10
Calls for service 936
Fire Station - #4
Location 3600 Middlefield, Boundaries: South West/San Antonio/Hwy
101
Description (# bays and staffing Number of bays: 2. Year Built: 1954.
capacity)
Condition Aging, has some maintenance issues, scheduled for
replacement, does not meet essential buildings standards.
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line: 1 engine
Reserve: Reserve Eng 11
Calls for service 975
Fire Station - #5
Location 600 Arastradero Rd, Boundaries: Barron Park
Description (# bays and staffing Number of Bays: 2. Year Built: 1962.
capacity)
Condition Fair – aging, resulting in some maintenance issues
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line: 1 engine
Reserve: E8 (Type III)
Calls for service 892
Management Partners, Inc. 212
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #6
Location 711 Serra St, Stanford CA, Boundaries: Stanford Campus
Description (# bays and staffing Number of bays: 3. Year Built: 1972.
capacity)
Condition Fair maintained, aging resulting in many maintenance issues
No major deferred capital improvements/repairs needed.
Station owned and operated by Stanford University
Staffing levels 7 personnel on line /4 admin
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line: 1 truck; 1 engine, Batt 6
Reserve: E9 (Type III). Patrol 6 (Type IV)
Calls for service 1,157
Fire Station - #7
Location Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)
2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park , Boundaries: Stanford Campus
Description (# bays and staffing Number of bays: 2. Year Built: 1968.
capacity)
Condition Poor – Fair maintained, aging resulting in many maintenance
issues
Station owned and operated by US Dept of Energy
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line: 1 engine
Reserve: Patrol 7 (Type IV)
Calls for service 172
Management Partners, Inc. 213
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #8
Location Foothills Park, Page Mill Rd., Boundaries: Foothills to Skyline
Rd
Description (# bays and staffing Number of bays: 1. Year Built: 1986.
capacity)
Condition Fair maintained, aging resulting in maintenance issues,
recently underwent remodel
Staffing levels 3 personnel 0800-2000 hours July to October
Equipment (age and condition) Front Line: 1 engine (summer only)
Reserve: none
Calls for service 29
Palo Alto Fire Department Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year City Population
2000 58,598
2005 61,400
2010 61,600
2015 66,200
2020 70,400
2025 73,400
2030 80,400
2035 84,000
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $9,725,082
2008-09 (budgeted) $10,098,146
2009-10 (budgeted) $10,409,094
2010-11 (budgeted) $10,729,996
Management Partners, Inc. 214
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $23,981,181
2008-09 (budgeted) $24,383,677
2009-10 (budgeted) $25,065,191
2010-11 (budgeted) $26,060,220
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 127.00
2008-09 (est.) 126.69
2009-10 (budgeted) 122.69
2010-11 (budgeted) 121.00
Capital Improvement Program
Formal five year plan. Includes backlogged improvements for stations 3 and 4.
Management Partners, Inc. 215
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
San José Fire Department Detail
San José Fire Department Summary
Type of Agency Municipal
Governing body City Council
Area covered 205 sq. miles
Service area description Services the City of San José and pockets of unincorporated areas through
contract with the Santa Clara County Central Fire District.
Population served 1,037,567 (City pop. 981,000. Department serves unincorporated areas
(2010) adjacent to and surrounded by the City.)
Budget 2010-11 $153,332,208
Staffing (FTEs) 770.48
Number of fire stations 34
Apparatus Engines – 30
Trucks – 9
–
Rescue Medic—5
Lite Units—4
Brush Patrols-2
HazMat--1
USAR - 1
Reserve Apparatus Do not distinguish which ones are reserve
Calls for service - total 70,892
ISO rating 3-9
Mutual aid CCFD, (Auto and Mutual), SCFD, City of Santa Clara, City of Milpitas
arrangements
Dispatch arrangements Fire Communications, a Division of the SJFD Bureau of Support Services
(Secondary PSAP)
Management Partners, Inc. 216
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
San José Fire Department Details
Department Revenues (2010-11)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc.
Fire Prevention $7,017,000
Fees, EMS $0
Fees, Other $0
Contracts $0
Other $0
Total Department Revenues $7,017,000
Fire Station - #1
Location 225 North Market
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 3 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent - Relatively new fire station
Staffing levels 9 FTEs and 1 Battalion Chief
Equipment (age and condition) 2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4
Engine 1
1998 Hi-Tech 1500GPM, 600 gal.
Truck 1
2007 Crimson 103' Tractor Drawn Aerial
Calls for service 2,590
Fire Station - #2
Location 2933 Alum Rock Ave
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent Condition
Rebuild in process. Estimated re-occupancy September
1, 2010.
Staffing levels 9 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 2
2003 KME, 1500GPM, 600 gal.
Truck 2
1992 Westates, 65' Telesquirt, 500 gal.
Water Tender 2
1977 International, 2500 gal.
Management Partners, Inc. 217
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #2
Light Unit 2
1992 Ford, 35KW
Brush Patrol 2
2005 Ford F550, 300 gal.
Calls for service 5,261
Fire Station - #3
Location 98 Martha Street
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 3
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 2,898
Fire Station - #4
Location 710 Leigh Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Staffing levels 9 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 4
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Truck 4
1995 Simon/LTI, 100' Aerial
Rescue Medic 4
2002 Alfco
Calls for service 3,059
Fire Station - #5
Location 1380 North 10th Street
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Poor
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Management Partners, Inc. 218
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #5
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 5
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 2,434
Fire Station - #6
Location 1386 Cherry Ave
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 6
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 1,473
Fire Station - #7
Location 800 Emory Street
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 7
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 1,240
Fire Station - #8
Location 802 East Santa Clara St
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 8
2003 KME, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 2,499
Management Partners, Inc. 219
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #9
Location 3410 Ross Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 9 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 9
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Truck 9
1998 Simon/LTI, 75' Aerial, 600 gal.
Light Unit 9
1988 Ford 800, 20KW
Calls for service 1,920
Fire Station - #10
Location 511 South Monroe Street
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE and 1 BC
Equipment (age and condition) 2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4
Engine 10
1998 Hi-Tech 1500GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 2,140
Fire Station - #11
Location 2840 The Villages Parkway
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Poor
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 11
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 788
Management Partners, Inc. 220
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #12
Location 5912 Cahalan Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 12
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Brush Patrol 12
1997 Ford Westates F450 4WD, 250 gal.
Calls for service 1,778
Fire Station - #13
Location 4380 Pearl Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 9 FTE and 1 BC
Equipment (age and condition) 2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4
Engine 13
2006 Ferrara 1500 GPM, 500 gal.
Truck 13
2007 Crimson 103' Tractor Drawn Aerial
Water Tender 13
1977 International, 2500 gal.
Light Unit 13
1991 Ford, 35KW
Calls for service 1,924
Fire Station - #14
Location 1201 San Thomas Aquino Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 9 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 14
2003 KME, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Truck 14
Management Partners, Inc. 221
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #14
1998 Simon/LTI, 75' Aerial, 600 gal.
Light Unit 14
1991 Ford, 35KW
Calls for service 2,499
Fire Station - #15
Location 1248 Blaney Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 15
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 571
Fire Station - #16
Location 2001 South King Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Poor
Staffing levels 9 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 16
2006 Ferrara, 1500 GPM, 500 gal.
Truck 16
Light Unit 16
1988 Ford 800, 20KW
Calls for service 2,423
Fire Station - #17
Location 5170 Coniston Way
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 17
Management Partners, Inc. 222
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #17
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 1,330
Fire Station - #18
Location 4430 South Monterey Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 18
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Water Tender 18
1981 International, 1300 gal.
Calls for service 2,956
Fire Station - #19
Location New Station: Sierra and Piedmont
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 19
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Brush Patrol 19
2005 Ford Westates 4WD, 300 gal.
Calls for service 1,536
Fire Station - #20
Location 1433 Airport Blvd
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 4 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 20A
2008 Oshkosh T-3000, 3000 gal.
Management Partners, Inc. 223
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #20
Engine 20B
1996 Oshkosh T-1500, 1500 gal., 200 fm
Engine 20D
2001 Oshkosh T-3000, 3000 gal., 400 fm
Calls for service 643
Fire Station - #21
Location 1749 Mount Pleasant Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Poor – New station in design phase. scheduled opening
for Summer 2012
Staffing levels 4 FTE and 1 BC
Equipment (age and condition) 2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4
Engine 21
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Brush Patrol 21
1997 Ford Westates 4WD, 250 gal.
Calls for service 1,517
Fire Station - #22
Location 6461 Bose Lane
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Poor
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 22
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Rescue Medic 22
2000 Alfco Ambulance
Calls for service 1,305
Management Partners, Inc. 224
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #23
Location 1771 Via Cinco de Mayo
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Poor
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 23
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 1,213
Fire Station - #24
Location 2525 Aborn Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Poor – New station under construction. Scheduled
opening Fall 2011
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 24
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Brush Patrol 24
2005 Ford Westates F550 4WD, 300 gal.
Calls for service 2,989
Fire Station - #25
Location 1525 Wilson Way
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 25
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Calls for service 284
Management Partners, Inc. 225
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #26
Location 528 Tully Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 26
2003 KME, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Brush Patrol 26
1997 Ford Westates F550 4WD, 250 gal.
Calls for service 2,814
Fire Station - #27
Location 6027 San Ignacio Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – Newer station
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 27
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Brush Patrol 27
2005 Ford Westates F550 4WD, 300 gal.
Calls for service 1,714
Fire Station - #28
Location 19911 McKean Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 1 bay
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 28
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Brush Patrol 28
2005 Ford Westates F550 4WD, 300 gal.
Rescue Medic 28
2002 Alfco Ambulance
Calls for service 424
Management Partners, Inc. 226
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #29
Location 199 Innovation Drive
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 3 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – Newer station
Staffing levels 11 FTE and 1 BC
Equipment (age and condition) 2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4
Engine 29
1998 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Truck 29
1993 Simon/LTI, 85' Aerial Platform, 200 gal.
Hazardous Incident Team (HIT) 29
1992 Hi-Tech Hazmat
Hazardous Incident Team (HIT) 29B
2004 Ford F550 Hazmat
Recue Medic 29
2002 Alfco Ambulance
Foam Unit 29
1989 Ford, 750 gal.
Calls for service 1,191
Fire Station - #30
Location 454 Auzerais
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Staffing levels 1 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Med 30
1999 Ford F250 P/U
Calls for service 1,849
Fire Station - #31
Location 3100 Ruby Ave
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 3 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New station
Management Partners, Inc. 227
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 31
1994 Hi-Tech, 1500 GPM, 600 gal.
Rescue Medic 31
2000 Alfco Ambulance
Air Unit 31
2005 Freightliner
Calls for service 866
Fire Station - #33
Location 2933 Saint Florian Way
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New Station
Staffing levels 0 (not staffed)
Equipment (age and condition)
Calls for service 240
Fire Station - #34
Location 1634 Las Plumas Ave
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 3 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New Station
Staffing levels 5 FTE
Equipment (age and condition)
Urban Search & Rescue (USAR) 34
1996 Saulabury/USAR Heavy
Calls for service 1,760
Fire Station - #35
Location 135 Poughkeepsie Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 3 bays
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent – New station
Staffing levels 4 FTE
Equipment (age and condition) Truck 35
Management Partners, Inc. 228
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
1995 Simoan/LTI. 75’ Aerial
Rescue Medic 35
2002 Alfco
Calls for service 1,857
San José Fire Department Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year City Population
2000 894,943
2005 943,300
2010 981,000
2015 1,063,600
2020 1,137,700
2025 1,219,500
2030 1,299,700
2035 1,380,900
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $6,971,498
2008-09 (actual) $6,661,195
2009-10 (budgeted) $6,998,094
2010-11 (budgeted) $7,017,000
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $158,994,395
2008-09 (actual) $159,346,936
2009-10 (budgeted) $155,493,582
2010-11 (budgeted) $153,332,280
Management Partners, Inc. 229
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 875.48
2008-09 (est.) 871.48
2009-10 (budgeted) 851.98
2010-11 (budgeted) 770.48
Capital Improvement Program
Measure O $159m bond for PD and Fire – Fire has used bond proceeds to remodel 16 fire stations,
relocate five stations, rebuild one station, and building three new fire stations, along with improvements
the FD training facility. The last three bond-funded fire station projects are currently in design (two
stations) and under construction (one station).
Management Partners, Inc. 230
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Santa Clara Fire Department Detail
Santa Clara Fire Department Summary
Type of Agency Municipal
Governing body City Council
Area covered 19.3 sq. miles
Service area description Services the City of Santa Clara
Population served (2010) 114,700
Budget 2010-11 $33,817,682
Staffing (FTEs) 179.50
Number of fire stations 10
Apparatus Engines – 8
Trucks – 2 (quints)
Rescue-Ambulances – 3
Hazmat – 1
Reserve Apparatus Engines – 3
Trucks – 2
Ambulance – 1
Calls for service - total 8,140
ISO rating 2
Mutual aid arrangements Santa Clara County
Dispatch arrangements Santa Clara Police Communications Center
Santa Clara Fire Department Details
Department Revenues (2009-10)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. 0
Fire Prevention $451,700
Fees, EMS $242,000
Fees, Other 0
Contracts 0
Other $350,200
Total Department Revenues $1,043,900
Management Partners, Inc. 231
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #1
Location 777 Benton Street
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 3 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 10 personnel
Condition Opened 1966 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 6 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-1 1999
Medic Ambulance M-1 1995
Calls for service 1,525
Fire Station - #2
Location 1900 Walsh Avenue.
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 3 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 7 personnel
Condition Opened 2003 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 4 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Truck Aerial/Quint T-2 2009
Rescue Air 2005
Utility Tow Vehicle 2003
Truck Aerial/Quint RT-1 1993
Calls for service 755
Fire Station - #3
Location 2821 Homestead Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 2006 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-3 1999
Engine Engine RE-2 1985
Calls for service 1,139
Management Partners, Inc. 232
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #4
Location 2323 Pruneridge Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 2007 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-4 1996
Calls for service 970
Fire Station - #5
Location 1912 Bowers Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 1961 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 5 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-5 1999
Medic Ambulance M-5 2002
Calls for service 990
Fire Station - #6
Location 888 Agnew Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 2005 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 5 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-6 1996
Medic Ambulance M-6 1995
Calls for service 700
Management Partners, Inc. 233
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #7
Location 3495 Benton Street
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 1971 – Improvements in CIP
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-7 1996
Engine Engine RE-1 1990
Calls for service 1,039
Fire Station - #8
Location 2400 Agnew Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 1976 – Improvements in CIP
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Truck Aerial/Quint T-8 2009
Truck Aerial/Quint RT-2 1988
Calls for service 483
Fire Station - #9
Location 3811 Corvin Drive
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 1982 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 4 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-9 1999
Hazmat Air 1997
Medic Ambulance RM-1 1995
Rescue Air 1991
Utility Tow Vehicle 1992
Calls for service 243
Management Partners, Inc. 234
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #10
Location 5111 Stars and Stripes Way
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 apparatus bays. Staffing capacity is 6 personnel
Condition Opened 1986 – No deferred improvements or repairs
Staffing levels 3 personnel
Equipment (age and condition) Engine Engine E-10 1996
Engine Engine RE3 1985
Engine Engine RE3 1985
Calls for service 296
Santa Clara Fire Department Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year City Population
2000 102,361
2005 109,400
2010 114,700
2015 120,700
2020 128,800
2025 138,600
2030 148,200
2035 157,200
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $1,737,898
2008-09 (budgeted) $1,043,500
2009-10 (budgeted) $1,043,900
2010-11 (budgeted) Data not available
Management Partners, Inc. 235
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $31,817,301
2008-09 (actual) $33,915,185
2009-10 (budgeted) $35,159,474
2010-11 (budgeted) $33,772,724
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 179.50
2008-09 (estimated) 179.50
2009-10 (budgeted) 179.50
2010-11 (budgeted) 179.50
Capital Improvement Program
Five year plan includes upgrades for Stations 7 and 8.
Management Partners, Inc. 236
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Detail
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Summary
Type of Agency Fire Protection District (Dependent)
Governing Board of Supervisors sits as the Fire District Board of Directors
body
Area covered 137.4 sq. miles
Service area Services much of the unincorporated areas in the central and northern parts of the
description County. Cities in the district: Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and part of
Saratoga. Contract service to Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills County Fire District,
Saratoga Fire District, and Morgan Hill. Zone 1 is served by San José Fire Department
under contract. The District also serves as the County Fire Marshal by contract.
Established in 1947, the Santa Clara County Fire Department provides ISO Class 2/5
services for Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga, in
California. The department also provides protection for the unincorporated areas
adjacent to those cities.
Wrapping in a 40 mile (64km) arc around the southern end of "Silicon Valley", the
Santa Clara County Fire Department has grown to include 17 fire stations, an
administrative headquarters, a maintenance facility, five other support facilities, and
more than 100 vehicles to cover 106 square miles (275 square km) and a population of
over 246,000.
Population 240,789 (Includes district lands with the exception of areas served by the SJFD, and
served (2010) the population of contract cities and districts.)
Budget 2009-10 $81,785,507
Staffing (FTEs) 308.00
Number of fire 17
stations
Apparatus Engines – 15 Type 1, 5 Type 3, 2 Type 4
Trucks – 4
Rescue – 3
Hazmat - 1
Reserve Engines – 8 Type 1, 3 Type 3
Apparatus Trucks – 1
Hazmat – 1
Calls for 16,553
service - total
ISO rating ISO = 2; in non-hydrant areas, ISO = 8. CFAI Accredited.
Mutual aid The department has automatic aid agreements with the following agencies to ensure
Management Partners, Inc. 237
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
arrangements the closest fire
apparatus responds on emergency responses:
CAL FIRE
Mountain View Fire Department
Palo Alto Fire Department
San José Fire Department
Scotts Valley Fire Protection District
South Santa Clara County Fire District
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
Woodside Fire Protection District
Mutual Aid
The department is a signatory to the California State Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan.
As such, the department provides resources to requests for aid within the County and
state. Members of the department continue to take leadership roles in planning,
revising, and administering the Santa Clara County CAL FIRE Service and Rescue
Mutual Aid Plan.
Dispatch Santa Clara County Communications
arrangements
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Details
Department Revenues (2009-10)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. $50,547,000
Fire Prevention $396,000
Fees, EMS $883,500
Fees, Other 0
Contracts $26,451,100
Other $2,520,133
Total Department Revenues $80,797,733
Management Partners, Inc. 238
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #1 Cupertino Station
Location 20215 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino 95014
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 2000 Size: 12,775 sq. ft. / 3-bay, double deep –
drive through
Ownership: County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 3 Bed count total 6
Firefighter Dorms: 6 Bed count total 12
AMR Dorms: 2 Bed count total 4
Total Station Bed Count 22
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Renovations: None scheduled
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 1 - 3, Truck 1 - 4
Equipment (age and condition) Truck 1 2003 Ferrara 1500
Engine 1 2007 KME 1250
Engine 301 2009 Placer/International 4X4 500
OES Engine 289 2002 HME/Westates 1250
Calls for service 1,855
Fire Station - #2 Seven Springs Station
Location 21000 Seven Springs Pkwy, Cupertino 95014
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1992 Size: 9,120 / 3-bay, double deep, drive-
through
Ownership: County Fire
Battalion chief dorm: 1 Bed count total 3 beds
Captains dorms: 1 Bed count total 7
Firefighter dorms: 7 Bed count total 13
AMR dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 23
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Renovations: None scheduled
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 2 – 3 , Hazmat 2 – 4,
Battalion 2 – 1
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 2 2000 KME 1250 (4730)
Hazmat 2 2004 KME n/a
Breathing Support 2 2005 KME n/a
Reserve Hazmat 2 1988 Paoletti/Ford n/a
Management Partners, Inc. 239
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #2 Seven Springs Station
Reserve Hazmat 102
Calls for service 461
Fire Station - #3 Los Gatos Station
Location 306 University Ave., Los Gatos 95030
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1964 Size: 6,812 sq. ft. / 2-bay double deep, drive-
through
Ownership: Town of Los Gatos, leased by County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 2 Bed count total 2 beds
Captains Dorms: 2 Bed count total 4
Firefighter Dorms: 5 Bed count total 10
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count 16
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Renovations: None scheduled
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 3 - 3, Rescue 3 – 4,
Battalion 3 – 1
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 3 2003 KME 1250 (4730)
Rescue 3 2007 KME 1250 (4730)
Battalion 3 2009 Ford F-250
Calls for service 956
Fire Station - #4 Redwood Station
Location 21452 Madrone Dr., Redwood Estates 95030
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1979 Size: Station – 2,016 sq. ft., App. Rm – 1,584
sq. ft. / 2-bay, single deep, back-in
Ownership: Structures - County Fire, Land
- Redwood Mutual Water Co.
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total: 0 beds
Captains dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 4 Bed count total 6
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 8
Management Partners, Inc. 240
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #4 Redwood Station
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Condition: Good
Renovations: Upgraded to comply with privacy issues,
dorm and locker room.
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 4 – 3
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 4 2001 HME/Westates 4x4 1250 (4730)
Calls for service 368
Fire Station - #5 Winchester Station
Location 14850 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos 95030
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1965 Size: 2,812 sq. ft. / 2-bay, single deep, drive-
through
Ownership: Town of Los Gatos, leased by County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 3 Bed count total 6
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 8
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Good
Renovations: New station – not scheduled
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Truck 5 - 4
Equipment (age and condition) Truck 5 2002 KME 1500 (5680)
Engine 305 2009 Placer/International 4x4 500
USAR 5 2003 Ford F-550 4x4
Calls for service 788
Fire Station - #6 Shannon Station
Location 16565 Shannon Rd., Los Gatos 95030
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: Remodeled 1997 Size: 3,152 sq. ft. (765 sq. ft.
basement) / 2-bay, single deep, drive-through
Ownership: Town of Los Gatos, leased by
County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 3
Firefighter Dorms: 2 Bed count total 6
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Management Partners, Inc. 241
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #6 Shannon Station
Total station bed count: 9
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Renovations: None scheduled
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 6 – 3
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 6 2008 KME 1250 GPM
Engine 306 1991 Westmark/International 4x4 500
Calls for service 1,028
Fire Station - #7 Monta Vista Station
Location 22620 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino 95014
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: Replaced FY 97-98 Size: 7,100 sq. ft. / double-bay,
single deep, back-in
Ownership: County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 1 Bed count total 3 beds
Captains Dorms: 2 Bed count total 4
Firefighter Dorms: 4 Bed count total 8
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 15
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Renovations: None scheduled
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 7 – 3, Battalion 7 – 1
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 7 2002 KME 1250 GPM
Engine 307 1997 KME/International 4x4 500
Calls for service 1,135
Fire Station - #8 Quito Station
Location 18870 Saratoga/Los Gatos Rd., Los Gatos 95030
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1948 Size: 5,400 sq. ft. / 3-bay, single deep, back-
in
Ownership: County Fire as long as used for fire station,
if not, returns to original owner
Battalion chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 3 Bed count total 6
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Management Partners, Inc. 242
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #8 Quito Station
Total station bed count: 8
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Fair
Renovations: None scheduled
New Station – not scheduled
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 8 – 3
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 8 2003 KME 1250
Engine 408 2002 Ford F550/Ferrara 500
Calls for service 341
Fire Station - #9 West Valley Station
Location 19800 Cox Ave., Saratoga 95070
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1965 Size: 3,137 sq. ft. / 2-bay, single deep, back in
Ownership: County Fire
Battalion Chief dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 6 Bed count total 7
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 9
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Renovations: None scheduled
Bathrooms and kitchen upgrade completed FY 02-03
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 9 – 3
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 9 2001 KME 1250 (4730)
reserve Battalion 1994 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4 n/a
2002 Ford Excursion
Calls for service 687
Fire Station - #10 Sunnyoaks Station
Location 485 W. Sunnyoaks Ave., Campbell 95008
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1970 Size: 6,042 sq. ft. 2 bay, double deep drive
through
Ownership: City of Campbell, leased by County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 8 Bed count total 12
Management Partners, Inc. 243
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #10 Sunnyoaks Station
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 14
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Good
Renovations: Upgrade to comply with ADA and
privacy issues, dorm and locker room; FY 02-03
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 10 - 3, Reserve Engine 110
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 10 2010 KME 1250
Reserve Engine 110 2000 KME 1250 GPM
Calls for service 1,115
Fire Station - #11 Campbell Station
Location 123 Union Ave., Campbell 95008
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1982 Size: 9,392 sq. ft. / 3-bay, single deep, back-
in
Ownership: City of Campbell, leased by County
Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 4
Firefighter Dorms: 2 Bed count total 11
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count:15
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Good
Renovations: Upgrade to comply with ADA and
privacy issues, dorm and locker room – FY 02-03
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 11 - 3, Reserve Truck 111
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 11 2001 KME 1250 (4730)
Reserve Truck 111 1993 Hi-Tech/LTI/Spartan 1500
(5680)
Engine 311 1991 Westmark/International 4x4 500
Engine 20 1949 Van Pelt/Kenworth 1250 (4730)
Calls for service 1,681
Management Partners, Inc. 244
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #12 El Toro Station
Location 18300 Old Monterey Rd., Morgan Hill 95037
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1975 Size: 5,000 sq. ft. / 2-bay, double deep, drive-
through
Ownership: County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 1 Bed count total 1 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 2 Bed count total 4
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 7
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Good
Renovations: Completed
Staffing levels Cross staffing: *Engine 12 - 3, *Truck 12,
(*select call units) Battalion 12 - 1
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 12 2010 KME 1250
Truck 112 1992 Smeal/Spartan 1500
Battalion 12 2001; Ford Excursion 4x4 n/a
Engine 4 2002 KME/Ford F550 4x4 125
Reserve Engine 112 1992 Pierce/Arrow 1500
Calls for service 1,489
Fire Station - #13 Dunne-Hill Station
Location 2100 E. Dunne Ave., Morgan Hill 95037
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1978 Size: 4,200 sq. ft. / 2-bay, single deep, drive-
through
Ownership: County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter dorms: 2 Bed count total 4
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 6
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Good
Renovations: Completed 1999 – ADA,
privacy issues
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 13 - 3
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 13 2007 KME 1250 GPM
Engine 313 2009 Placer/International 4x4 500
Management Partners, Inc. 245
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Calls for service 525
Fire Station - #14 El Monte Station
Location 12355 El Monte Road, Los Altos Hills 94022
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1996 Size: 9,650 sq. ft. / 2-bay, double deep, drive-
through
Ownership: Structure - Los Altos Hills County
Fire District, leased by County Fire;
Land - Foothill/De Anza Community
College District
Battalion Chief Dorm: 1 Bed count total 3 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 5 Bed count total 7
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 12
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Renovations: None scheduled
Staffing levels Cross staffing: *Engine 14 - 4, *Truck 14 ,
*Patrol 14 (*select call units)
Equipment (age and condition) Rescue 14 2007 KME 1250
Truck 14 1996 Smeal/HME 1500
Engine 314 2009 Placer/International 4x4 500
Battalion 14 2008 Ford F250 crewcab pickup n/a
Calls for service 550
Fire Station - #15 Los Altos Station
Location 10 Almond Ave., Los Altos 94022
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1968 Size: 9,350 sq. ft. / 3-bay, double deep, drive-
through
Ownership: City of Los Altos, leased by County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 2 Bed count total 4
AMR Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Total station bed count: 8*
(*2 beds AMR quarters)
Management Partners, Inc. 246
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #15 Los Altos Station
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Good
Renovations: Completed 2000 – ADA, privacy issues
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 15 - 3, Reserve Engine 115
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 15 2005 KME 1250
Reserve Engine 115 1991 KME 1250
Calls for service 1,216
Fire Station - #16 Loyola Station
Location 769 Fremont Ave., Los Altos 94022
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built: 1953 Size: 2,400 sq. ft. / 2-bay, single deep drive
through
Ownership: City of Los Altos, leased by
County Fire
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Firefighter Dorms: 2 Bed count total 4
AMR Dorms: 0 Bed count total 0
Total station bed count: 6
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Good
Renovations: City managing remodel, no date
scheduled. Completed 2000 - ADA, privacy issues
Staffing levels On-duty staffing: Engine 16-3
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 16 2010 KME 1250
Reserve Engine 116 1991 Hi-Tech Spartan 1500 GPM
Calls for service 971
Fire Station - #17 Saratoga
Location 14380 Saratoga Ave, Saratoga 95070
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 4 bay, 2 double deep 2 single deep all back in
Battalion Chief Dorm: 0 Bed count total 0 beds
Captains Dorms: 3 Bed count total 6
Firefighter Dorms: 6 Bed count total 12
AMR Dorms: 1 Bed count total 2
Total station bed count: 20
Condition and planned expansion of capacity Excellent
Management Partners, Inc. 247
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #17 Saratoga
Staffing levels Engine 17-3 Rescue 17--3
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 17 2008 KME 1250
Rescue 17 2002 Ferrara Inferno 1500
Engine 317 2009 Placer/International 4x4 500
Engine 30 1990 Hi-Tech Spartan 1500
Calls for service 1,387
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year District Population
2000 155,760
2005 160,820
2010 164,489
2015 169,182
2020 173,619
2025 177,683
2030 182,916
2035 189,221
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $70,408,548
2008-09 (actual) $79,639,035
2009-10 (budgeted) $80,138,600
2010-11 (budgeted) $79,967,000
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $67,597,430
2008-09 (actual) $79,432,365
2009-10 (budgeted) $79,569,203
2010-11 (budgeted) $83,035,507
Management Partners, Inc. 248
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 305.00
2008-09 (est.) 308.00
2009-10 (budgeted) 308.00
2010-11 (budgeted) 308.00
Management Partners, Inc. 249
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Detail
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Summary
Type of Agency Fire Protection District (Dependent)
Governing body Board of Commissioners
Area covered 260 sq. miles
Service area description Services the unincorporated areas in the southern portion of the County.
The South Santa Clara County Fire District contracts for personnel and
administration with the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CDF).
For 6 summer months they cover part of Amador County.
Population served (2010) 35,000 (24,533 LAFCO)
Budget 2010-11 $5,899,320
Staffing (FTEs) 36.25 plus 10 volunteers
Number of fire stations 4
Apparatus Engines – 4
Trucks – 1
Rescue – 1
Reserve Apparatus Engines – 1
Calls for service - total 3,101
ISO rating 5 / 8
Mutual aid arrangements Santa Clara County, Gilroy, Pajaro Valley Fire District, San Benito
County Fire Department, Battalion Chief Agreement (Gilroy, South
Santa Clara County Fire District, Santa Clara County Fire Department)
Dispatch arrangements The South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District contracts with Cal
Fire Morgan Hill Emergency Command Center as their secondary 911
Public Safety Answering Point for Fire/EMS services. Primary 911 Public
Safety Answering Point for law enforcement and emergency medical
dispatch (EMD) services are provided by County Comm.
Management Partners, Inc. 250
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Details
Department Revenues (FY 2010-11)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. 0
Fire Prevention $80,000
Fees, EMS $189,777
Property Taxes $3,859,000
Contracts – Mitigation Fee $51,000
Other $184,000
Total Department Revenues $4,363,777
Fire Station - #1 Morgan Hill Station
Location 15670 Monterey Rd.
Morgan Hill. CA 95037
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) State Owned Station Dist co-houses, 4 bays, 2 designated
for Fire District Capacity of 13 personnel
Condition Morgan Hill is part of the contract with CAL FIRE and is
owned by CAL FIRE
Staffing levels Minimum staffing level of 3 personnel
Engine company responds on a Type 1 Engine (E-1)
Full-time Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) Engine
1 Water Tender (WT-1)
1 Utility Vehicle (Admin 1617)
Equipment (age and condition) Engine (E-1) 2008
1 Water Tender (WT-1) 2000
1 Utility Vehicle (Admin1617) 2010
Calls for service 1,474
Fire Station - #2 Masten Station
Location 10810 No Name Uno, Gilroy, 95020 is owned by the
District.
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Masten was obtained in 1980 and is approximately 2,729
square feet of living/office space. Masten Station is a
converted house that includes 3 bedrooms, 2 ½ baths,
kitchen, living room, laundry room, and office space. The
station also has a five stall apparatus bay/garage that was
built in 1983 and a generator room that was built in 2000.
Management Partners, Inc. 251
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #2 Masten Station
American Medical Response (AMR) currently rents trailer
space at the facility.
Condition Masten is in need of several repairs. Long term capital
improvements include:
Repairs to station and office to meet ADA requirements.
Funding has been budgeted for FY 2010-11.
Remodel station to include additional sleeping quarters,
physical fitness room, a Gross Decontamination Room,
training/conference room and enlarging the apparatus bay
to include additional stall to house District vehicles.
Staffing levels Minimum staffing level of 3 personnel
Engine company responds on a Type 1 Engine (E-2)
Full-time Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) Engine
1 Water Tender (WT-2)
1 Reserve Engine (E-4)
1 Air Support Trailer (BS-1)
1 Ladder Truck (Truck 2)
1 Utility (Squad 17)
Equipment (age and condition) Engine (E-2) 1998
1 Water Tender (WT-2) 2002
1 Reserve Engine (E-4) 1994
1 Air Support Trailer (BS-1) 2002
1 Ladder Truck (Truck 2) 1987
1 Utility (Squad 17) 2004
Calls for service 1,350
Fire Station - #3 Treehaven Station
Location 3050 Hecker Pass Hwy, Gilroy, CA 95020
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays staffing Capacity of 3 personnel, Plans to upgrade
facility will be part of the lease negotiation
Condition Treehaven is leased from Gilroy Gardens
Staffing levels Minimum staffing level of 3 personnel
Engine company responds on a Type 1 Engine (E-3)
Full-time Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) Engine
Equipment (age and condition) Engine (E-3) 2003
1 Heavy Rescue Support Trailer (RS-1)
1 Stakeside (U-1627) 2008
Management Partners, Inc. 252
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #3 Treehaven Station
Calls for service 554
Fire Station - #4 Pacheco Station
Location 12280 Pacheco Pass Hwy
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) 2 bays. Staffing capacity of 8 personnel
CAL FIRE owned station. New station built FY2009-10
move-in date June 2010.
The South Santa Clara County Fire District, under an
Amador contract plan, pays to keep the Pacheco Station
open during non-peak fire season
THE AMADOR PLAN 8554
The Director, with the approval of the Department of
General Services (see PRC §4143 and 4144), may enter into
a cooperative agreement with a city, county, special
district, or other political subdivision of the state, or
person, firm, association, or corporation for the purpose of
preventing and suppressing fires that requests an
agreement, under those terms and conditions that the
director deems wise.
Condition New
Staffing levels Minimum staffing level of 3 personnel
Engine company responds on a Type 3 Engine (E-1681)
Full-time Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) Engine
Equipment (age and condition) Engine (E-1681) CAL FIRE Owned
Calls for service 268
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year LAFCO Estimate
2000 23,222
2005 23,986
2010 24,533
2015 25,200
2020 25,599
2025 25,968
Management Partners, Inc. 253
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Population (2000 to 2035)
2030 26,239
2035 26,524
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)*
2007-08 (actual) $4,713,346
2008-09 (actual) $4,512,800
2009-10 (budgeted) $4,628,060
2010-11 (budgeted) $4,363,777
* Includes property taxes and other General Fund sources
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $3,747,848
2008-09 (actual) $4,077,794
2009-10 (budgeted) $6,036,430
2010-11 (budgeted) $5,899,320
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) 28.25
2008-09 (actual) 32.25
2009-10 (actual) 35.25
2010-11 (budgeted) 36.25
Capital Improvement Program
Capital improvements are funded through reserves or specific grants etc.
Management Partners, Inc. 254
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Sunnyvale Public Safety Department Detail
Sunnyvale Fire Department Summary
Type of Agency Municipal
Governing body City Council
Area covered 23.8 sq. miles
Service area description Services the City of Sunnyvale
Population (2010) 135,200
Budget 2010-11 $25,042,369
Staffing (FTEs) 100.00
Number of fire stations 6
Apparatus Engines –9
Trucks – 2
HazMat – 1
BC Command Vehicle – 1
Utility – 1
Prime Mover – 1
Reserve Apparatus Engines – 2
Calls for service - total 7,286
ISO rating 2
Mutual aid arrangements Santa Clara County
Dispatch arrangements Sunnyvale Public Safety Department
Sunnyvale Fire Department Details
Department Revenues (2009-10)
Special parcel tax/assessments, etc. $1,129,169.00
Fire Prevention $0.00
Fees, EMS $0.00
Fees, Other $1,533,178.03
Contracts $651,548.60
Other $208,692.12
Total Department Revenues $3,522,587.75
Management Partners, Inc. 255
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #1
Location 171 N. Mathilda Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built 1960-65
3 bays, single deep. Sleeps 5.
Condition Last interior remodel 1998-1999
Staffing levels 4 personnel assigned per shift
Equipment (age and condition) Engine1 Igniter 2008 (Excellent)
Truck 1 Eagle 134 Ladder, LTI AH-100 2000 (Excellent)
Reserve 1 Eagle 2000 (Very Good)
Calls for service 1,259
Fire Station - #2
Location 795 E. Arques Avenue
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built 1960-65
3 bays, single deep. Classroom which holds about 20.
Sleeps 8. On-site training tower built in 2000, includes
single apparatus bay. B.C. Office
Condition Last interior remodel 1998-1999
Staffing levels 6 personnel + BC assigned per shift
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 2 Igniter 2008 (Excellent)
Truck 2 Eagle 134 Ladder, LTI AH-100 2000 (Excellent)
Rescue 2 Rescue Master 2006 (Excellent)
Calls for service 1,277
Fire Station - #3
Location 910 Ticonderoga Drive
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built 1960-65
2 bay, single deep. Sleeps 5.
Condition Last interior remodel 1998-1999
Staffing levels 4 personnel assigned per shift
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 3 Igniter 2008 (Excellent)
Engine 30 Eagle 1998 (Very good)
Calls for service 1,578
Management Partners, Inc. 256
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Fire Station - #4
Location 996 S. Wolfe Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built 1960-65
2 bay, single deep. Sleeps 5.
Condition Last interior remodel 1998-1999
Staffing levels 4 personnel assigned per shift
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 4 Igniter 2008 (Excellent)
Engine 40 Eagle 2000 (Very good)
Calls for service 1,733
Fire Station - #5
Location 1120 Innovation Way
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built 1960-65
2 bay, single deep. Sleeps 5.
Condition Last interior remodel 1998-1999
Staffing levels 2 personnel assigned per shift
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 5 Eagle 2004 (Very good)
Reserve 5 Arrow 1987 (Good)
Calls for service 719
Fire Station - #6
Location 1282 Lawrence Station Road
Description (# bays and staffing capacity) Built 1960-65
2 bay, single deep. Sleeps 5.
Condition Last interior remodel 1998-1999
Staffing levels 4 personnel assigned per shift
Equipment (age and condition) Engine 6 Eagle 2004 (Excellent)
Engine 60 Eagle 1998 (Very good)
Calls for service 720
Management Partners, Inc. 257
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment C: Fire Agency Information
Sunnyvale Fire Department Trends and Projections
Population (2000 to 2035)
Year City Population
2000 131,760
2005 133,000
2010 135,200
2015 141,700
2020 147,300
2025 152,000
2030 157,900
2035 163,300
Revenues (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $2,922,218
2008-09 (actual) $3,522,588
2009-10 (budgeted)* $2,440,579
2010-11 (budgeted) Data not available
*Actual through April 2010.
Expenditures (2007-08 through 2010-11)
2007-08 (actual) $24,007,059
2008-09 (actual) $25,725,754
2009-10 (budgeted) $25,613,215
2010-11 (budgeted) $24,975,209
Staffing (2007-08 through 2010-11)*
2007-08 (actual) 86
2008-09 (estimated) 87
2009-10 (budgeted) 98
2010-11 (budgeted) 100
*Staffing increases resulted from departmental changes and reporting structure reorganization, not an increase in
overall staff..
Management Partners, Inc. 258
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment D – Apparatus and Calls for Service by Station
Attachment D – Apparatus and Calls for Service by Station
The table below lists each agency station, daily staffed apparatus, 2009 calls for service and
average daily calls for service. Departments may have different policies regarding how they
track and report emergency response activity. Daily staffed apparatus may not be consistent
with what is included in the body of the report, as changes were made to update apparatus
information to FY 2010-2011 status.
2009 Average
2009 Calls Daily Calls for
Agency Station Daily Staffed Apparatus for Service Service
Gilroy 1 - Chestnut 1 Engine 1,158 3.2
2 - Las Animas 1 Engine 1,158 3.2
3 - Sunrise 1 Rescue Ambulance or 1 Engine 258 0.7
Milpitas 1 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,386 3.8
2 1 Engine 1,267 3.5
3 1 Engine 1,170 3.2
4 1 Engine 331 0.9
Palo Alto 1 1 Engine, 1 Transport 2,605 7.1
2 1 Engine, 1 Rescue, 1 Transport 910 2.5
3 1 Engine 936 2.6
4 1 Engine 975 2.7
5 1 Engine 892 2.4
6 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,157 3.2
7 1 Engine 172 0.5
8 1 Engine 29 0.1
Mountain 1 1 Engine, 1 Truck, 1 Rescue 3,684 10.1
View
2 1 Engine 1,233 3.4
3 1 Engine 1,450 4.0
4 1 Engine 841 2.3
5 1 Engine 571 1.6
San José 1 1 Engine, 1 Truck 2,590 7.1
2 1 Engine, 1 Truck 5,261 14.4
3 1 Engine, 1 Truck 2,898 7.9
4 1 Engine, 1 Truck 3,059 8.4
5 1 Engine 2,434 6.7
6 1 Engine 1,473 4.0
7 1 Engine 1,240 3.4
8 1 Engine 2,499 6.8
Management Partners, Inc. 259
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment D – Apparatus and Calls for Service by Station
2009 Average
2009 Calls Daily Calls for
Agency Station Daily Staffed Apparatus for Service Service
9 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,920 5.3
10 1 Engine 2,140 5.9
11 1 Engine 788 2.2
12 1 Engine 1,778 4.9
13 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,924 5.3
14 1 Engine, 1 Truck 2,499 6.8
15 1 Engine 571 1.6
16 1 Engine, 1 Rescue 2,423 6.6
17 1 Engine 1,330 3.6
18 1 Engine 2,956 8.1
19 1 Engine 1,536 4.2
20 1 Engine 643 1.8
21 1 Engine 1,517 4.2
22 1 Engine, 1 Rescue 1,305 3.6
23 1 Engine 1,213 3.3
24 1 Engine 2,989 8.2
25 1 Engine 284 0.8
26 1 Engine 2,814 7.7
27 1 Engine 1,714 4.7
28 1 Engine 424 1.2
29 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,191 3.3
30 1 Medic 1,849 5.1
31 1 Engine 866 2.4
33 No apparatus; no longer staffed 240 0.7
34 1 USAR 1,760 4.8
35 1 Truck 1,857 5.1
Santa Clara 1 1 Engine, 1 Medic 1,525 4.2
2 1 Truck, 1 Rescue 755 2.1
3 1 Engine 1,139 3.1
4 1 Engine 970 2.7
5 1 Engine, 1 Medic 990 2.7
6 1 Engine, 1 Medic 700 1.9
7 1 Engine 1,039 2.8
8 1 Truck 483 1.3
9 1 Engine 243 0.7
Management Partners, Inc. 260
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
2010 Countywide Fire Service Review Attachment D – Apparatus and Calls for Service by Station
2009 Average
2009 Calls Daily Calls for
Agency Station Daily Staffed Apparatus for Service Service
10 1 Engine 296 0.8
CCFD 1 - Cupertino 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,855 5.1
2 – Seven Springs 1 Engine, 1 Hazmat 461 1.3
3 – Los Gatos 1 Engine, 1 Rescue 956 2.6
4 - Redwood 1 Engine 368 1.0
5 - Winchester 1 Truck 788 2.2
6 - Shannon 1 Engine 1,028 2.8
7 – Monta Vista 1 Engine 1,135 3.1
8 - Quito 1 Engine 341 0.9
9 – West Valley 1 Engine 687 1.9
10 – Sunnyoaks 1 Engine 1,115 3.1
11 - Campbell 1 Engine 1,681 4.6
12 – El Toro 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,489 4.1
13 – Dunne Hill 1 Engine 525 1.4
14 – El Monte 1 Engine, 1 Truck 550 1.5
15 – Los Altos 1 Engine 1,216 3.3
16 - Loyola 1 Engine 971 2.7
17 - Saratoga 1 Engine, 1 Rescue 1,387 3.8
SCFD 1 – Morgan Hill 1 Engine 1,474 4.0
2 - Masten 1 Engine 1,350 3.7
3 - Treehaven 1 Engine 554 1.5
4 - Pacheco 1 Engine 268 0.7
Sunnyvale 1 1 Engine, 1 Truck 1,259 3.4
2 1 Engine, I Truck, 1 Rescue 1,277 3.5
3 2 Engines 1,578 4.3
4 2 Engines 1,733 4.7
5 1 Engine 719 2.0
6 2 Engines 720 2.0
Management Partners, Inc. 261