HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1974 Public Hearing on Ordinance 38.59NOTICE OF HEARING
Before City Council
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Clerk and Ex- officio Clerk of the
Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set the hour of 8:00 P.M. on Wednesday,
the 4th day of September, 1974, in the City Council Chambers, at 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga, California, as the time and place.for public hearing to consider:
ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 - An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga
Amending Chapter 3 of the Saratoga City Code by Adding Article
VII Thereof, Captioned "Miscellaneous Provisions ", and Adding
Section 3 -50 Thereto, Re: Fencing of Swimming Pools and Open
Bodies of Water
A copy of which proposed Ordinance is on file at the office of the Saratoga
City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS may appear and be heard at said time and place.
Written communications should be filed on or before Friday, August 30, 1974.
OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT F. BEYEIr; CITY CLERK
ORDINANCE NO. 38.59
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
CHAPTER 3 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE BY ADDING
ARTICLE VII THEREOF, CAPTIONED "MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS ", AND ADDING SECTION 3 -50 THERETO,
ET SEQ. RE THE FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS AND
OPEN BODIES OF WATER.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
ordain as follows:
Section 1: There is hereby added to Chapter 3 of
the Saratoga City Code, captioned 'Building Regulations ", the
following Article and Sections and Subsections thereof, to
read as follows:
ARTICLE VII
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING REGULATIONS
Section 3 -50. Swimming Pool Fencing Required
Section 3 -50.1. Definition - Body of Water.
The term "body of water" as hereafter used in
these sections and subsections shall mean any body of water
over 18 inches in depth at any point, which is of part of—a
natural or arts I-Ma lake, or a stream, or a drainage facility
under the control of the City of Saratoga, of the County of
Santa Clara, or a Flood Control or other public agency. By
way of illustration, and not by way of limitation, a body of
water is intended to include all pools designed for wading or
swimming.
Section 3 -50.2.
Fence Required.
Every body of water in the City of Saratoga
shall be completely enclosed b y a fence of not less than 5
ft. in hei ht rom finish grade measured on the outside of
such fence, which shall he so constructed as not to have
openings, holes or gaps larger than 4 inches in any dimen-
sion, exc -ept for doors and gates. Each door and gate in
such fence shall be self - closing and self - latching. Fences
completely surrounding a lot, site or parcel, and one or
more walls of a building, or any combination of fencing,
building walls, and walls shall constitute compliance with
the within provisions as to fencing. Where the building
or one or more walls thereof constitutes a part of such
enclosure, doors in the building leading from the pool
area to the interior of such building need not be self -
closing and self - latching.
Section 3 -50.3. Retroactivity.
All existing bodies of water shall be completely
fenced within six months from the effective date of a ontion of
these regulations, which shall be e ective imme,iate y as to
-1-
all bodies of ivater presently under construction but not
yet completed, and all future construction, save and except
as follows:
Swimming pools and wading pools which as of the
date of adoption of this Ordinance are already
enclosed by a fence of not less than ft, in
height as so measured from finish grade, and which
have self - closing and self - latching doors and gates,
shall not be required to further comply with the
provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 3 -50.4. Variances,
The Board of Appeals created by Section 3 -20.1
of this Code shall have the power, in cases of unusual circum-
stances or unnecessary hardship, to permit modifications or
deviations from the above set forth fencing regulations around
bodies of water, and the procedure on said appeal shall be the
same as in other hearings on appeal by said Board.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decisions shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-
sections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in full—force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced
and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
ovf Saratoga on the day of 1974, by the following
vote:'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-2-
YOR
. �i
I
RESOLUTION N0. 712
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR
SWD2,1ING POOL FENCING VARIANCES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves
as follows:
Reference is hereby made to Article VII of the Saratoga
City Code, and specifically to Sections Series 3 -50 thereof
relating to swimming pool fencing. In accord with Section 3 -50.4,
the Building Official is hereby authorized to give affirmative
consideration to requests for exceptions or variances to said
fencing requirement where one or more of the following are
found to apply:
(1) Where a pool has a solid or semi -solid barrier
surrounding it having easy access to the immediate pool area,
including, without limitation,hedging or solid vegetation screen-
ing, or natural earth berms, of 5 ft. or more in height, or
where a perimeter slope exceeds 15% in grade;
(2) Pools located in areas where the general location
are surrounded or totally obstructed by natural features of the
land or other physical obstructions capable of effectively
screening both physically and visually from general public
access;
'(3) Pools on extraordinary shaped or.sized single- family
lots where the pool is located a minimum of 150 ft. at its closest
off -site point to both street access and the closest residential
structure, and specifically where the principal residential
structure is located between the pool and street access.
The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and there- =f
after passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Saratoga held on the 2nd day of October , 1974, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Bridges, Diridon and Smith
NOES: Councilman Brigham
ABSENT: Councilman Kraus
AZTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
0
PROOF OF PUBIC�T1
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Santa Clara
I am a citizen of the United States and a resi- I
dent of the County aforesaid; I am over the age
of eighteen years, and not a party to or inter-
e s t e d in the above - entitled in atter. . I am t h e
publisher of the Saratoga N e s, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed and published
weekly in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa
Clara, and which newspaper has been adjudged
a newspaper of general circulation by the
S u p e r i o r Court of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California, under the date of Nov.
26, 195 7, Case Number 105852; that the notice,
of which the annexed is a printed c o p y (s e t in
ty p e not smaller than n o n p a r e i 1) , has been
published in each r e g u l a r and entire .issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to -wit:
... ..9 ........................
all in the year 19.. 7�/. .
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and 96trect.
a
This space for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
------------- ------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------
Paste Clipping
of Notice
SECURELY
InThis Space
PROOF OF PUBUCATI ®Id
LEGAL NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO. 38.59
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER
3 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE
BY ADDING ARTICLE VII
THEREOF, CAPTIONED
"MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ",
AND ADDING SECTION 3 -50
THERETO, ET SEQ. RE THE
FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS
AND OPEN BODIES OF WATER.
The City Council of the Cityof Sar-
atoga does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1: There is he re by added
to Chapter 3 of the Saratoga City
Code, captioned "Building Regula-
tions", the following Article andSee-
tions and Subsections thereof, to read
as follows:
ARTICLE VII
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING
REGULATIONS
Section3 -50. Swimming Pool
Fencing Required
Section 3 -50.1. Definition - Body
of Water.
. The term "body of water" as here-
after used in these sections and sub-
sections shall mean anybody of water
over 18 inches in depth at any point,
which is not pact of a natural or ar-
tificial lake, ora stream, or a
drainage facility under the control of
the City of Saratoga, of the County of
Santa C l a r a, or a Flood Control or
other public agency. By way of illus-
tration, and not by way of limitation,
a body of water is intended to include
all pools designed for wading or
swimming.
Section 3 -50.2. Fence Required.
Every body of water in the City of
Saratoga shall be completely enclosed
by a fence of not less than 5 ft. in
height from f i n i s h grade measured
on the outside of such fence, w h i c h
shall be so constructed as not to have
openings, holes or gaps larger t ha an
4 inches in any dimension, except for
doors and gates. Each door and gate
in such fence shall be self - closing and
self-latching. Fences completely
surrounding a lot, site or parcel, and
one or m ore walls of a building, or
any combination of fencing, building
walls, and walls shall constitute com-
pliance with the within provisions as
to fencing. Where the building or one
or m ore walls thereof constitutes a
part of such enclosure, doors in t he
building leading from the pool area to
the interior of such building need not
be self - closing and self - latching.
Section 3 -50.3. Retroactivity.
All existing bodies of water shall be
completely fenced within six months
from the effective date of adoption of
these regulations, which shall be ef-
fective immediately as to a 11 bodies
of water presently under construction
but not yet completed, and all future
construction, save and except as
follows:
Swimming p o o l s and wading pools
which as of the date of adoptionof this
Ordinance are already enclosed by a
fence of not less than 3 -1/2 ft, in
he i g h t as so measured from finish
grab, and w h i c h have self- closing
and self -1 a t c h i n g doors and gates,
shall not be required to further com-
ply with the provisions of this Ordi-
nance.
Section 3 -50.4. Variances.
The Building Inspector s h a 11 have
power, in cases of unusual circum-
stances or unnecessary hardship, to
p r m it modifications or deviations
from the above set forth fencing reg-
ulations around bodies of w ate r, to
grant exceptions thereto, based upon
standards and criteria as developed
and established from time to time by
resolution-of the City Council of this
City. Reference is hereby made to
Resolution Series No. 712 of this City
for further particulars.
Upon the granting, conditional
granting or denial of such variance by
the Building Official, any interested
person shall have the right to appeal
such decision directly to the City
C o u n c it of this City, which appeal
shall be a hearing de novo, and which
appeal shall otherwise be heard in
the same manner as an appeal to the
Board of Appeals set forth in Section
3 -20.1 of this Code.
Section 2: If any section, subsec-
t io n, sentence, clause or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held
by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decisions shall
not affect the validity of the remain-
ing portions of this Ordinance. The
City Council of the C ity of Saratoga
hereby declares that it would have
passed this Ordinance and each sec-
tion, subsection, sentence, clause a ad
p h r a s e thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be held invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
Section 3: This 0rdinance shay
t a k e effect a nd be in full force and
effect thirty (30) days after the date
of its passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance
w a s regularly introduced a n d after
the waiting time required by law was
thereafter passed and a d o pt e d at a
regular meeting of the C ity Council
of the City of Saratoga on the 2nd day
of Oct. , 1974, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Smith, Diridon,
Bridges
NOES: Councilman Brigham
ABSENT: Councilman Kraus
/s/ Jerome A. Smith
MAYOR
ATTEST:
/s/ Robert F. Beyer
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 712
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
CRITERIA FOR SWIMMING POOL
FENCING VARIANCES
The City Council of the City of Sar-
atoga hereby resolves as follows:
Reference is hereby made to Arti-
cle VII of the Saratoga City Code, and
specifically to Sections Se r ies 3 -50
thereof relating to swimming pool
fencing. In accord with Section 3-
50.4, the Building Official is hereby
authorized to give affirmative con-
sideration to requests for exceptions
or variances to said fencing require-
ment where one or m o r e of the fol-
lowing are found to apply:
(1) Where@ pool has -a solid or
semi -solid b a r r i e r surrounding it
having easy access to the immediate
pool area, including, without limita-
tion, hedging or solid vegetation
screening, or natural earth b e r m s,
of 5 ft, or more in height, or where
a perimeter slope exceeds 15% in
grade;
(2) Pools located in a r e as where
the general location are surrounded
or totally obstructed by natural
features of the land or otherphysical
obstructions c a p a b l e of effectively
screening b of h physically and visu-
ally from general public access;
(3) Pools on extraordinary shaped
or sized single- faifRily lots where the
pool is located a minimum of 150 ft.
at its closest point to both street ac-
cess and the closest off -site resident-
ial structure, and specifically where
the� log4� �esidential structure is
uldd"ate'd Uetween the pool and �treet
en LEGAL NOTICE
in ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN
BENTLEY & WAGNER
655 Marshall court
_Redwood City, California 91063
369 -6711
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE. OF CALIFORNLI&
FOR THE COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO
SUMMONS
No. '225312
DESERT PALMS LANDS, a limited
partnership, BERNARD D E N T ON,
MIRIAM DENTON, BERT WAGNER,
NINA WAGNER, LIBERTY NATION-
AL BANK, Trustee f or Dr. Eugene
G re ide r, ROBERT THORNBURN,
MARION THOR N BU R N, OLNEY
PERRY, LAVONNA PERRY, M E L-
VIN CONGER, HARRIET CONGER,
ROBERT A. RICH, GYSELLA M. A.
RICH, ROBERT RYDER, GEORGIA
RYDER, ROBERT D. GRIFFITH, NI.
D., MICHAEL ROPERS, Trustee for
Rolyne Ropers undertrust agreement,
DONALD BLAKE and KATHY BLAKE,
Plaintiffs
VS.
CENTRAL VALLEY NATIONAL
BANK, a national banking association,
CAPITAL FEDERAL SAVINGS &
LOAN ASSOCIATION, a Colorado
Corporation, GREATER SIERRA
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
a California Corporation, WILLIAM
KENNY, INC., a California corpora-
tion, UNITED CODIMUNITIESCORP-
ORATION, a California corporation,
TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST
COMPANY,a California corporation,
HACIENDA SAN MIGUEL INVEST -
MENTS, a limited partnership, LAS
LOMITAS INVESTORS C OR P O RA-
TION, a California corporation,
DOUGLAS D. CARLSON, an individ-
ual, CHARLES Al. SHON, an individ
vidual, FLOYD L. JOHNSON, an in-
dividual,ANDREW fl. ESCHENFELD-
ER, an individual, JEAN R. ESCH-
E N F E L D E R, an individual, A. L.
CHADWICK, BARBARA CHADWICK
an individual, WILLIAM KENNY, a
individual, SAM J. HARRIS, an in
dividual, MAX SIEFKER, an individ
iidirWual
BRE,T11t DO�E, �,a�incliy,'qual
D O F S ONE c{ gIft7 "�° T is
or n m terials an
performing the work of:
VARIOUS BIKEWAYS
No proposal will be receivedunles
it is m ad e on the proposal form a
furnished by the City of Saratoga
available at the City Hall,13.777 Fruit
vale Avenue,, Saratoga, California,
Contract document, including Con
struction Plans and Specifications
are available at the City Hall, 13775
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, C a l if
ornia, where they may be obtaine
upon deposit of $10.00 Dollars per set
The d e p o s it will be returned to al
Bidders who return the Contract Doc-
uments in good condition within fiv
(5) c a l e n d a r days after the date c
opening of bids, and is liable to f o r
feiture if such documents a r e not s
returned within said time.
In accordance with Sections 177
through 1781 of the Labor Code of th
State of California, the City of Sara
toga has ascertained and has on fit
the general prevailing wages applicaI
ble to the w o r k to be done, and ti�
successful bidder shall pay all wort
men employed in the performance
this work not less than the wages s
established, The Contractor and a
Subcontractors shall, at their expens
obtain all permits and licenses n e c
e s s a r y for the performance oft h
Contract and shall give all necessar
notices and pay all fees required h
law.
As stated in Resolution No. 491 eac
contractor desiring to submit a bid ol
a city project must submit his Affirn
ative Action Pro ram to the Cit
Ma n a g e r no later than October 28
19741, one week before the bid oneni
Tans to be designated a res onsibl
bidde r.
Each bid must be accompanied by
valid Bidder's.\BondorCashier'
Check payable to tha City of Saratoga
in the amount of not 1 e s s than 10 °ro o
the amount of the bid, which will
forfeited should the Bidder, if award
ed the c ont ra e t, fail to enter int
TWENTY -FIRST DOE through THIA
'
TIETH'DOE COMPANIES,
Defendants,
To the Defendants: WILLIAM T
KENNY: A civil complaint has bee
WIN
filed by the plaintiffs against you,
f
you wish to defend this lawsuit, yc
must file in this court a writte
pleading in response to the complain
(or a written or or a l pleading, if
Justice Court) within' 30 days a f t e
k'
r
this summons is served on y o c
r
Otherwise, your default will be en
tered on application by the plaintiff
and the court may enter a judgmei
against you for the money or o.t he
relief requested in the complaint,
4
If you wish to seek the advice of a
attorney in this matter, you shouh
do so promptly so that your pleadin
if any, may be filed on time,
Dated Aug, 11, 1972
W. N. DURLEY, Clerk
Jean L o ugh r idge; Glen
By R. FLORES, Deputy
Brae Drive, gay 13
Saratoga,
(SEAL)
pub, Oct, 9, lfi, 23, 30, 1971
a member of the produc-
tion staff of "Mister Rob—
LEGAL NOTICE
— erts" , a production of
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
r 1_ Community Players
'
Sealed proposals w 111 be receive
r. which will open Nov. 8 at
at the office of the C ity Manager c
the City of Saratoga, City Hall, 1377
ll3t the Saratoga C i V i c The—
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, C a l if
Dr Ater. For more informa—
ornia, until 2 :00 p, m., November 4
1974, at which time they will be pub
he tion. call 578 -1997
licly opened and read, for furnishin
--+�
all of the lab a d a
en LEGAL NOTICE
in ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN
BENTLEY & WAGNER
655 Marshall court
_Redwood City, California 91063
369 -6711
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE. OF CALIFORNLI&
FOR THE COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO
SUMMONS
No. '225312
DESERT PALMS LANDS, a limited
partnership, BERNARD D E N T ON,
MIRIAM DENTON, BERT WAGNER,
NINA WAGNER, LIBERTY NATION-
AL BANK, Trustee f or Dr. Eugene
G re ide r, ROBERT THORNBURN,
MARION THOR N BU R N, OLNEY
PERRY, LAVONNA PERRY, M E L-
VIN CONGER, HARRIET CONGER,
ROBERT A. RICH, GYSELLA M. A.
RICH, ROBERT RYDER, GEORGIA
RYDER, ROBERT D. GRIFFITH, NI.
D., MICHAEL ROPERS, Trustee for
Rolyne Ropers undertrust agreement,
DONALD BLAKE and KATHY BLAKE,
Plaintiffs
VS.
CENTRAL VALLEY NATIONAL
BANK, a national banking association,
CAPITAL FEDERAL SAVINGS &
LOAN ASSOCIATION, a Colorado
Corporation, GREATER SIERRA
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
a California Corporation, WILLIAM
KENNY, INC., a California corpora-
tion, UNITED CODIMUNITIESCORP-
ORATION, a California corporation,
TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST
COMPANY,a California corporation,
HACIENDA SAN MIGUEL INVEST -
MENTS, a limited partnership, LAS
LOMITAS INVESTORS C OR P O RA-
TION, a California corporation,
DOUGLAS D. CARLSON, an individ-
ual, CHARLES Al. SHON, an individ
vidual, FLOYD L. JOHNSON, an in-
dividual,ANDREW fl. ESCHENFELD-
ER, an individual, JEAN R. ESCH-
E N F E L D E R, an individual, A. L.
CHADWICK, BARBARA CHADWICK
an individual, WILLIAM KENNY, a
individual, SAM J. HARRIS, an in
dividual, MAX SIEFKER, an individ
iidirWual
BRE,T11t DO�E, �,a�incliy,'qual
D O F S ONE c{ gIft7 "�° T is
or n m terials an
performing the work of:
VARIOUS BIKEWAYS
No proposal will be receivedunles
it is m ad e on the proposal form a
furnished by the City of Saratoga
available at the City Hall,13.777 Fruit
vale Avenue,, Saratoga, California,
Contract document, including Con
struction Plans and Specifications
are available at the City Hall, 13775
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, C a l if
ornia, where they may be obtaine
upon deposit of $10.00 Dollars per set
The d e p o s it will be returned to al
Bidders who return the Contract Doc-
uments in good condition within fiv
(5) c a l e n d a r days after the date c
opening of bids, and is liable to f o r
feiture if such documents a r e not s
returned within said time.
In accordance with Sections 177
through 1781 of the Labor Code of th
State of California, the City of Sara
toga has ascertained and has on fit
the general prevailing wages applicaI
ble to the w o r k to be done, and ti�
successful bidder shall pay all wort
men employed in the performance
this work not less than the wages s
established, The Contractor and a
Subcontractors shall, at their expens
obtain all permits and licenses n e c
e s s a r y for the performance oft h
Contract and shall give all necessar
notices and pay all fees required h
law.
As stated in Resolution No. 491 eac
contractor desiring to submit a bid ol
a city project must submit his Affirn
ative Action Pro ram to the Cit
Ma n a g e r no later than October 28
19741, one week before the bid oneni
Tans to be designated a res onsibl
bidde r.
Each bid must be accompanied by
valid Bidder's.\BondorCashier'
Check payable to tha City of Saratoga
in the amount of not 1 e s s than 10 °ro o
the amount of the bid, which will
forfeited should the Bidder, if award
ed the c ont ra e t, fail to enter int
- PRESS RELEASE -
City Manager Robert F. Beyer announced that on Wednesday, September 4,
at its regular meeting1 the Saratoga City Council will hold a public hearing
on two important ordinances. One ordinance proposes to require that all
swimming pools in the City of Saratoga be properly fenced. The ordinance
further proposes that this request be retroactive, allowing for six months
for all pools to come into conformance, if the ordinance passes. An appeal
procedure is provided for in those cases of unusual circumstances or un-
necessary hardship.
The second ordinance scheduled for hearing is a new Business License
Ordinance. The new ordinances proposes to eliminate the one -time $25.00
business license fee now in existence and require that a business license
be renewed annually.. In addition the new ordinance proposes a -rate schedule
providing for Commercial, Personal Services, Professional and Semi - Professional
Services and manufacturing businesses to pay $35.00 per year. Additionally,
any employer employing having more than 8 employees would pay an additional
fee of $25.00 per year.
If adopted the ordinance would become effective January 1, 1975.
Persons interested in these two ordinances .are,.encouraged' to-plan .to
attend the public hearings on September 4', or if unable to be present, address
a letter to the City Council expressing your views on -.:the proposed ordinances.
JOHNSTON, MILLER & GIANNINI
FABER L. JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE
FABER L. JOHNSTON,JR. 711 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 294 -9046
GLENN E. MILLER
GARY V. GIANNINI SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
September 30, 1974
Mr. Robert Beyer, City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Swimming Pool Fencing
Dear Mr. Beyer:
I have redone the second page of Ordinance 38.59, the
pool fencing ordinance, and am enclosing it herewith.
Contrary to what I told you over the phone, I think it
better to put the
it that the Planning Depart-
ment came up with in separate resolution form, because
I can see where it can change from time to time. This
is actually designed to say to the Building Official
that if in fact he does find one or more of these features,
he is almost .required to grant the variance. This is a
little different than setting up standards which are
merely requested to be taken into consideration, but
once having taken them into consideration, the reviewing
official has the right to go either way. Because of the
flexibility, and because maybe there might be one or
more further meetings of the Council before the criteria
are all ironed out, I think maybe it's better to pass
the ordinance in the form it's in now and handle the
criteria separately.
As to the proposed exception for licensed /paid lifeguard
protection, there is no need to put this in, in our opinion,
because already this would be a built -in feature in the
present ordinance. That is, all pools are required to be
fenced, but there is no requirement that they must be
locked. That is to say, that merely because a pool has
self - closing and self - latching gates, does not mean that
the gates may not be held permanently open during super-
vised swimming, whether that supervision be by a parent,
or a lifeguard, or whatnot._.
Yo,urs very t ly�
C._
FLJ : rwb Jo �>
Encls, it A rney
y f Saratoga
py
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO PASS AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ADEQUATE
FENCING PROTECTION AROUND SWIMrMING POOLS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
WE -URGE IIMEDIATE AND SPEEDY ACTION IN THIS MATTER BEFORE SARATOGA
SUFFERS ITS FIRST CHILD DROWNING.
NAME
-1
2 .:_:',ALL! -G:-4-� f .
4.
ADDRESS
all
5..—
y
114
df Jlvi,d,�4 d__
6. WAU
7.
8.
4.
10.
1 -
12. —
13.._
� c
16—
17.. —C�
A40_ "2
20 . _.. - =- - — -- �� - --
21 - _
a .s
15300 E1 Camino Grande
Saratoga, California 95070
April 26, 1974
The Planning Department of Saratoga
Saratoga City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Gentlemen:
.:/ A /,,
I wish to bring to your attention the urgent need for an ordinance
requiring adequate fencing surrounding swimming pools within our city.
There are unfenced and unattended pools in the midst of areas crowded
with small children.
We have the unfortunate experience of having one of them in our neigh-
borhood. It was installed two years ago and to the horror of all has
remained unfenced. The pool is filled with 8 feet of water the entire
year and is located in an open area accessible to all the neighborhood
children from three sides. Little children run and play daily in the
open areas next to this pool. Many of these children are pre - school
non - swimmers, and in spite of intense parent pressure, do find their
way to this pool. It is certainly a miracle that one of these little
ones has not already drowned. The absolute terror that this neighbor-
hood is subjected to is an evil that has been overlooked too long.
Many of us rush to this pool when our children are late coming home,
and with sickening apprehension stare into the water hoping not to
find our child at the bottom this time.
Obviously all of us have tried in every way possible to persuade the
owner to fence the pool, to no avail. The enclosed petition is but a
sampling of this neighborhood's concern.
Won't you please do what is just and right to remedy this intolerable
situation? With summer soon here our concern deepens. Act now and
pass whatever legislation is necessary to require all existing pools
and pools yet to be built to be properly fenced, so that Saratoga may
continue to be known as the kind of city that really does care about
its children.
vml
Most sincerely,
Mrs. Thomas E. Buckley
Septr 20,;. 1974 -
ice. ��Y samapa�e . • . .
19045 Sunayst Drive
Swstaga,, Calif.. .9.5076.
Dear Me. Sampson: I -
'Please be advised that the Saratoga City Council Considered your latter In relation-
tip" to proposed Ordinance : Dta.. 38.59, taB -to forcing of sing, is and
open :be!dies of wai4r. fter - hearing considerable dis "ve an this wetter,. than
Coomll continued the public hearing to October Z., 19741-a" directed the c4ty staff
to propose. saes guidelines sad cri.terto that might be umA by the Board of Appeals
for consideration when reviewing a variaoce request to the .proposed, osdinaum require-",
meats. We information will be submitted to the City Council at the regular meeting.
on October 28, 1914.
It as possible that this issue will be d1toutsed at a Co mittee of the Vko a meeting
ow Tuesday dvenia& Sapt&A ear 246h,, in the Crisp Confe"we Room at City gall.- No
format action tan be taken at that time, however, the Council will be discussing the
nature at the criteria and the, variance prows.
That& you for yaw interest in this propossd ordinance.
Very truly your$t
Robert F. Beyer
City Mtaagear
I8 /free
C-03, -q~ cc- 7/18/7q.
September 7, 1974
19045 Sunnyside Drive
Saratoga, Calif.
Mayor Jerome Smith
Councilmen
Saratoga City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
Dear Aayor Smith and Councilmen:
Congratulations on your beautiful handling of
the potentially difficult swimming pool fencing
ordinance. You did a masterful job of group
decision - making. The orderly fashion in which
you established the major safety requirements,
accepted need for further clarification of the
proposed ordinance, and allowed for possible
variances was impressive indeed:
It is gratifying to see government work at its
best. It appears that we shall have a
well - written and effective ordinance before
we have a tragedy here in Saratoga.
Sincerely yours,
�Z- .�l�r�r✓
September 20j, 1914
Mr.. 'William E.. Glen
Attorney at Low
110 North Third Stmt
San .lose, Calif. 95112
Mr. GlennaR:
Please be advised that the Saratoga City Council considered your letter -in relation -
ship to proposed ordinance No. 38.59., .pertaining to fencing .of svimmfmg pools and
open bodies of eater.. After beariug considerable discussion an this matter, than . .
Council continued the public hearing to October 2, 1974, and dir*cted the city stiff
to propose sow gf3delInes and criteria that might be used by the Board of gala
for consideration mhen reviewing a, variance request to the proposed ordinance require-
mats. This iu£ormatioa will be submitted to. tho City Council at the regular meeting.
on October 2:, 1974.
It is possible that this issue sill be discussed at a Com6ittee of the Whole Meeting.
on Tuesday evening., September 24th.«, in the Crisp Conference Rom at City Heil. No
formal action can be taken at that time!; hoer, the Council will be discussing the
nature of the srteita and the variance process.
Thank you for ywo interest is thin .proposed ordfinance.
'fiery truly yours,
MAO*
Robert P. Beyer
City Manaw
i
WILLIAM G CLARK
WILLIAM E. . GLENNON
RONALD H. WHITCANACK
OF COUNSEL
JAMES H. BURKE
IRVIN A. FRASSE
WALLACE L. JONES
BERNAL L. LEWIS
JOHN S. LEWIS
E. M. REA (1895-1955)
City Council
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, California
CLARK & GLENNON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
September 4, 1974
Re: Ordinance No. 38.59
Fencing of Swimming Pools
Gentlemen:
q)1 R) 7 ��
LAW OFFICES
OF
REA FRASSE
110 NORTH THIRD STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112
AREA CODE 408
TELEPHONE 292 -2434
I respectfully request that you not adopt the subject
ordinance.
As with most proposed legislation, the motives are
certainly commendable. However, as so often is the case,
legislation cannot eliminate the risk without creating
attendant problems that outweigh the good that might be
achieved.
The ordinance will not affect those lots where the
protection is needed, the subdivision lots. To my knowledge
those lots are already fenced, especially if they have swim-
ming pools. By and large people are aware of the danger of
an unfenced lot with a pool in an area where small children
reside. If there are any such lots unfenced, group pressure
is the answer; not legislation which might be directed at
them but affects most severely others.
There are many areas in the city in which the residents
have already raised their families and no small children
reside.
There are many areas in which the topography is
such that the natural protections are more effective than
would be a fence.
The construction of fencing on large parcels would
invariably destroy the appearance of the landscaped
area surrounding the pool. The alternative of fencing in
the entire parcel would result in thousands of dollars in
cost and inadequate protection unless gates were installed
over driveways.
City Council
September 4, 1974
Page 2
Some years ago a similar ordinance was considered and
dropped after the council reviewed a number of locations and
concluded enforcement would be impossible.
I earnestly suggest that you make such an investigation
before proceeding and extend an invitation to have you
inspect my property as an example of the lac f need and
the impracticability of fencing. ,
r
Your r t y,
WILLIAM E. GLE14NON
WEG:jn
September 20, 1974
Mrs. Donated Nambsy �
'18540 Nessing Road
Saratoga, Ca lf. 95070 .
Bear Mrs., Hambey
Please be advised -t the Saratoga City Council tonsidered your letter in relation..
e41g to prooewd. Ordlnante No. 38.59: .
- . peartainiug to fencing of swag pools and ,
open bodies of water. After heoiiug consWerable discussion on this-matter, the
Council continued the public hearing to October 2,, 19740 wd directed they city staff
to .propo" ems; ;agUali aes end- cri- terl;e that might: be used by the Board of Appeals
for Consideration Aeu yreVieving a variance request to the propow4 ardiaftwe require-
meets. This information mill be submitted to the City Countil at -the regular meeting
oat October 2, 1974+
It ig possible that this issue will be discussed at a Committee of the vhole Meeting
on Tuesday avenin& September 24th., in the Crisp Confameace ROM at City Nall. No
formal action can be ttaMn aFt that time; he inert the Council will be discussing the
'nature ,of the .criteria and the variance promos.
Thank you for your interest in this proposed order.
Very ttuly ycOir e
Robert F. Bayer r'
. i
WBIbao
/4,7
gum
September 20, 1974
M: Marcia Norris
13222 Via - Grande Court
Saratogs,. Calif. 95070
Deter Ids. Norris:
Please be advised thatthe Saratoga City Co#mU consider your letter In relation-
ship to proposed Ordinance loo.. 38.59, pertaining to-fencing of, ewimm►ing -poole and
open bodies of water. After hearing considerable discussion on this matter, the
Council continued the public hearing to October 2, 1974, and directed the city etaff
to propose sow guidelines and eriteria that might be used by the Board of tats
for conaide►ratlon when reviewing a variance request to the proposed finance require-
meats. This information will be submitted to the City Council at the regular
meettag on October 2, 1974.
It 'to posaible that this Issue will be direcuss:ed at w Co mmittee of the Whole Meeting
on Tuesday evening, September 24th, in the Crisp Conference Nooseat City Hall.* No
formal action can be taken at that time; however, the Council will be discussing the
nature of the criteria and the variance .process.
Thank you for your interest in this proposed ordinance.
Vary truly yours.,.
Robert. F. Beyer
City manager
RFB /bsa►
a
all
A
X e) -Co
Ck-
September 20:# 1974
Mr. Bird b: Brooks
1937 0 SaratoWLas dates Rand
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
Deer Mr. Brooks;
Please be advised- that the Saratoga Cagy Council a id6red yo= letter In relation-
ship to proposed ordinance No. 38.59, pertaining to Being of swia=ing pools and
open bodies of water. ,after. hearing considerable discussion an this matter, the
C,=w1l continued the public hearing to October 2, 1974, and directed the city staff
to propose sow guNolfns and criteria that miabt be u coed by the Board of Appeals
for consideratim ubea reviewing a varlanee request to the propos" -ordimmre requi -
m uts -. The information will be submitted to the City Comeil at the regular meeting
on October 2., 1974.
It is possible that this issue wll be discussed at .a Comeiitt~ete of the Whole Meeting
on Tuesday evening,, Seer 24th =. .in the Crisp Conference Raw at City Sall. No
formal action can be taken at that time; however, the Cecil will be discussing the
nature of the crirtetts and the var a me process.
Thank you for your interest In this proposed ord name.
very truly yaws,
Robert F. Beyer
City Manager
RFB/'bee
ti
HOWARD L. BROOKS
19370 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
95070
SEPT. 12, 1974
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
SARATOGA, CA. 95070
ATT: ROBERT F. BEYER, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 3859
FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS
GENTLEMEN:
I ATTENDED PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 4TH AND HOPE THAT A
VARIANCE, EXCLUDING FENCING, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THREE
OR MORE ACRES AS DISCUSSED IN MY LETTER OF AUGUST 29, 1974,
CAN BE ALLOWED.
IF NOT, I PROPOSE THAT A THICK PRIVET HEDGE OF AT LEAST FOUR
FEET HIGH AND FIVE FEET WIDE AND A JUNIPER HEDGE THREE FEET
HIGH AND TEN FEET WIDE, NEITHER OF WHICH A CHILD CAN CRAWL
THROUGH, SHOULD CONSTITUTE A FENCE.
IF VARIANCE MENTIONED IN FIRST PARAGRAPH IS NOT PERMITTED;
SUITABLE GATES WOULD BE PROVIDED AT ACCESS POINTS. ANY
CHANGE OF THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENT WOULD OF COURSE DETRACT FROM
THE BEAUTY OF OUR LANDSCAPE.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO CHILD UNACCOMPANIED BY PARENTS
HAS EVER FOR THE PAST 26 YEARS ENTERED THE AREA INVOLVED.
VERY TRULY YOURS,'
HOWARD L .^BR90K
HLB:BC
Sept. 16, 1974
Attention members of the Sa,ratoF-:,,a City Co-uncilY
Within the ordinance re.wardinq fencing of swimming pools In
Saratopra., we,the undersipned, believe consideration should be z1ven to
these points as pa.rt of a Variance procedure:
1) Pools located on larger parcels of land
2) Where the pool is situated on the property
5) The population density of the neighborhood
4) Existing na.turql barriers
5) Special considRra,tion to bodies of water other than pools.
/11
Vh
3) ticia
15) oL. 15 3 �
0 64 ee
f 0,
0)
YLY J I
4)
September 9, 1974
Dear Citizen:
Please be advised that the City Council at its regular meeting on September 4,
1974, held a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance relating to
fencing of swimming pools. Your letter was considered at this time, as well as
testimony from several members in the audience.
After hearing comments and suggestions.concerning the proposed ordinance, the
Council voted unanimously to support proceeding with this ordinance; however,
it was felt the height requirement of the fencing should be increased to five
feet. The Council felt the variance procedure as written in the ordinance
should remain; therefore, appeals on the basis of unusual circumstances or
unnecessary hardship would be considered individually.
However, due to the unclarity of the section pertaining to definitions of fencing
requirements, the Council directed the City Attorney to insert language which
would more clearly define the intent of this section of the ordinance.
The matter was continued to the regular meeting of September 18, 1974, at which
time the revised ordinance will be considered.
Thank you for your comments.
file on this matter.
RFB /bso
Your letter will be considered as a part of the
trulr—fatj,rs,
RobZrt F. Q
City Manager
15210 Bohlman Road
Saratoga, California 95070
August 20, 1974
The Honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Subject: Proposed Ordinance No. 3859
Fencing of Swimming Pools
Public Hearing - September 4, 1974
Gentlemen:
This is to request your consideration of the following with
respect to any action you may take in adoption of the subject
proposed ordinance.
Our recommendation is a provision to exclude
requirements those swimming pools and other bodies
cated with single - family residences, the land area
ceeds a stated minimum. Our judgement would be to
property owners with three or more acres. Perhaps
to increase the minimum to four or five acres. In
feel strongly that the safety problems and hazards
when a pool is surrounded by multiple acreage.
from the fencing
of water lo-
of which ex-
exempt those
you would choose
any event we
are reduced
The concern of those people living in the more densely popu-
lated areas of the City is certainly understandable, but uni-
versal application of the ordinance to remote areas would seem
to be unneccessary.
It is recognized that the variance section of the ordinance
would be available for possible exemptions of large homesites.
However, a simple provision, based on land area, and included in
the ordinance, would be readily enforceable and would eliminate
much administrative effort.
Our own position naturally evolves from the conditions
existing on our particular piece of property, more than five
forested acres we have retained for the past 24 years for one
residence. However, the same general situation pertains to other
property owners in the City. We urge that a realistic approach
on pool fencing requirements for all such residents be considered.
Very truly yours,
J S. Lan ill
(Mrs. John S Langwill
August 30, 1974
Mayor Jerome Smith
Councilmen: Cole Bridges
John Brigham, Jr.
Rodney Diridon
Henry Kraus
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen of Saratoga:
We, the undersigned, strongly support the following concepts relative to pool
fencing in the City of Saratoga:
1. For the protection of all of our citizens — especially young children — all
swimming pools in the City of Saratoga should be adequately fenced.
2. By adequate fencing we mean a fence of at least 6 ft. in height and of
sturdy construction.
3. The fencing requirement should be retroactive so as to include all
presently existing unfenced pools but not necessarily increasing existing
fencing to the recommended 6 ft. level.
The presently recommended 31/2 ft. fence is a "cop- out ". As recent events as the
one at the San Jose Children's Zoo have shown, any toddler can get over a fence
that height. So the pool owners are being forced to pay for a gesture that is
more "eye wash" than effective.
The lives of our children are literally in your hands.
Cordially,
''' e jd, J,�,
Supporters of Adequate Pool encmg
City of Saratoga
Attachments
se
5.0
We the undersigned strongly support the following concepts relative to pool fencing in the
City of Saratoga:
1. By adequate fencing we mean a fence of at least 6 ft. in height and of sturdy construction.
2. The fencing requirement should be retroactive so as to include all presently existing
unfenced pools but not necessarily increasing existing fencing to the recommended 6 ft. level.
Date
s�a�r
g,
gv,
V2-1/—
�1a1V
st as ?7`
�Z1',0
7�7
3�a6�2�
Name
Address
.9�7 /�
l
R
We the undersigned strongly support the following concepts relative to pool fencing in the
City of Saratoga:
1. By adequate fencing we mean a fence of at least 6 ft. in height and of sturdy construction.
2. The fencing requirement should be retroactive so as to include all presently existing
unfenced pools but not necessarily increasing existing fencing to the recommended 6�vel.
Date, Name Address
Qwl '�1 '�'` I 1A 5 S r7 deacib
1 160 — —
i
?3 —;I �
7f
a�
Jr -I- - I 141
HOWARD L. BROOKS
19.170 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
95070
AUG. 290 1974
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
SARATOGA, CA. 95070
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 3859
FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS
PUBLIC HEARING - SEPTEMBER 4, 1974
GENTLEMEN:
THIS IS TO REQUEST YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING WITH
RESPECT TO ANY ACTION YOU MAY TAKE IN ADOPTION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
OUR RECOMMENDATION IS A PROVISION TO EXCLUDE FROM THE FENCING
REQUIREMENTS THOSE SWIMMING POOLS AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER LOCATED
WITH SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES, THE LAND AREA OF WHICH EXCEEDS A
STATED MINIMUM. OUR JUDGMENT WOULD BE TO EXEMPT THOSE PROPERTY
OWNERS WITH THREE OR MORE ACRES. IN ANY EVENT, WE FEEL STRONGLY
THAT THE SAFETY PROBLEMS AND HAZARDS ARE REDUCED WHEN A POOL IS
SURROUNDED BY MULTIPLE ACREAGE.
THE CONCERN OF THOSE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE MORE DENSELY POPU-
LATED AREAS OF THE CITY IS CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT UNIVERSAL
APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO REMOTE AREAS WOULD SEEM TO BE
UNNECESSARY.
IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE VARIANCE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE
WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR POSSIBLE EXEMPTIONS OF LARGE HOMESITES.
HOWEVER, A SIMPLE PROVISION, BASED ON LAND AREA, AND INCLUDED IN
THE ORDINANCE, WOULD BE READILY ENFORCEABLE AND WOULD ELIMINATE
MUCH ADMINISTRATIVE EFFORT.
OUR OWN POSITION NATURALLY EVOLVES FROM THE CONDITIONS
EXISTING ON OUR PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, MORE THAN FOUR
FORESTED ACRES WE HAVE RETAINED FOR THE PAST 26 YEARS FOR ONE
RESIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE SAME GENERAL SITUATION PERTAINS TO OTHER
PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CITY. WE URGE THAT A REALISTIC APPROACH
ON POOL FENCING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL SUCH RESIDENTS BE CONSIDERED.
VERY TRUE YOURS
f
H D L. BROOKS
,�-
(MRS.) HOWARD L. BROOKS
��; ��yy
��
�.�a..:�_- �1 E �-i
.•� ��
� ,/
.,
f ,
i �
'i � /
-; �, � � �i
�� , �
/ � / `
� / / / // � i
1 ,� � � � ,
i ,� i ��
� � ��
/ � � � �
� • / � i
�, � i / / � �
i i � � i 1 �
i �
r �"
i
� � i � � / �
/i
� �/ �� �
A
/ / /
i �
/�
< / ,� / �
Nancy Ellen Yeargain
14300 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
1191 Ili?
�1 —-
c
�� S
���i4 -, � 9 a� p
�oG,.�K- o-n�- n�.a -�
September 4, 1974
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga., California 95070
Dear Sirs:
In reference to the proposed ordinance to the City
Code regarding the fencing of swimming pools, we hereby
request exclusion for the following reasons:
We built our own pool twenty -eight years ago in complete
country atmosphere, it being the third pool to be built in
Saratoga.
As we are still in a secluded, wooded, creek area, all
of the wild animals use our pool as the only source of
water for their existanee.
To our knowledge, we have living in our canyon area
at least 7 deer, 4 foxes, 2 coyotes, 6 raccoons, and
many skunks and squirrels who come regularly to our
" Watering Hole".
In spite of the phenomenal growth in Saratoga, surely
one of the few remaining corners of country atmosphere
should be left for the viewers, neighbors, owners, and
animals to enjoy.
Please - -- "Don't Fence Us In :"
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Allan Boyce
20900 Boyce bane
Saratoga, California.
PF.TTTTCIN
We the undersigned support the proposal of a pool -fence ordinance within the City
of Saratoga, California. Our aim is to safeguard the lives of young children against
possible drdN4ing in unprotected neighborhood pools!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
17.
/7
18l
19.
20.
21.
22.
r.
23
24.
25. ,'� -71 2 2
STREET ADDRESS
cy /�'�
IL
TELEPHONE
c?6 2--0/coo
A, -7 - 40 6)
Sd_o r b g
�l- IZA3
3
/2_7 5"�
7 t
g4Q
,; � 7 S99 9
•" i`d,
�1 ) z ^Lid'" :�c
T T TTT T/1TT
We the undersigned support the proposal of a pool -fence ordinance within the City
of Saratoga, California. Our aim is to safeguard the lives of young children against
possible drawing in unprotected neighborhood pools!
NAME
5.
6•
S
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
STREET ADDRESS
I7 1 a V, 4;'
7- 511
TELEPHONE
PETITION
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME nnnR�+ce
�E
v.
v
ti
k:>
r V
0
IX600 V
-� 3 a
lu�jr FaA (p4e
�e.
a
I
PL'I'ITI0N
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME
.r
G
ADDRESS
Jc 6 4-
X�'
PETITION
As resid,�nts and voters of ;:he City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME ADDRESS
ti
M
� b
�„ v ��
�G > -c sc>
,�� �
PETITION
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME
Orm f
n
ADDRESS
MRAO WFMIAM.
I
2.6 IYArAW
r
Di4TTTTnAT
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME
ADDRESS
v�,
2 0 ,
55-4"M.
• � ire _ _ }�' / %'!�'1,a Ci/J .i , / �/��i � i � it .i ,
PETITION
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
ADDRESS
PETITION
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME
C
�o
ADDRESS
S�
PETITION
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME /- ADDRESS
Oor
3Z
0
�l
L�
As residents and voters of the City of Saratoga, we wish
to protest mandatory fencing for all swimming pool owners
in this City.
NAME ADDRESS
ac
PETITION
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Santa Clara
I am a citizen of the United States and a resi-
dent of the County aforesaid; I a m over the age
of eighteen years, and not a party to or inter-
e s t e d in the above - entitled 'matter. I am t he
publisher o f the Saratoga N e w s, a newspaper
of general circulation, pr int e d and published
weekly in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa
Clara, and which newspaper has been adjudged
a newspaper of general circulation by the
S u p e r i o r Court of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California, under the date of Nov.
26, 1957, Case Number 105852; that the notice,
of which the annexed is a printed c o p y (s e t in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each r e g u l a r and entire iss lie of
said newspaper and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to -wit:
....... !..... ..........................
all in the year 19... .
I certify (or declare) u de r penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at.. ............
Califor ia, th' ay o .. , 19/,7.
..... 1 ....... A -AWf F .v. F • A V 4- r /.r . . ... .. .. . .. . .
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
yam: -,�.
Paste Clipping
of Notice
SECURELY
InThis Space
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF HEARING
Before City Council
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIyENthatthe
City C l e r k and Ex- officio Clerk of
the Saratoga City C o u n c i 1, State of
California; has set the hour of 8:00 P.
M. on Wednesday, the 4th day of Sep-
tember, 1974, inthe City Council
Chambers, at 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga, California, as the time and
place for public hearing to consider:
ORDINANCE NO. 38.59 - An Ordi-
nance of the City of Saratoga Amend-
ing Chapter 3 of the Saratoga City
Code by Adding Article VII Thereof,
Captioned "Miscellaneous Provi-
sions", and Adding Section 3 -50
Thereto, Re: Fencing of Swimming
Pools and Open Bodies of Water.
A copy of which proposed Ordinance
is on file at the office of the Saratoga
City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga, California.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS may
appear and be heard at said time and
place. Written communications
should be filed on or before Friday,
August 30, 1974.
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT F. BEYER,
CITY CLERK
Pub Aug 28, 1974
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
R E F E R R A L
TO: Building Official Date:
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Preparation of Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinance
Meeting of July 9. 1974 Action Taken:
Referred to: Don Barris
July 10, 1974
Comments: Please provide the necessary information to the City Attorney and
ask him to prepare a "swimming pool fencing ordinance" in conformance with
the discussion held with the, City Council on July 9th. It was my under-_
standing, and it was the consensus of the Council, that there should be
an ordinance which would provide for fencing, as recommended ip your
memorandum to me, dated June 13, 1974. Also, it should provide for retro-
activity; i.e. 6 months for compliance by those parties that do not now
have fences.
Please review this matter wito the City Attorney and ask him to
prepare an ordinance as soon ga feasibly possible.
Robert F.. Beyer
W
P&
yt
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO PASS AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ADEQUATE
FENCING PROTECTION AROUND SWIMMING POOLS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
WE URGE IMMEDIATE AND SPEEDY ACTION IN THIS MATTER BEFORE SARATOGA
SUFFERS ITS FIRST CHILD DROWNING.
NAME ADDRESS
c ej-.k
'7L4-
7�!�2
5-3
6.
7.
8.
9. - --
10. - ------
12-
13.f---
ecl-4
14.
16
17.
18.
6---
4t
20---
74 i
21