Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1987 City Council Agenda packetFiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Proposed resolution. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 4 0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /a 4'1. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: CITY MGR. APPROVAL 4(flo ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney s-30 Recommended Motion: Adoption of resolution extending expiration date to March 21, 1988. Report Summary: During September of last year, the City executed a Settlement Agreement with Anthony Cocciardi, Allen Chadwick, et al., which represents the cornerstone of the Quarry Creek /Quarry Road Repair Project. The Settlement Agreement covered both the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision (SD -1356) and the Cocciardi /Chadwick Subdivision (SD- 1368). The developers initially concentrated their efforts upon the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision and a conditional final map approval has been granted by the City with respect to that project. They are now focusing their efforts on satisfying the requirements for final map approval on the Cocciardi /Chadwick Subdivision. Because this matter has essentially been held in abeyance during the negotiations pertaining to the Quarry Creek /Quarry Road Repair Project, final map approval cannot be obtained before the scheduled expiration date of the tentative map. Consequently, the developers have requested a further extension of time for a period of one year. The extension is based upon Government Code Section 66452.6(c), which allows the Council to stay the running of time by reason of pending litigation involving the subdivision. This is the same process we have previously used for extending the tentative approval granted to Lauren Hulse. The granting of final map approval for the number of lots shown on the original tentative map for SD -1368 constitutes part of the consideration to be received by these developers for participation in the Quarry Creek /Quarry Road Repair Project. The staff therefore recommends that the request for extension be granted. SUBJECT: Extension of time on expiration of tentative map approval for SD -1368 (Chadwick /Cocciardi Subdivision) RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA STAYING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR EXPIRATION OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL FOR SD -1368 WHEREAS, ALLEN CHADWICK and ANTHONY COCCIARDI "Developers applied to the City of Saratoga for tentative map approval to divide that certain real property located at Old Oak and Chiquita Way into eleven lots, such application being identified as SD -1368; and WHEREAS, tentative map approval was granted by the City on or about February 13, 1980; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 1983, Developers commenced a lawsuit against the City in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C -83- 20317, pertaining to the application of the initiative ordinance known as Measure A to SD -1368; and WHEREAS, a settlement of said lawsuit has been negotiated between the City and Developers, as set forth in that certain Stipulation for Settlement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.6(c) of the California Government Code, Developers have applied to the City for a stay on the period of time otherwise provided for expiration of SD -1368, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE SOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AS FOLLOWS: 1. By reason of the pending litigation between the City and Developers involving SD -1368 and pursuant to the authority granted under Section 66452.6(c) of the Government Code, a stay is hereby approved for a period of twelve (12) months, commencing as of the expiration date otherwise applicable to SD -1368, and terminating on March 21, 1988. 2. The stay granted herein shall not alter or amend the terms of the Settlement Agreement executed between the City and Developers attached hereto as Exhibit "A." AYES: NOES: Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 v 15 0 16 N3 z 17 a g c o o u u- 18 x m w om�03 19 O W W q m o3 20 m 21 Q 3- O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 HAROLD S. TOPPEL, Esq. Saratoga City Attorney 660 West Dana Street P. O. Box 279 Mountain View, CA 94042 Telephone: (415) 967 -6941 Attorneys for Defendants ORIG;N I r-ILE SE c, 1988 NORTHERN U DIS TR I �'t E N D:ST ^T Of CAOUTa- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5. �os_ FOF,N,�A NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEN CHADWICK, et al., Plaintiffs, Vs. CITY OF SARATOGA, et al., Defendants. See Stipulation for Settlement attached hereto. NO. C -83 -20317 WAI STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT This Stipulation for Settlement "Agreement by and between ANTHONY COCCIARDI and MARY COCCIARDI "Cocciardi ALLEN CHADWICK and CAROLYN COCCIARDI "Chadwick /Cocciardi HARBOR BUILDERS CO., INC., a California corporation "Harbor Builders (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owners and the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "City is made with reference to the following facts: A. Cocciardi was the owner of approximately 43 acres of real property (the "Cocciardi Property located within the Northwestern Hillside area of the City of Saratoga "Northwestern Hillside B. Cocciardi filed an application with City for approval of a tentative map for the Cocciardi Property, identified as Application No. SD 1356, and on or about February 13, 1980, City approved a tentative map for the Cocciardi Property providing for 23 lots and, as part of such approval, imposing certain conditions to be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map. C. Chadwick /Cocciardi is the owner of approximately 51 acres of real property (the "Chadwick /Cocciardi Property located within the Northwestern Hillside. D. Chadwick /Cocciardi filed an application with City for approval of a tentative map for the Chadwick /Cocciardi Property, identified as Application No. SD 1368, and on or about February 13, 1980, City approved a tentative map for the Chadwick /Cocciardi Property providing for 11 lots and, as part of such approval, imposing certain conditions to be satisfied prior to recordation. of a final map. E. On April 8, 1980, the citizens of Saratoga passed an initiative ordinance, commonly known as Measure A, which became effective on April 25, 1980, and which pertains to the Northwestern Hillside, including the respective properties of Owners. F. Section 7 of Measure A states in part: "Pending final completion of the requirements of Section 3, no zoning changes, land divisions, subdivisions, building or grading permits for construction of a new residence, or other land development approvals of any kind shall be issued in the subject area, nor any applications accepted therefor; provided, that upon a showing of extreme hardship and in agreement with the provisions of this initiative, exceptions may be granted after two noticed public hearings by a 4 /5ths vote of the City Council" Section 3 of Measure A also states in pertinent part: "The City of Saratoga shall within one year from the effective date of this ordinance, or as soon thereafter as feasible, complete a comprehensive review of all development issues in the subject area and adopt a Specific Plan for the area pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65450 65553, incorporating the standards set forth in Section 4 below, and all policies and regulations required to implement said Plan." G. On June 7, 1981, pursuant to and consistent with Measure A and Sections 65450 -65553 of the Government Code, City adopted the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan "Specific Plan and on April 27, 1982, pursuant to and consistent with the Specific Plan, City enacted Ordinance NS -3.47 establishing zoning regulations for the Northwestern Hillside "NHR Zoning Regulations being the area covered by Measure A and the Specific Plan. Measure A, the Specific Plan and Ordinance NS -3.47 reduced the density of development below the number of lots shown on the tentative maps for SD 1356 and SD 1368. H. City has contended and still contends that SD 1356 and SD 1368 are subject to all provisions of Measure A, the Specific Plan and Ordinance NS -3.47, including the density provisions thereof, whereas Owners have contended and still contend they are entitled to divide their property in accordance with the approved tentative maps for SD 1356 and SD 1368, upon compliance with all conditions for final map approval and that they are further entitled to building permits authorizing the construction of a single family residence upon each of the lots shown on said maps. I. On October 20, 1983, Cocciardi commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Cocciardi; et al., vs. City of Saratoga, et al., Case No. C- 83- 20316 WAI (the "Cocciardi Lawsuit J. On October 20, 1983, Chadwick /Cocciardi commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Chadwick, et al., vs. City of Saratoga, et al., Case No. C -83 -20317 WAI (the "Chadwick Cocciardi Lawsuit K. By stipulation between the parties, no responsive pleading has been filed by City in either the Cocciardi Lawsuit or the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit. The City has denied and continues to deny each and every allegation of the plaintiffs in said lawsuits, as to all issues and in all respects. L. The Cocciardi Property has recently been purchased by Harbor Builders, which is now the owner thereof and the successor in interest to Cocciardi with respect to said property. M. Without admitting the validity of any of the contentions which have, or might have been made by any of them, the parties to this Agreement desire and intend fully and finally to compromise and to settle all such contentions and other matters in controversy among them. N. Civil Code Section 1542 provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." 0. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding concerning the subject matter between the parties to this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations and proposed agreements, written and oral. Each of the parties hereto acknowledges that no other party, nor the agents nor attorneys of any other party, has made any promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not contained herein to induce the execution of this Agreement, and acknowledges that this Agreement has not been executed in reliance upon any promise, representation, or warranty not contained herein. P. In addition to the settlement of all matters in controversy with respect to the Cocciardi Lawsuit and the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit set forth above, the parties hereto desire to settle all other claims, demands and causes of action which may exist between them whether known, unknown, or suspected, except as they may arise from this Agreement. -3- Q. All of the parties to this Agreement hereby acknowledge that they have either been represented by independent counsel of their own choice throughout all negotiations which preceded the execution of this Agreement or have voluntarily elected not to retain counsel, and that they have either executed this Agreement with the consent of, and upon the advice of, their own counsel, or had sufficient opportunity to seek such advice. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. Recitals A through Q are incorporated herein by reference. 2. In consideration of the additional public improvements to be constructed by Owners, as described in Paragraph 5 below, and dismissal by Owners of their respective lawsuits, with prejudice, as to all claims and all defendants, and subject to compliance by Owners with the terms of this Agreement and the tentative map conditions set forth in SD 1356 and SD 1368, City agrees to grant final map approval for the subdivision of the Cocciardi Property into 23 lots, in accordance with the tentative map as originally approved by City for SD 1356, and to grant final map approval for the subdivision of the Chadwick /Cocciardi Property into 11 lots, in accordance with the tentative map as originally approved by City for SD 1368. City further agrees to process applications and issue building and grading permits and other approvals as may be necessary for the construction of a single family dwelling and accessory uses .appurtenant thereto upon each of such lots, conditioned upon prior design review approval thereof and compliance by Owners with all applicable provisions of City's zoning and other ordinances, except for the density and setback provisions of the NHR Zoning Regulations and the Specific Plan. 3. From and after the effective date of this Agreement, neither City nor Owners shall prosecute the Cocciardi Lawsuit or the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit, nor shall Owners commence any new action concerning the subject matter of said lawsuits and this Agreement. Owners may, within two (2) years from the date hereof, reactivate either or both of said lawsuits in the event City fails to perform any material provision of this Agreement and such lawsuits have not previously been dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with Paragraph 4 hereof. 4. Concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, Cocciardi and Chadwick Cocciardi shall each execute an unconditional dismissal of their respective -4-- lawsuits, with prejudice, as to all claims and all defendants. The dismissals shall be held in trust by counsel for City and shall not be filed except as follows: (a) Upon the expiration of one (1) year after the granting by City of final map approval for SD 1356, or upon issuance by City of a building permit for construction of a single family dwelling upon any lot within the Cocciardi Property, whichever shall first occur, counsel for City shall be authorized to file the dismissal of the Cocciardi Lawsuit. (b) Upon the expiration of one (1) year after the granting by City of final map approval for SD 1368, or upon the issuance by City of a building permit for construction of a single family dwelling upon any lot within the Chadwick Cocciardi Property, whichever shall first occur, counsel for City shall be authorized to file the dismissal of the Chadwick Cocciardi Lawsuit. 5. In addition to any and all other requirements to be satisfied by Owners for final map approval, as contained in SD 1356 and SD 1368, and subject to the conditions as set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement, Owners agree to construct and install the improvements and repairs to Quarry Creek and Quarry Road (the "Repair Project in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by Terratech, Inc., Mason -Sulic and George Sicular, consisting generally of the construction of a buttress to fill Quarry Creek to a height of approximately twenty feet, the installation within such buttress of drainage facilities, the reconstruction of Quarry Road, and such landslide repair and other work in connection therewith as recommended by the geologists, geotechnic engineers, civil engineers and hydrologist currently working on the Repair Project. All construction and repairs shall be performed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by City and its geologist. In the event Owners have satisfied all other conditions for final map approval for SD 1356, and provided that all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement have been satisfied, Owners agree to commence work on the Repair Project no later than as soon as weather conditions permit in 1987, if such project cannot be commenced and completed in 1986. As a condition for granting final map approval for SD 1356 prior to completion of the Repair Project, Owners shall enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement with City providing for the completion of the Repair Project within such period of time as agreed upon by City. Owners' performance under such Deferred Improvement Agreement shall be secured by a cash deposit, letter of credit or other security satisfactory to City, in an amount equal to at least one and one -half times the estimated amount of Owners' remaining contribution to the Repair Project as of the time such Agreement is executed. Upon the execution of such Deferred Improvement Agreement and the deposit with City of -5- the security required thereunder, City shall grant the final map approval for SD 1356. All construction work on the Repair Project shall be guaranteed by Owners against defects in material or workmanship for &period of one (1) year after the date of completion. Final map approval for SD Will be processed by City after final map approval for SD 1356 is granted. 6. The mutual obligations of the parties to this Agreement are subject to each of the following conditions: (a) The approval by Owners and by City of the final plans and specifications for the Repair Project, and Owners approval of the estimated cost thereof. (b) The contribution by persons other than Owners of amounts aggregating at least $351,750.00 to be applied toward payment of the costs of the Repair Project, including engineering fees and geotechnic studies. If a lesser amount is offered for contribution, Owners may voluntarily elect to waive this condition and proceed with the Repair Project. (c) Owners and City each having been released from any and all actual or potential liability claims asserted against them by third party claimants pertaining to Quarry Creek and Quarry Road. Such claims include the subrogated rights of insurance carriers. 7. City land from which the "Borrow Site With the Borrow Site, City (a) (d) City having obtained from the property owners who reside on Old Oak Way, at no cost to City, all consents as may be required for performance of the Repair Project, as finally designed. (e) A determination having been made by Judge Williams that notwithstanding the elimination of an access road to Mt. Eden, as shown on the original tentative map for SD 1356, and the consequent realignment of lot lines, a final map with such modifications would still be in substantial compliance with the tentative map. acknowledges that Cocciardi intends to subdivide the parcel of fill material will be taken for use in the Repair Project (the respect to any application for tentative map approval covering agrees as follows: The average slope of the Borrow Site will be calculated on the basis of contour lines as established after all grading and earth removal for the Repair Project has been completed. Except as herein provided, the tentative map application will be processed in accordance with the current NHR Zoning Regulations, including the slope /density formula contained therein. (b) The City will take such actions as may be required and permitted under State law for cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract which is now applicable to the Borrow Site. (c) The boundary lines of the proposed subdivision .may be determined by Owners and such lines need not correspond with property lines as they now exist, subject, however, to the following conditions: (1) All existing parcels or lots of record constituting any portion of the subdivision shall be shown on the map and those areas which are not included within the subdivision shall be so designated. (2) No portion of the subdivision shall include the Cocciardi quarry. 8. City agrees that Cocciardi shall not be obligated to reimburse City for engineering fees advanced under the Interim Agreement between City and Cocciardi and said Interim Agreement is hereby cancelled. City expressly reserves the right to seek contribution from parties other than Cocciardi for any portion or all of the engineering fees and repair costs advanced by City or its insurance carriers relating to the Repair Project and the Vaquero Court Study. 9. As a further consideration for City's approval of the final map for SD 1356 and SD 1368, Owners hereby agree that each of the lots therein shall be subject to a Development Impact Fee to be payable at the time a building permit is issued for the construction of a single family dwelling upon each lot, as required under the ordinance adopted by City providing for the payment of such fee. 10. Owners hereby stipulate that Measure A is a valid and enforceable initiative approved by the citizens of the City of Saratoga and that the Specific Plan and the NHR Zoning Regulations are valid and enforceable. This stipulation shall be of no force or effect in the event of City's breach of this Agreement. 11. Owners and City shall bear his, her or its own attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of the Cocciardi Lawsuit and the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit and the negotiation and preparation of this Stipulation for Settlement. 12. Conditioned upon full performance of this Agreement by all parties: (a) Owners, on behalf of themselves and their respective agents, representatives, attorneys, employees, insurance carriers, successors and assigns, do hereby release City, the former and present members of the City Council, their officials, officers, agents, representatives, employees, attorneys and their insurance carriers, from any and all claims, demands and /or causes of action which may exist between them, whether known, unknown, or suspected, and Owners hereby waive the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542 set forth in Recital N above. The release of unknown claims contained in this Paragraph 12(a) is a separate consideration for the release contained in Paragraph 12(b) hereof and Owners would not have executed this Agreement or agreed to this Paragraph 12(a) but for the release contained in Paragraph 12(b). (b) City, on behalf of itself and its officials, officers, agents, representatives, employees, attorneys and insurance carriers, does hereby release Owners from all claims, demands and /or causes of action which may exist between them, whether known or unknown or suspected and City hereby waives the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542 set forth in Recital N above. The release of unknown claims contained in this Paragraph 12(b) is a separate consideration for the release contained in Paragraph 12(a) hereof and City would not have executed this Agreement or agreed to this Paragraph 12(b) but for the release contained in Paragraph 12(a). 13. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in writing referring hereto, signed by the parties. Such amendment must specifically state that it is an amendment to this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended orally or otherwise than as set forth in this Paragraph 13. 14. Owners shall have the right to assign all or any part of their rights or obligations under this Agreement, subject to prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 15. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. Other than the parties hereto and their heirs, successors and assigns, and the attorneys of record in the Cocciardi Lawsuit and Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit, no third person shall be entitled, directly or indirectly, to base any claim or have any right arising from or related to this Agreement. 16. If it becomes necessary to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement or to declare rights hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation in addition to any other relief to which he, she or it may be entitled. 17. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which it is last signed by all parties. It may be signed in one or more counterparts and, when all parties have signed the original or counterpart, such counterparts together shall constitute one original document. When so signed, this Agreement may be filed with the Court as a Stipulation for Settlement, but the effectiveness of this Agreement does not depend upon Court approval or any Court order or orders. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: -PP VED AS TO FORM SUBSTANC g 9/3/ E'!o 7 9/3/86 r G RGE P. TOBIN Attorney for Owners OWNERS: ANTHONY COCCIARDI CAROLYN CCIARDI HARBOR BUILDERS CO., Inc., a Calif or poration By THOMAS BURKE Dated: THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (7914'e wt 1)P.t.. 3 I l 9 86 By ED ASTOF M ST 4A 1..‘■ HAROLD S. TOPPE City Attorney Attest: City Clerk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Ja MEETING DATE: March 18, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: Proposal to Close Portions of Highway 9 on June 7 for Blossom Festival Recommended Motion: Approve request conditioned on: o The City obtaining an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS o Full compliance with the City's Special Events Ordinance with emphasis on the requirements to additionally insure the City on the date of the event, and pay for any additional law enforcement personnel required as a result of the event. Report Summary: This year, the Saratoga Village Merchants Association and the Chamber of Commerce will be jointly sponsoring the Blossom Festival, which has been scheduled for Sunday, June 7, 1987. They would like to hold the festival in the street on Big Basin Way (as they did in 1985), and have requested permission to close Big Basin Way between Blaney Plaza and Fourth Street fiuiu 7:00 a.m. to "6:00 p.m. The event would be open to the public from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: a. Summary of Special Events Ordinance Conditions b. Letter dated February 11, 1987, requesting street closure c. Map showing extent of closure Motion and Vote: 3/18: Staff recommendation 4 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4-8 Summary of. Conditions Special Event Permit City of Saratoga A. $50 non refundable filing fee. B. $250 fully refundable clean -up deposit. C. Estimated number of participants at event. D. A traffic plan approved by the Sheriff indicating: 1. How traffic will be routed around event. 2. Parking arrangements for those attending event. 3. Provisions for emergency vehicle traffic. E. Proposed sanitary facilities to accommodate event participants. F. Identification of food and beverages available at the event, including how each will be prepared and handled. G. Description of all sales activity including the identity of all vendors, and the location of any booths and pushcarts. H. Description of the nature and locations of any loud speakers. I. Method of notifying participants of permit conditions. "Broad form" comprehensive general liability insurance pro- viding occurrence coverage of not less than $300,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, naming the City, and its officers, officials employees, and volunteers as insureds thereunder. K. Reimbursement to the City for all expenses associated with security, traffic control, and law enforcement expenses associated with the event. J. Orig: TWA 3/10/87 Todd Argow City Of Saratoga 137 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408)867 -3438 SUBJECT: "Saratoga Blossom Festival "(a tradition since 1893) DATE; June 7th 1987 Sunday TIME: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. WHERE: On Big Basin Way between Blaney Plaza and 5th Street) SPONSORED BY: Saratoga Chamber Of Commerce FESTIVAL CHAIRMEN: Bill Carlson/ Marilyn White Dear Mr` fIArgow, The Saratoga Chamber Of Commerce requestSpermission to close off Big Basin Way (Hyw. 9 to motor vehicles on Sunday June 7th 1987 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. starting at Blaney Plaza and continu 'ing to 6th Street, (see map e.nclo sed 4 e A,.."0 4 1 I1 p- 7"a4c4 Through traffic can be detoured tia Oak Street to St. Charles to 6th Street back to Big Basin Way. The Saratoga_ Chamberof Commerce appreciateSany help you can lend in obtaining this request. Thank you for your cooperation. 14503 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741 -5115 February 11,1987 Yours truly Bill Carlson- Chairman c/o Bella Mia Restaurant 14503 Big Basin Way Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408) 741 -5115 Ea R21GAPlE 6MERGF ICS CLEARAwce F1ESTiVA1. AREA tk�Tnitit Rn v -ir< Oak Street Wildwood Park C 1 25 26 27 28 ibmuzicorm a4 83 S 1 E'TiVt. AMA 0 PeToVit. Ro v t-eS 81 80 79 If l i• 32 mmt f E uc9 CLEARAMce Efl Oak Street 3433 1 t 79 Wildwood Pc rk 45 4—+ 65 64 63 46 47 49 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL SDR -1620 BAINTER AVENUE GEORGE HWANG (1 Lot) Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 1620 -02 .attached, approving Final Map for SDR 1620. Authorize execution of building site agreement. Repoft Summary: 1. SDR 1620 is ready for final approval. 2. All bonds and agreements have been submitted to the City. 3. Requirements for the City and other agencies have been met. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: None. 3 -18 -87 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ENGINEERING 1. Resolution nO. 1620 -02. `2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 4 0. AGENDA ITEM S'30 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SECTION 1: by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 1620 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF George Hwang The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 3.338 Acres Parcel showti. as Parcel "A ".onthe Final Map prepared by J. J. Heiss, Inc. and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga be approved as one individual building site The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular a meeting held on the day of 19 MAYOR r NOES: None ABSENT: None ATT ST: 11/1, Sec tary, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO, SDR- 1620 -1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF. George Hwang, 19288 Bainter Avenue WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratogai'for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 1 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -1620 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im- provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified in suoh General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated May 28, 1986 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the C M/4416/0l04/1/SiOinjltlibr6 (Et) (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 8th day of May 19 86 and is marked Exhibit B .7E7 the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby con- ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted. by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 2Rth day of May 19 86 at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Burger, Guch, Harris, Peterson, Pines, Siegfried ADVISORY AGENCY B Chairman, Planning CQmmissio.n SDR -1620 EXHIBIT "A" I. GENERAL. CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health. Department regu- lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby' made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ENGINEERING DIVISION A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. D. Underground existing overhead utilities. E. Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse. F. Construct access road 16 ft. wide (including 1 ft. shoulders) using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from private cul -de- sac to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.. Road may be reduced in width to avoid the adobe building as approved by the City Engineer. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 12 -1/2% and, 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 1S% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 1 SDR -1620 Exhibit "A" (cont.) Page 2 3. Access roads having a slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not permitted. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. G. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. K. Engineered Improvements required for: 1. Access Road Construction L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional. 1. Soils 2. Foundation Investigation /Design 6. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 4. Erosion control measures 2 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT 3 SDR -1620 Exhibit "A" (cont.) Page 3 5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record date, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service. to be provided and fees paid 0 accor- dance with requirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4. A. Provide one (1) fire hydrant, so located that no part of any residential structure shall be farther than 500' from at least one (1) hydrant and the fire protection shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gallons per minute of water. Water storage or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the 1,000 gpm shall be sustained for a period of two (2) hours. B. The required fire hydrant installation shall be tested and accepted by the Central Fire Protection District prior to issuance of a buliding permit. Any required fees shall be paid. C. The property is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" and the building(s) shall be provided with fire retardant' roof covering(s). An early warning fire reporting system is to be Installed throughout the residence (Section 15- 80.090) and connected to the Saratoga Fire, Department central monitoring station. Location of the detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. D. Provide an improved access road for fire protection vehicles to a width of 16 ft., (shoulders of one -foot (1') on each side.) VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accor- dance with Environmental Health Standards. Contact Sanitation District for final inspection upon completion. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration. ••r SDR -1620 Exhibit "A" (cont.) VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION A. All conditions of the 3/27/86 City Geologist report shall be met. Page 4 B. Prior to issuance of permits, all requirements of design review (Resolution A- 1176 -1) shall be met. C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. D. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. E. All existing structures on site shall be removed or bonded for removal prior to final map approval, unless the structures are found to be historically significant. F. Any waterlines to adjacent properties effected by the project shall be relocated and an easement provided, as appropriate. G. Grading shall not exceed 1810 cubic yards. H. Maximum size of the structures shall be 6664 sq. ft. 4 • jJ' i 1 I?.. � �9Tos ►NY 1 � ..; .' AUSTIN B�4 /NlE�Q ASE QRi / �Q HIDDEN 5 SITE VICINITY MAP`_ • jJ' ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 0 41 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 18, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Tax Reform Act of 1986 Impact on Utility Undergrounding and Utility Provision Recommended Motion: Seek relief from the provisions of Section 824 of the Tax Reform Act which taxes gross revenue contributions to construct new facilities and to convert existing overhead facilities to underground from the Congress, the PUC and P.G. &E. Attachments: 1. Staff report dated March 13, 1987 2. Dr. Sturla's letter dated March 2, 1987 3. P.G. &E. letter dated February 11, 1987 4. Section 824 of the Tax Reform Act 5. San Diego Union Article of February 4, 1987 6. Calculation of Tax to cover Section 824 requirement X0 20 2 Report Summary: Section 824 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act has resulted in P.G. &E. increasing its charges for construction of services by 75% to cover estimated State and Federal income taxes._ This provision not only greatly increases the cost of construction of private develop- ment, it threatens to greatly increase the cost of utility districts in the Western Hillside area undergrounding districts and City undergrounding programs as well as compliance with the City's underground utility ordinance. Long range costs to underground utilities could increase by several hundred thousand dollars. Motion and Vote: 3/18; Consensus for staff recommendation and to approve Dr. Sturla's recommendation. March 13, 1987 To: City Council From: City Manager Subject: Tax Reform Act of 1986 Impact on Utility Undergrounding and Utility Provision RECOMENDEDICTION Communicate the City's concerns to P.G.&E., the PUC, the State Legislature, the Congress and the League of Cities asking them to take the necessary steps to establish policies and /or seek clarifying legislation which would only apply the law to the extension of services, not conversions of existing overhead facilities, and to treat the revenue as taxable on a gross profit basis not a gross income basis. BAGKQtOUND Section 824 contributions utility and provision of December 31, (Sec. 118(b)) 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson of the Act requires a corporate regulated public utility treat in aid of construction as a contribution to the capital of the therefore as part of gross income for taxing purposes. This the Act became effective for all contributions received after 1986. Section 824 repealed the provision of the previous law which excluded such contributions from gross income. As you know, it is common practice for the developer of a property to pay for the installation and extension of utilities to the property to be served. Also, under the Saratoga Municipal Code, developers of property served by overhead utilities are required to convert these to underground service as a benefit of the public as a whole. Similarly, the creation of undergrounding districts and undergrounding of utilities under set aside funds may also be impacted by this new section of the Tax Law. ANALYSIS The magnitude of these impacts is considerable. The effects relative to Saratoga are immediate and concrete. A specific example will help to illustrate. Dr. Warren Sturla is in the midst of completing construction of a small office building on Cox Avenue just easterly of Saratoga Creek. Condition E of his Site Development Review requires the undergrounding of the existing power lines on Cox in the vicinity of the project. This is to comply with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Under the previous tax law Dr. Sturla would have been required to pay P.G.&E. $90,000 to construct the conversion. Under the new law that price goes up $67,500. Subject: Tax Reform Act of 1986 Page 2 Impact on Utility Undergrounding and Utility Provision A similar situation may exist with the water district planned for the western hillside area of the City. If assessments are suddenly going to be 7570 higher, real problems exist in terms of the viability of putting an assessment district together. As to where to fix the responsibility for the situation as I now understand it, this is where things begin to get complicated. An article appearing in the February 4, 1987, edition of the San Diego Union implies that this is an issue for the PUC to address. From the little I have read, I question the application of that Section of the Act where the money received is to underground existing facilities not the provision of facilities onto properties which were not previously served. Also, the provision of underground districts and the use of underground money certainly seem to me to meet the "benefit of the public as a whole" test suggested by the Act. If such is the case, then P.G.&E. should be asked to clarify their use of this new provision, and the Congress should be asked to clean -up the legislation so its application is clear. In a normal business environment one pays taxes on a gross profit, not gross income. This provision seems to violate that idea. But the utility business is special in many respects so I am not certain this presumption is correct. I think this provision also creates discrimination in costing where utilities are provided by goverment rather than the private sector. People developing in cities which provide utility service will not have to face the same level of costs as people developing in cities where utilities are provided by regulated public utility companies. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS If this new provision in the tax law is allowed to remain as currently interpreted by P.G.&E., it will significantly impact the cost of development in Saratoga, in most parts of the County, in California and across the country. It could severely impact programs such as undergrounding existing utilities, in which Saratoga has a vital interest, and make our undergrounding ordinance difficult to follow because of the adverse economic impacts. For these reasons, and for equity reasons, Saratoga should seek clarification and adju tment to the law from P.G.&E., the PUC and the Congress. rry R. s -acock jm Attachments March 2, 1987 From: Warren Sturla 20100 Chateau Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 To: Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REF: SDR 1545 Resolution: 1545 -02 Specific Condition E of SDR 1545 dated March 28, 1984 requires undergrounding of existing utilities. Recent decisions by PG &E with regard to the 1986 Tax Reform Act have added an awesome additional 75% to the cost of compliance. I understand that the City of Saratoga (as well as other governmental agencies) may seek an interpretation of this ruling which in turn may effect their policy or even the ruling itself- a process that may take some considerable time. I would like to appeal this condition and propose the following alternative: 1. 19100 Cox Avenue to take power from existing overhead as an interim condition. 2. That the requirement to underground the existing utilities be tied to the adjacent 1.2 acres (owned by applicant) which is shown on accompanying plots as Parcel II. Said requirement to be executed within 5 years or when this property is developed whichever occurs first. This proposal would not jeopardize the City's position and would give the applicant the advantage of any changes in the ruling or its interpretation. Sincerely, Warren Sturla Enclosures: 1. 4 copies PG &E proposal. 2. 2 plots and 11 reductions 3. Report to Planning Commission dated March 28, 1984. 4. Copy of resolution #1545 -02 dated September 18, 1985. 5. Notice of resolution dated September 23, 1985. 6. Check in the amount of $300. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 10900 NO. BLANEY AVENUE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 (408) 973.8930 February 11, 1987 Dr. Warren Sturla 12948 Village Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Dr. Sturla: We have completed a preliminary review of your request to underground the overhead pole line at Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek Road. The preliminary estimate of costs associated with converting approximately 755 feet of overhead electric distribution facilites and transmission circuits to underground is $157,500 The undergrounding conversion would be done in accordance with our Electric Rule 20C, copy attached. The costs stated in this letter are preliminary costs and are submitted for initial discussion purposes only. They are applicable for a 90 day period from the date of this letter and they are not offered as a firm quotation. Final and firm cost figures will be developed and definite contracts prepared after the job is engineered. If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 725 -2098. Sincerely, John H. Leach New Business Representative Attachment *$90,000 Construction Estimate plus $67,500 Contribution in Aid of Constuction Tax. FEB 03 09:77 1 4O 621 7 .8 i 1 i1y� The committee bill repeals the provision of pre- sent law (sec. 118(bl) that provides for the treat— ment of contributions in aid of construction received by a corporate regulated public utility to be ueatad as a contribution to the capital of the utility. The amenities intends that the effect of the change is to require that s utility mart u en item of gram become including money, that it receive tea provide, or ouoouregs of the provision d. services to or for the benefit of the person transferring the property. A utility is considered es having received property to encourage the provision or etrvices if the receipt of the property is a prerequisite to the prom= of the services, if the receipt 01 the property results in the provide of services earlier than would have been the case had the property not been received, or if the receipt of the property otherwise causes the transferee to be favored in any way The commiaee intends that utility include in prom income the value of the property received regardless of whether the utility had a general policy. stated ar unstated, that requires or encour- ages certain types of potential customers to trsa. ter property, including money, to the utility while other types of potential cvatonters are net required or encouraged to matte similar transfers. 1f members of a group making transfers of pros erty sit favored over other member of the scare general stoup hot making such transfers, the fact that the twotributiag members d the group may sot be favored over the members of other groups is the receipt of service will not prevent the inclusiea el the value of the transfer m the pots The Howe bill repeals the provision of mr sat law allowing contributions in sid of catstructioa received by corporate regulated public utility to be excluded from gross income. Property, iaclud- tag money, that is received to encourage the pro. vision of service to, ce far the benefit of, the person transferring the property mum be included WI an item of grow income. Haw Bl(! 1 7824 Act Sec. 824 REGION HG'M I N SU1_ S :A F'08 1222 Tax Reform Act of 1986 (17!!1224) Aar Sec. 524. Law at 13056 glad 3143. CCH Explanation at 11670. [House Committee Report) ieplsoniors of Provision [Conference Committee Report) income d the utility. For instance. where a utility generally requires developers of multiple tracts d residential batting to treader property to the utility in order to obtain service, but does se require such a transfer from individual hom en. the fact that both groups will receive serva without pseletence of one group over the eta will not prevent the utility.frem being requom to include in prone lacome the value of the properl received from the developers. Where ail metttbens at a particular group make treaters of papacy to the utility. normally it will be sawed this such transfers are to encourage the provision d services, despite. the absence of any formal policy requiring such transfers, unless it is clearly shoes that the benefit of the public u a whole was LM primary motivatrnglactar in the transfers. The penes transferring the property will In considered u having been bettefittad if be is the person who will receive the services, an owner d the property that will receive the services, far mer owner of the property that will receive tk services. or if be derives any benefit been the property that will reeeivs the services. Taus. s builder who transfers property 10 a uWity is nos to obuin service fora house that be was paid build will be considered as having btaseflttad free the provision of the services. This will be the an despite the fact that the builder may never haw had an ownership interest in the property and may main the transfer to the utility abet as house her been comp c ed and accepted. Egged se Data The provision is effective for contribution received after December 31, Ma. The provision is effective for contributions received alter December 31, 1965. Saes Ar asdm .r No provision. awaorAfferent The conference agreement folios the peonies al the House bill, effective for contributions received after December 31, 1036. Congressional eywo a of a longstanding tax Ionpbole threatens to almost double the fee (al foroia builders, todustr' ad Waal resi- dents mast pay the s1am's electric and gas utility companies to extend electric trimmer, won lion, 0atoral gas pipelines and other utility service to new building projects. Angry home builders, who were unaware of the Mange in the Tai Reform Act of ION, rooted that it could mean an annual M- oreau of $200 million io the cost of housing. or double the turned ed cost of $425 to $2000 per dwelling that State regulator! also esptessed coocern that small buameues and Waal dweller wbo ooderwrite the cost of Dew gas and electric facilities scold face surcharges of 67 percent ;in LL pa "edit ran tho projects Still more signal:cut to all Californians is the added threat that the residential eoerEe coats er instead of the building iodnstry may have to absorb the added taxes to settle this complex, intergovernmental squbbte. st tie heart of the controversy is the major overawe! pve0 the aati0o's tat laws tut year by Mesa. Ooe LrUe- ooticed se tioo of the one law mandated that for tot first tune, all t=''t7 =panic ma: t pay lnarra;e :ax w property or motley received from builder to facilitate or anderwrite the tat of extending utility service. Such eoatribunota in Ise past bad been exempt from taxation The utilities toothed this crew tar is simply another cost to be passed oo to the cause of the higher r%il the builder, whether ao tadindual, a sabdividei et 4 rre;or todusty. But, the builders and some utility executives believe it is simply an increased gene al cos of doing baroness and thereon all customers should share the hagbe, costs as well as the benefits, which were expressed in general rate redoctio0s for all customers. Generally rpeakiog, utilities in California calculate the impact of the new tae as an 66 percent add,noo to the cease they quoted to builders last year, or "groin of federal ID- come tin" 8o•ever, some iotsrpre: it as an increase of only 67 percent, lad others 75 percent, depeotng on whetter they expect the state to follow the federal lead is el:ra sating the loophole 3�f L CSE p ;n Febriary 14, 1 987 Tor every 51 of cast billed to the builder last year. we are DD. baWcg $126,', will the total increase likely to amount to op to 175 milhnn a year versus $40 mill:oo Lt 1966, laid Rod Larsoo. of Sonthertt California Edison Co. SDG&E said it has trailed 1,000 tensed estimates to coctnctors both:amg earLer BC percent adainig an est, quoted orated $11 m.:o•_ to CO:s:,ruruoo its R Northeru California, Pacific Gas Elec- tric also is biliiag at an 66 pesot inereue. while Southern California Cu Co. says its rates are op 64 percent and it is taking proms issory notes =Lad of east Edison says it will moo bill at a 67 percent increase. while the state Legulatue decides what to do. b ooe of w toughest Woe the Pub- lic Willies Connuesion has had to !ace an: quite a while' said Stan Hulett commission president 'la addition to the bog prob- lem, fve beard seven! disaster stories One was the ruraL retired couple Elio dug a trench and then had to pay a 60 percent et- dale. and not at their cost, but at the coat PG&E would have to pay since that is the figure IRS would use. "AM tbesee win tDe developer who sudden• ly had to pay an unexpected bill of $2)0.000, and there will likely be a big cogeneration plant somewhere that has a connection fee of $300,000 or $404010 that will soddenly go up to $1 million." Hulett': agency is faced with whether or 001 to allow the utilities to cootanue to colkrt the higher lees The ota:ities already are co:• lecUrg them under PUC rma that allow theta to pass on any increased eau of doing b sows, but all have filed `advice letters telling the PUC what they have door The PUC now most either halt what they are doioe or pve its permission to continue We are in the uncomfortable position of banns to decide wbo should pay for the taxes the developers (who will pass this cost onto the eoasarners) or the general body of ratepayer," said Buteel io a letter to the California eoogrenicoaJ defegatioo pleading tor a nurse in the law. 'briber way, the provision anti result &o higher two. and we an cestaac Congress did not contemplate such increases Hulett said "probably our only alternative" is to slow the utilities to continue to collect the bagter fee vein the PUC comforts a mayor exploration Low the impact of the (ed era: tax reform Mil on state utility eco0oan- rrs 4- 03 7* Deanna De Planr*rg FEB 271967 Shy: Dr= T. :ION NEY i See Me FiieF :Ac Builders an ered ove a 1 ,W.,; ,t,„7wre_raisin of utility fees The building thdus:r says the •acres, a< uocaascio0able and will ureccuan,y arr, plicate getting advance loans :e gain he and office buildings as wetl as tncre t cast of homes and apartments. usually, about ball of the money &et to utilities by deveacpen n rcsu."oe•d over a period of years as building projects oc ate and the otaiit;• tc•to an maease i0 to•brae from salts to the new customers. The ow.: hall is cot returnable. uULty exezro4.ves se!, sore is E sirtfiy a rimbur.em•n, 11 Li-- utility for the cob: of buiidc;g oetworl facilities. The PVC 2x !tars several bt"Cred a... pnva:ely owner vrie Ltu4 clxa;ae.;c be !Specially tamed try closure of the ,;to bole lbey lack the cast roarer. :o both pre tlx tai and build the plant. and are shoe yin; at a serious disadvantage" said Hu:ea. '71,t, are effectively pretested from emceeing development within their sev.ce ierr.trry Huien plan to reel a sou 1eF:s re re. caution mgang Congress to ellmira.e 1e net. tai in any overall =waive kill can see bow a developer would tare a crib 0ow problem wt:h the," said ace Lk1- try insider. lie can borrow the ong:nai tk tar from the bank to ftnsnte coassucaoo. Di the addauooa164 or 66 percent u probably nut going to be loanable for long +eha,e" Said Tom Samoa lobbyist for the Cacti nu Building Industry Amoaocc "An order that the added mau• y list: L come from the baildc a an anaemia that the new ratepayer that the newly eneodcc system sere is a detrmat to the sync:- and that teal so. The new racepa7 111 ore cash sauce" Baaaoo and others in the utility ta:i'- also coo1a4 that the legs/ bet for the ntv tai and iU unmet are union to intef'prrc:• tits, aod say IDe7 expect imerprethuc- reline train several rove= a' bodes to eluding the lacanal Revenac. Se-v z Tc• PUC has scheduled aeve.-a: mall. K wit snaps and beanrp begtmt g zeI we._ 1: obtain detsJed endeoce ®the v4 o' the tax ref«ta act. 1 4v1:::: r 1 l ZB 1 09:37: F:Ei 1 i H PDM I N !..JCS SJ Pn7 Calculation of gross up to cover Federal Tax increase on Contributions In- Aid -of- Construction For 1087, the federal tax rate is 40%. The State of California will aptly its exsting tax rate of 9.6% to the additional amount collected to oaf the federal tax. We will receive a deduction the following year in the federal tax at 3.% in the amount we pay the state in 1987. This formula to deterrrinec the necessary gross up to cover these taxes is shown below: Example illustrating tax calculation Assume soecial facility charge_ of $100 Collect a total of $175 1987 Fed tax 040% $175 x .40 70 paid to Fed 1988 Fed Tax Credit @34% on State tax paid in 1987 S7 x.34 $2 Total amount of tax paid and credited Fed. $70 State 7 Fed. Credit 2 75 ATTACHMENT "A" 1 .096 (.096)(.34) 1 .096 .40 (.0g6)(.34) 1.7453786 1987 State tax @9.6% (on additional amount collected for taxes) $75 x.096 T 7 paid to State EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. <C" SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Ar MEETING DATE: 1 CITY MGR APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks and Recreation Commission SUBJECT: Prohibition of Dogs in Public Parks Recommended Motion: Adoption of ordinance amending Section 11- 05.030(k) of the City Code to prohibit dogs in public parks. Report Summary: In a memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Commission to the City Council dated January 20, 1987, the Commission recommended the adoption of an ordinance to prohibit dogs in all public parks within the City. The Commission felt that such a prohibition was the only way to control the problem of dog excrement in the parks, which the dog owners have failed to remove despite the existing ordinance requiring them to do so. Although the Council has not accepted the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Attorney was instructed to prepare the ordinance amendment so that interested persons would have an opportunity to comment on this problem at a public hearing. Subsection 11 -05,030(k) of the City Code currently prohibits any dog within a public park "unless securely held and led by a leash of not more than six feet in length, securely attached to a harness or collar on such dog." The proposed ordinance would merely delete the quoted language and prohibit all dogs entirely. Since we can reasonably assume that someone may take a dog into a park notwithstanding the prohibition, t1ie ordinance language concerning removal of excrement has been retained. Any dog owner who fails to remove such excrement would therefore have committed two separate violations of the City Code: (1) bringing the dog into the park, and (2) failure to remove the dog excrement from the park. Fiscal Impacts: The fiscal impacts of this ordinance are uncertain. If the ordinance is enforced through the issuance of citations, the City might receive some additional revenue from the fines payable by dog owners. Attachments: (a) (b) (c) Motion and Vote: Proposed ordinance; Recommendation from Parks and Recreation Commission. Memorandum from the City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 11 -05.030 OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT DOGS IN PUBLIC PARKS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (k) of Section 11- 05.030 in Article 11 -05 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(k) Permit or allow any dog owned by such person, or under the custody or control of such person, to enter or remain in the park or any part thereof. Should any dog defecate on any park premises or property, the person who owns said dog, or has custody or control of said dog, shall immediately remove any and all excrement from the park." 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 or unconstitutional: such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after 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 held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR cs,A ©2 0 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Dogs in Parks DATE: 1 -20 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 2 ?20 /C In April of 1986, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to Council that the CSO's begin to issue warnings and to cite repeat offenders of City Code 3- 05.010 "Violations as misdemeanors or infractions; public nuisances" (k) "Permit or allow any dog owned by such person, or under the custody or control of such person, to enter or remain in the park or any part thereof unless securely held and lead by a leash of not more than six feet in length, securely attached to a harness or collar on such dog, or has custody or control of said dog, shall immediately remove any and all excrement from the park." These recommendations were made on the basis of a letter referred to the Commission by Council and on testimony of neighbors of Kevin Moran Park at the April 7, 1986 Park and Recreation Commission meeting. Signs were then posted in all City parks stating the City code and penalty for violations. At a public hearing at the January 12,__1987 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting it was determined, from testimony by neighbors and a park worker, that there has been no improvement in the situation. The habitual offenders ignore the code, letting dogs run loose, leaving dog excerment throughout the parks and tearing up the landscaping. These repeat offenders are also verbally abusive to anyone, citizen or City Personnel, who asks them to clean up after their pets. While there are responsible dog owners who use the parks, the repeat offenders have made the parks so unpleasant to visit they are now being used almost solely as dog restrooms. This is certainly not the purpose intended when these parks were developed. It has now been 9 months since this Commission asked that the City Code be enforced. Since that time there have apparently been no citations issued either by the CSO's or the Sheriff's Department. The Parks and Recreation Commission continues to be of the opinion that the existing laws are adequate but that enforcement of them is either simply too difficult or too low on the priority list. Given this problem with enforcement, it would appear that the only solution would be to ban all dogs from City parks, and such is the Commission's recommendation. This would appear to be the most easily enforceable manner in which to deal with this problem. Res ully, man PkS an• 'ec -a i. Commission 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 /PO� (408) 867 -3138 COUNCIL MEMBERS: March 13, 1987 g 0 'IP 0 To: City Council Fram: City Manager Subject: Prohibition on Dogs in Public Parks jm eacoc Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson I do not endorse the recommendation of the Commission for the following general reasons: 1. We currently find it difficult to enforce the existing ordinance. Passing another law if we can't enforce it effectively will not address the problem (this implies a much greater enforcement effort than we now put out). 2. The ordinance does nothing about dogs which run loose and frequent the park, so banning dogs from the park won't bar dogs from the park. 3. City would be able to cite only dogs whose owners are with them; unless we were to catch the animal, and it had a collar and some form of identification. City is not equipped to catch and impound animals. This might encourage dog owners to be less responsible about their pets than more responsible. 4. People who do obey the current law will be penalized by the new law. It is a fact that when one takes a dog for a walk, it will almost, without exception, attempt to do its business somewhere along the way (usually several somewheres from my own personal experience). These dog owners should have two obligations, to keep their pet on a six foot or shorter leash and to clean up after the dog so it doesn't become the responsibility of any other property owner, including the City. In my view, it is not unreasonable for the City to expect this level of behavior in exchange for the freedom to walk a dog anywhere in the community, including the City parks. Granted, enforcement of laws which would fine persons for not following the level of behavior is not easy, but it is not impossible either. I am much more concerned about loose dogs than those on a leash, and that is where I think the problem exists because neither the sheriff nor the CSO's are equipped to deal with loose dogs. Until the City decides it wants to address this part of the issue, I don't think our effectiveness of dealing with dog excrement in the parks is going to be very high regardless of whether the Council bars dogs or not. Martha Clevenger 19337 Titus Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council Member; 19490 Miller Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 February 5, 1987 I read in the newspaper recently that the Parks and Recreation Commission has proposed that the City Council ban all dogs from city parks. The reason given for the proposed ban is that there are many dogs running loose in the parks in violation of the leash law, and that these dogs are leaving droppings in the parks. Apparently, the Community Service Officers are unable to enforce the current leash law when a dog is running loose. I fail to understand the logic of the proposal. The problem of dog droppings are coming from the unleashed dogs which are already in violation of the city ordinance. Tb..e_prop.osed ordinancewould allow the CSO's to cite _anyone„. n the, park.... with_ a. dog_on.,.leash...xJiowever, it would do nothing to solve the problem of unleashed dogs since that section of the ordinance doesn't appear to be enforced now. I am also convinced that Moran Park has a serious problem with unleashed dogs. I've been bothered a number times by unleashed dogs while walking through the park. I've even seen one person drive up to the park, let their dog out of the car to run around the park and do his business, and then called it back to the car. Generally, it seems that the unleashed dogs are running on the grassy areas of the park and the dogs on leash are being walked on the paved areas. From what I've seen, it is the unleashed dogs who are creating most of the problem with dog droppings. The real problem is that the current ordinance lacks teeth. A first violation is only a warning, and the odds are pretty low of getting caught a second time. Palo Alto Baylands allows dogs on leash, but has stiff penalties for any violation of this. My understanding is that a fine for a first violation is in excess of $50. Saratoga needs to adopt a similiar tough enforcement policy for the current ordinace. First violations should result in a stiff fine and the ordinance should be vigorously enforced for all unleashed dogs. he proposed ordinance will not help at all to deal with the problem of unleased dogs, will not help with the problem of dog droppings, and ill end up only penalizing the people who are obeying the current ordinance. Sincerely, vA ohn Grebenkemper MAR 5 1987 2, 7 3/ IF a-e_t ex-/ 4 122c-sd-Z-Le-w.1 ‘-&L, jiz_ A4_et-e- ezA. ad Gut /1-4 Gela- fEe 2 7 1987 15440, Via Gal Ana, Saratoga, C A 95070 February 25, !9:7 Saratoga C1 tF Council, Our family wish to go on record against the banning of dogs in our pare. As regular dog walkers, we are. aware that most-of the other regular dog walkers are retired people and home makers getting their daily exercise. Any problems we encounter are usually caused by unaccompanied neighborhood dogs which suggests the City's problem is with under enforcement of the leash laws. May we remind you that we help pay for these parks and have a right to use them. Me feel dog walking is a legitimate use, as long as, life other users, we obey the posted regulations. Further, as regular walkers throughout Saratoga, we feel the Council might better direct it= energies io curbing the increasing noise level in our neighborhoods. The blasting of leaf blowers on any day, at almost any time, in any neighborhood is incredible. Sincerely, 1?),p,.(k f\,vs()\,.0,(Liz_ MARTIN BRANT FENSTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 111 WEST SAINT JOHN SUITE 404 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 TEL. (408) 293 -6341 February 19, 1987 Mayor Joyce Hlava Council Members Karen Anderson, Martha Clevenger, David Moyles and Don Peterson Saratoga City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (MBF Re: Proposed Ban of Dogs From City Parks Dear Mayor Hlava and Council Members: I have lived in the City of Saratoga for the last ten years. I wish to voice my strong opposition to the proposal that is presently before the Council to ban all dogs from City parks. It is my understanding that not many people have come forward, but I believe it is incumbant upon you to pro- tect the rights and privileges of all residents of the City of Saratoga. U /r Ft. B 2 0 1987 Your proposal will probably end the complaints of those who are opposed to those members of the community who have not been responsible with their pets. I say that you must ask your- self at what expense. I was talking to my daughter, a seven year old second grader at Argonaut Elementary School. She told me that I was really lucky because I was able to go to the park and play with my dog but that she will never be able to do that once this Ordinance is passed. She felt very sad. My wife and I and our children are responsible pet owners who enjoy an outing at the park with our children and pets. We pick up from our pets and are mindful of the rights of others. The proposal before the Council penalizes responsible pet owners. When Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel, a proposal came before her and the other members of the ruling Council to require all women to stay in at night. At that time there was a problem with rape. Golda Meir responded that it's not the women who are doing the raping. If you are going to put a cur- few on anybody, put it on the people who are commiting the crime. V Page 2 February 19, 1987 I recognize this as an extreme example, but the similarities are readily apparent. You are trying to deal with a nuisance created by irresponsible pet owners by penalizing all pet owners. It makes for easy enforcement, but it diminishes the quality of life in this community. Parks are places designed for people in the community to meet and enjoy a little outdoor recreation. For many seniors, walking the dog provides the only opportunity that they will have to leave the solitude of the home and have an opportunity to meet with others. Banning dogs from city parks may very well have an effect on some of the senior members of our community. There is an article in the Wednesday, February 18, 1987, edition of the San Jose Mercury News talking about "Canine Nurses on Patrol Dogs are working in the Psychiatric Services Unit at Good Samaritan Hospital in the therapudic process. For many people with problems, dogs have proved to be _a good outlet. Dogs become a point of conversation. For many they are simply an ice breaker that allows inner action within the community to start and to continue. I have noticed in some of my jaunts through the park, especially in the early hours of the day, that there are many people who come to the park to walk their dogs, but have the added benefit of being able to engage in conversation with other pet owners. This is the sort of social inneraction that our city should be trying to foster and promote. If you take away that right, then you take away the opportunity of these people to get together in their community. I have one dog who carries my childrens' lunch boxes in his mouth, my wife's purse and other things that he likes to help with. When we walk down the street or through the park, people look, smile and usually laugh. I think that opportunity is worth preserving. I hope you do too. It would be truly unfortunate if the Council were to ban all dogs from the park for administrative convenience and step on the rights and privileges of those res- ponsible pet owners. It potentially would cut out the ability of people of all ages to enjoy their pets, families and friends in our city parks. I have seen in some parks where some responsible pet owners have encouraged the irresponsible ones to make sure that they pick up after their pets. I am not saying that enforcement is easy. Page 3 February 19, 1987 If it was, we wouldn't be at this juncture. Nevertheless, by the proposals presently before the Council, you are being encouraged to enact an Ordinance that would sharply curtail the rights and privileges of responsible pet owners so that you can make enforcement easy. If we were to mandate the death penalty for jay walking, I am sure that it would cut the inci- dence of jay walking. The mandate of government should be to enact proposals that are reasonable for all the citizens of the community. The rights and privileges of the responsible should not be trampled upon as an expedient way toward enforcement. I ask that you give the issues that I have raised in my letter your serious consideration. MBF /jeb Thank you. cc: Saratoga News Sincerely y Martin Brant Fenster MAR 6- 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: 5522 Bigoak Drive San Jose, CA 95129 March 4, 1987 I wish to praise you for approach to solving the dog problem in the city parks. Dogs should not be allowed in parks. Parks are for people. We have a serious problem in San Jose and no one has considered the solution you have proposed. I have made copies for your report as it appeared in the San Jose Mercury and I am sending them to the members of the San Jose City Council. Please continue your efforts to solve the dog problem. Sincerely, Mike Ausloos $an 3o5c Ncitte3 0 San Jose Mercury News Wednesday, March 4, 1987 Extra Saratoga cleans up after dogs Stricter ordinance proposed for parks By Jose Stell Mercury News Staff Writer Dogs will not be allowed in Saratoga city parks even on leash if a proposed city ordinance survives a forthcoming public hearing and is adopted. The ordinance is designed to take the place of the city's dog leash and "pooper scooper" law, which has proved ineffectual. Even though the present law has teeth, they're never bared, in the opinion of Rich Vallone, chairman of Saratoga's Parks and Recreation Commission, whose latest memo to the City Council laments that the law is flouted by residents and its enforcement ignored by authorities. Vallone's memorandum concludes that the city code is, in fact, adequate for the purpose intended but that enforcement either has been too difficult or has such low priority that it is deliberately disregarded. "Given this problem with enforcement," Vallone advised the council, "it would appear that the only solution is to ban all dogs from city parks, and such is the commission's recommendation." Residents' persistent complaints about dog feces in parks have prompted the Saratoga City Council to follow up on the commission's suggestion that dog owners no longer be allowed to promenade their pets on the public greens. The rluncil has instructed City Attorney Hal Top pel to draft an ordinance that bans dogs in any of the See DOGS, Page 4 Saratoga collars dog problem with tougher ordinance DOGS, from Page 1 city's nine parks. A public hearing on the matter is scheduled for 8 p.m. March 18 in the Saratoga Civ- ic Center theater. Councilwoman Marty Clevenger foresees a potential dogfight at the hearing pet owners on the one side, parks- are for people adher- ents on the other. "This issue will not be faced just by opposing or supporting, as far as I can see," Clevenger said. "I would hope that we receive some positive information. We have very limited choices in this and I, for one, would prefer to hear construc- tive recommendations. "We need ideas. This (ordinance) is a proposal because we haven't come up with anything else," she added. The problem of dog excrement in Saratoga's parks repeatedly has been brought to the attention of city officials in recent years. Com- plaints persisted until last April, when the council ordered commu- nity service officers to mount an enforcement program, especially at Kevin Moran Park. Signs were posted in the parks that read, "Dogs must be on leash. Owners must remove dog excre- ment." Copies of the "pooper scooper" section of the ordinance also were posted, warning that violators are subject to misdemeanor citations and face penalties of as much as $1,000 fine, six months' jail time or both. Neither effort has proved effec- tive. "There has been no improve- ment," Vallone said. "Habitual of- fenders ignore the code, letting dogs run loose, leaving dog excre- ment throughout the parks and tearing up the landscaping. These repeat offenders also are verbally abusive to anyone who asks them to clean up after their pets." Community service officers re- portedly increased their park sur- veillance but with less than mar- ginal success because of the diffi- culty in catching violators red- handed. Since last April, Vallone told the council, there have apparent- ly been no citations issued either by the community service officers of the sheriffs department." Vice Mayor Karen Anderson said she will expect an explanation before the hearing is opened as to why no arrests have been made, especially in light of the council's explicit instruction to step up enforcement. "I will want it demonstrated what the difficulties are in enforc- ing the code," she said. Objections to the dog -ban ordi- nance almost certainly will be voiced at the public hearing by pet owners who follow the letter of the law. Vallone concedes there are many responsible dog owners who use the parks to exercise their pets. "But," he said, "the repeat offend- ers have made the parks so un- pleasant to visit (that) they are now being used almost solely as dog restrooms. "This is certainly not the pur- pose intended when these parks were developed," he said. Vallone concluded that Saratoga would be better off by closing the parks to dogs altogether. For one thing, the stricter law would be far easier to enforce. An exemption is expected to be written into the ordinance for Blondie, the resident Hakone Gar- den guard dog whose duty is to chase off marauding raccoons and foraging deer. Hakone Garden, paradoxically, is the only Saratoga city park which historically has prohibited dogs. Baratoga City Council: Regarding recent proposal to ban dogs from Saratoga parks: The current regulation requires that dogs on Saratoga streets, including parks, be kept on leash. The law also states that dog excrement in the parks must be removed by the dog's owner. Both of these regulations require effective enforeement to be of any value. We do not believe banning dogs from parks altogether will improve the situation. Those owners who turn their dogs loose to run every day will continue to do so. Those who walk through the parks with unleashed dogs are breaking the law now; it is unlikely that a new' regulation banning dogs from the parks will have any effect on these uncaring individuals. Mayor Hlava was quoted in the Saratoga News as saying that those who obey the ordinance are distinctly the minority. 'So the law breakers win once more, and the law- abiding citizens lose another right /privilege There are any unpopular laws on our books, disobeyed by the majority that does not make them bad laws. We are in favor of better enforcement. We are also in favor of larger, more conspicuous signs. We believe these signs should be posted not neiit to a stop sign, for motorists to observe,(as at Kevin Moran Park) but prominently placed at the entrances used) by people walking through the parks. Robert G. Cowie Virginia K. Cowie 19443 Melinda Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 Sincerely, k G 0 March 1987 cc: Saratoga Parks Recreation Commission V C. e cz y o r C v ou L I 0 �cr ra `f p a 4 a 1 3 77 77 �t�ui-r S 4 rd r o q 93 7v a CI 06i C, o s lJ a 1 n cI rj e- s Iti 3 u. I C/ to tie 0 el q e de p r e. tAl t 6 r h,, er SS 3rookGle.l (Jr re-}-Jd C. el II 95 1/2/ E k aVeh rs3n M a a C t L7 r u l�h CIe- rsa Sul tt u Tr'on e. r 0 c; 4 4 ij ,43 w�, I +e. 1 p S �sr� cjj Per kS SGn, e 141 t• ;c �`Jl �l t P In ord er 0 r Sorr 1 t1i r1 eQ r `7 u 11 o e v N 1 e_ CIF re.:.sr =oh 0 4 I A Av r----,, I Ii Gcr C? I h I Ili r00V 11 e, 141 h -a rs 0 r04UJ 4 ate 1 e.5 L t ei r -r: r G `11 C( o v e. e_ v I 0 S a ra +oq a fa of a I av 1 Act).- J 5 CF LA. i vt CI a p a .O Q35 1 Ve" s `1 r l 7 Gtr k5- ei /11 u(- actd CGLInC !1 C e 6�emt y I 11 s 0 ,e. rC p ro h lG b /E. a ti ev cl 14 a LLe p 1)1.5 kJ CI) 1- a cl e at J e, w,J 1 k5- b ca u.;ie c ry t7c) r I ova "'J r e_ e_ op-) r a YI j .5 C_ u l eff� e e- e f r h r a T e-r r e a 4 -'"o d Th Ta a 'TA l t e, r be l i' e_re. C 1 U `i- y" kS Uve 1 4 'x. Qv 'c far 1 s cti eve. u 4 6e4 s a r e.. a flp j: ✓i (c J Ili ..5 e e. ni s t l h_c- e 7 (v 5 e.e_vr1 S �7o be yc Useq/ U t� �r��i O C /DjS H� s `111 le.av� ;h par Gv�, c1y �.�LI�Cc� O "o�a��E_ Th i� G� vr L R eci l i S La il 4 e. e_ 1" C.,1 -e.. 't 1 I H e 11 e_ a 1 f r I.. k, r n l c e J f 1f II f I p e c. 1 6 -S J r� e_ c_ 1 C1 I {1 C- o rl h e c P Li rq e Q u. S u a J L flireaf f r��., 6_10 el e Lr -e�1 -r/ (s T1 prncl�� +(`oo LI 'ppJ J )4 rte, r re.- /41 di e b a c o uio I-e. sc u f o of tlI E._ J CJ l€ eli a s c ej rays G r Q c u. r b. 1 T I-<- i` d c ei -t c� e_ a l cti HI GI v 1 1 I I j J L C Y e. vv1 e_ ii d ti 1 I., p f ci j k G f C. I C�1 I r e. CI Y -e. I t vi 1 1 K e 1 +0 5 urut'Ve_ II "Fe_, 1 n 1 li 1 ail 1 iii Ior 4,7 1 r t a A 0 f 7 1, E 1 5 5 c e. 1 s o f c� i a T e a 0 d 03 s 11 I 5 h1 u 1 1 ni o re a cc. -c.. p 4 1) 40 LO«. p )e-1 h a ID U i d L3 c E=.. t.,. e 5 `I' a �l +c, 0l cl <1 4 e_u r o 4 6 S J r 1 k ezi v e-41 7c r b'd 1 11 a �I v A e r e..a l i d D e s y,. 'i e el o C{ s. t ii i h u 5 l e h d a !z d L .iA, e l k a s h, �L -�--e a PQ Y k a Ii(, o a l V e �Gt e p T u .S C d 1 r e_ wi e_ 91-x. Jo -e r S T e r e. v e r- d 61 0+ tti 0q e_ yC. /ew). e0 'ft 4s fh e rc� b e e-h ati.`'� a bJ e__.& e__.& r ve, j i ea. Irv% eel r O i) k_ e. r a f- h c_ d e h c e f !'vt h 6 I D T GI Q q e- La 1 r>1 of e-r i5 ac� e ra e.d b j p e_op!e- toko e4a•s I, k e J or a.re a f 1 0 I'd 6 G o'f5. 1 4-e. -Ili 1 a..1 I 4z p D oiovC ,c(1 L e o C a u0.1 1�-2 i I G Y e v P ki 1 `i e t CJ 41 d u I L 1 d 11 CJ e„ 1 /4 to `1 r s s' cr e, Or) "1"/1 e. e. h (a.i&d d I; i--- c_ at, 4: e_a r 6., d 6 y s 1 z q V(', r 1 i 1 4 1 1 s -r t-2 J (2 �t 1 add r -1- 0 11, SI of R ro. a Or ou. G a teo od N 0.1 Q 3 a e 1 Do pe. o p 1e. J S I a `J`1 Po 1 k t; 0q a v c. a I ril.= 'r" r rt i U Pv, t 0 i!1 u S i di J f 1 L zr-1 d d f' 1 I 61 /i 7 'Ti.r Pk J- at C 0 (i V 6 ,7 FGrk r C. o it 5 i d e f It e c 61 `i,, A p re J I .w, 1 id) c1/4....44, :5, 11 L' a+ I 1^` c t re: `U t�l 3 U h 5 1 o•? FC f .1- a 1::1 f e.1,1 L. e d i_f •.s, l0 e d yr 3 d f di 10 9 a (r K 3 1 r se es F t 1 r 11.1 e e l rca (-1 d- 1 e_or /e fr a(. �1c- ,1 4 I 4 c, f4 (,I� k s ti;aI i Ale AT A/ e el d b 6 r 4 e l et., d e i..0 --Q. s i'i/ E r e s i- riLt a` 1 s 1 -fr��ue-- l kid t"a `1 4 o o el i v r e f p e r s 1 h e e.. r k_; 0 ti e-,. I. k. e. a i,' e r C4-4/,, G) re:: q cI I c: ,i S i e, JJ j I b CU n� c.' f!'! Q ,1;7 v c'... 1" k c -t4�f 1" c:. Gi V Y' I J ;c oved c J us e. 1 Q4� C 1 c: e.. i--,. i4-1 e,,, p r 1 e ,iv, j h. U„ I Cif 1,, E J 0 I U tl L• 1 (-1 1 /'f 6 ,J GU i; r k r' -1 46 V n r );1 c e- I r,?_. }�a1 I.5 a0 d k 1 1�' u., ef, �1 I f l 1 1 j j ti J/ I I `l it f C I J rO )F l r 1 f r 0i-4 I J )1 e 1 )0 5 a. r a t (3 q Far L. M► o r L- a c C. 0 "PI e id a. -c, Q f i N 6 r4 D U a H G! c1 1 e 0 L- (....1 1 1, 1� EY1�11 h w a p r r c i O/1 o f re-5' I Gt G e3 e 10 1 1 r C'c;C,� ah �.1 d 1 1n r K ee f e dcJ Crhel elesi �ar 11� a 5 1:- O` I e -v 4t tf 1 Ii a d f Y A 1 1 J q c r_ .c. e h pro poi 4 l 'o h A-0 th e. C e -11 S, q, eti 5 u CO 1C) ,C; e. ci, c J C. 4 y d s 5 b A r f �e_ {1( �,.lr e.ie v +e. t I --1- 1,1 e I i-- -I-, ()I 5 r r c 4_ v c., c c c,,, h. c eri 0 c 1 t, i c iv A..c 11 ►1 a `J e. VF�C p6 k )o)ef ri� C'J peop 6 %1 f h j 0h l� 1.<_1 I (1 1-7) 11 I t v�.Cl 1 r- r u 61 e_ (7 I' f ,1 o ,t i' ri eir a 4-e_ c /oc f o 4 3 O 1 a:i./I wau 1c1 b e_ ►>-,.eve. s a c. cerS1 1 h e_ x e_ r+ f h ,:f 5 c c. J. I p r- e S< (..I. r c-_ bin o c.v ,4 e,--s 4- o L 1 e4i, l /9 a 7 1- c' L4. e I 'V' d 0 a. t a r u G a 5, k evi /i SS D0, u s e 1. )4, fA F V k Al k GI C_ n �f L A (.t 4 111 r- u borre L ele:, f ro+ d C.a.5.; e h am k lr, -e d U.) n. i k. j c7 r T F a 1JJ�1 i II L C. 0 11 d ff C:Cl r <�hs v U�t r�r cO. r f cf r k �I a e -(0 Y 14 C 0 ,4 �q f S `7 r 1 Fr �,J 1,. 1 L v' e d A +i e c Y 5 eve,' (4 r CI V e.d r r J e rA (r k t 1 1 r 1 f' 1' e_c h Ora c. 0 )1/1- u s -I' a Y eat S, a in G1 r e, 11 r di f7 -er't> v fvrj u cr r U 1 e- j1 r1 di r G i Y e a -I- t Y e- C i e_ -GI L c e l ill t-1 Y r -1 .'t ci )a. I C Y L e �t/►._� N q L E. 1141 i qt eL a /11 C) /1_4 1 Q La p 1' e r` �r !e- r o•1 /11:42 4 1 t .ize ar2eie5 16 ,f .dg dAd., ve es r THE AH\VAHNEE 4_1 i7u5 eter V..:‘,,d.a 7 YOSEMITE NATION \L PARK CALIFORNIA 47. r i ;1) MAR 1 3 1987 Art p r ric ropos By Jose Stell Mercury News Staff Writer Dogs will not be allowed in Saratoga city parks even on leash if a proposed :city ordinance survives a forthcoming public hearing and is adopted. The ordinance is designed to take the place of the city's dog leash and "pooper scooper law, which has proved ineffectual. ::,Even though the present law has teeth, they're never bared, in the opinion of Rich Vallone chairman of Saratoga's Parks and Recreation Commission, whose latest memo to the City Council laments that the law is flouted by residents" and its enforcement ignored by authorities. Nallone's memorandum concludes that the city code is, in fact, adequate for the purpose intended but that enforcement either has been too difficult or has such low priority that it is deliberately disregarded. lil "Given this problem with enforcement," Vallone vised the council, "it would appear that the only lution is to ban all dogs from city parks, and such is the commission's recommendation." 'Residents' persistent complaints about dog feces in parks have prompted the Saratoga City council to- follow up on the commission's` suggestion that dog owners no longer be allowed to promenade their pets on the, public greens 'vre: r,., The r?uncil has ins City Attorney Hal Top- pel to draft an ordinance that bans dogs in any of the Y f 4,Y y ,i 1 l. -See DOGS, Page 4 .t DOGS, from Page 1 Y :Co mmunity service officers; City's nine parks.A public hearing portedly. increased their park on the matter is scheduled for 8 Veillance bu with less than n p.m. March 18 in the Saratoga Civ- &nal success because o f the di is Ce theater.''; 4., culty in a tching viol Councilwoman Marty Clevenger red-handed.- ,t� ;4 foresees a potential dogfight at the Since last April, Vallone told hearing pet owners on the one council, there have apparc side, parks -are- for people adher- Ay been no citations issued bit ents on the other. by the community service offic "This issue will not be faced j ust of the sheriff's department. ,1, by opposing or supporting, as far 4 a Vice .Mayor ..Karen Ander: 1 as I can see," Clevenger said. "I 4. said she will expect an explanat would hope that we receive some before the hearing is opened positive information. We have very as to why no arrests have bE limited choices in this and I for made, especially li ally in ght of: -t 3 one, would prefer to hear construe- 'council's explicit instruction tive recommendations. •step up enforcement. "We We need ideas. This (ordinance) '"I will want it demonstrat is a proposal because we haven't what the difficulties are in enfo: come up with anything else," she ing the code," she said. r :-;O added. Objections to the dog -ban or The problem of dog excrement nance almost certainly will in Saratoga's parks repeatedly has voiced at the public hearing by I been brought to the attention of owners who follow the letter of t city officials in recent years. Com- law. y ''Z'' 1- plaints persisted until last April, Vallone concedes there a when the council ordered commu many responsible dog owners .w: nity service officers to mount an use the parks to exercise their pe enforcement program, especially "But," he said, "the repeat offer at Kevin Moran Park. ers have made the parks so u Signs were posted in the parks pleasant to visit (that) they a :that read, "Dogs must be on leash. now being ",used almost so lely Owners must remove dog sacra dog restrooms' f` ?i 7 ment i ter'• ',:...-.4.f,,,;: "This is certainly not the �n Copies of the "pooper- scooper" 1, pose intended when these pa I section of the ordinance also were were developed," he said. t' ;posted, warning that violators are ,Vallone concluded that Saracof ?subject to misdemeanor citations would be better off by closing tl and face penalties of as much as parks to dogs altogether: For or $1,000 fine, six months' jail time or. thing, the stricter law would b a fr both. r. ;:r r 'Tessier to enforce �s Y, i Neither e f f o r t has proved effect'' x t 1 ti lk� tive s k An exemption is expected to b ::written into the 'ordinance f., ment," Vallone said. "Habitual of- Blondie, the' resident Hakone G fenders ignore the code, letting chase off marauding raCcoona in dogs run loose, leaving dog excre- tearing up the landscaping. These ,r,4,pHakone Garden, paradoxicall3 repeat offenders also are verbally is the only Saratoga e.ity hi parl abusive to anyone who asks ...;_which them to clean up after their pets." do y tr gs. '^+�7� <f;`5L L.3.`:,a °8'':'.fa •;rld!w:, 4' .1.,`%, '�ir�<�j"7'"fayi�"�b;� _s MBF �1 MARTIN BRANT FENSTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 111 WEST SAINT JOHN SUITE 404 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 TEL. (408) 293 -6341 March 6, 1987 Mayor Joyce Hlava Council Members Karen Anderson, Martha Clevenger, David Moyles and Don Peterson Saratoga City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed Ban of Dogs from City Parks Dear Mayor Hlava and Council Members: �/r R MAR 10 1981 Since I wrote to you last February 19, 1987 (copy of letter enclosed), I have had the opportunity to. speak .with some of you, a member of the Parks Commission, Jose Stell of the San Jose Mercury News and residents of our community. Mr. Stell's article earlier this week points out that enforcement by the Community Service officers is ignored. Is that really a good reason to ban all dogs from all of our city's parks? We have not had a chance yet to see if the current law can work with a little extra effort. Last night I was reading a bedtime story to my children which depicted children going to the park with their dog. People in this community and indeed throughout the English speaking areas of the world of all ages have and share a cultural heritage of enjoying their dogs in the local park. I do not want to my kids to be denied that opportunity within their own community. The proposed ban has the effect of "throwing out the baby with the bath water." Just today I was speaking with,another resident who has organized a group of pet owners (about 12 in number) who will encourage others at Congress Springs park to pick up after their dogs. This man is the owner of "Metzger," a 200 pound Rotweiler who is the self- appointed unofficial guard dog of Congress Springs park. Vandals bent on destruction of that park are convinced to abandon their efforts when this animal is around. Dick, his owner, tells me that Metzger has also discouraged other illegal behavior in the park. Afterall, who is going to argue with the likes of him! Without access to the park by responsible pet owners with their dogs, the developing social relationships that I have seen Page 2. Letter to Mayor Hlava and Council Members March 6, 1987 are likely to be compromised. These people and their pets help make our parks safer and a friendlier place to be. The proposed ban will effect people of all ages. In your search for solutions, you may wish to consider the following: 1. Whether resident committees impact on the problem; 2. Whether an effort at enforcement of the "pooper scooper rule" would work; 3. Whether it is appropriate to find out why our Community Service Officers have not given much priority to enforcing the "pooper scooper rule 4. Whether placing plastic bags at the parks so people could readily pick up after their pets would help; 5. Whether starting an educational campaign could help; 6. Whether other communities have come up with different solutions whereby all dogs are not barred from all city parks. Consider for example the City of Palo Alto that allows pets on leashes and further provides fenced in areas in some of its parks for people to to exercise their pets unleashed; 7. Whether there is any potential for prejudice in the decision making process; 8. Whether our parks would be less safe without the presence of responsible pet owners; 9. Whether the quality of life for some children, seniors and others would diminish if all dogs were banned from all parks; 10. Whether or not all city parks have the same problem to the same degree; 11. Whether unexercised back yard dogs would create other yet unknown problems; and 12. Whether the City has really explored all alternatives in an attempt to find a less drastic means of solving the problem. A total ban is inconsistent with your duties to enact ordinances that are reasonable for all of the citizens of the community. I encourage you to be creative in finding an answer that takes into consideration the rights and privileges of responsible pet owners and others that benefit by their presence. Sincerely yours, MBF:wl Encl. cc: Saratoga News, San Jose Mercury News Martin Brant Fenster 0 MBF MARTIN BRANT FENSTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 111 WEST SAINT JOHN SUITE 404 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 TEL. (408) 293 -6341 February 19, 1987 Mayor Joyce Hlava Council Members Karen Anderson, Martha Clevenger, David Moyles and Don Peterson Saratoga City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed Ban of Dogs From City Parks Dear Mayor Hlava and Council Members: I have lived in the City of Saratoga for the last ten years. I wish to voice my strong opposition to the proposal that is presently before the Council to ban all dogs from City parks. It is my understanding that not many people have come forward, but I believe it is incumbant upon you to pro- tect the rights and privileges of all residents of the City of Saratoga. Your proposal will probably end the complaints of those who are opposed to those members of the community who have not been responsible with their pets. I say that you must ask your- self at what expense. I was talking to my daughter, a seven year old second grader at Argonaut Elementary School. She told me that I was really lucky because I was able to go to the park and play with my dog but that she will never be able to do that once this Ordinance is passed. She felt very sad. My wife and I and our children are responsible pet owners who enjoy an outing at the park with our children and pets. We pick up from our pets and are mindful of the rights of others. The proposal before the Council penalizes responsible pet owners. When Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel, a proposal came before her and the other members of the ruling Council to require all women to stay in at night. At that time there was a problem with rape. Golda Meir responded that it's not the women who are doing the raping. If you are going to put a cur- few on anybody, put it on the people who are commiting the crime. :3 Page 2 February 19, 1987 I recognize this as an extreme example, but the similarities, are readily apparent. You are trying to deal with a nuisance created by irresponsible pet owners by penalizing all pet owners. It makes for easy enforcement, but it diminishes the quality of life in this community. Parks are places designed for people in the community to meet and enjoy a little outdoor recreation. For many seniors, walking the dog provides the only opportunity that they will have to leave the solitude of the home and have an opportunity to meet with others. Banning dogs from city parks may very well have an effect on some of the senior members of our community. There is an article in the Wednesday, February 18, 1987, edition of the San Jose Mercury News talking about "Canine Nurses on Patrol Dogs are working in the Psychiatric Services Unit at Good Samaritan Hospital in the therapudic process. For many people with problems, dogs have proved to be a good outlet. Dogs become a point of conversation. For many they are simply an ice breaker that allows inner action within the community to start and to continue. I have noticed in some of my jaunts through the park, especially in the early hours of the day, that there are many people who come to the park to walk their dogs, but have the added benefit of being able to engage in conversation with other pet owners. This is the sort of social inneraction that our city should be trying to foster and promote. If you take away that right, then you take away the opportunity of these people to get together in their community. I have one dog who carries my childrens' lunch boxes in his mouth, my wife's purse and other things that he likes to help with. When we walk down the street or through the park, people look, smile and usually laugh. I think that opportunity is worth preserving. I hope you do too. It would be truly unfortunate if the Council were to ban all dogs from the park for administrative convenience and step on the rights and privileges of those res- ponsible pet owners. It potentially would cut out the ability of people of all ages to enjoy their pets, families and friends in our city parks. I have seen in some parks where some responsible pet owners have encouraged the irresponsible ones to make sure that they pick up after their pets. I am not saying that enforcement is easy. MBF /jeb Page 3 February 19, 1987 If it was, we wouldn't be at this juncture. Nevertheless, by_the proposals presently before the Council, you are being encouraged to enact an Ordinance that would sharply curtail the rights and privileges of responsible pet owners so that you can make enforcement easy. If we were to mandate the death penalty for jay walking, I am sure that it would cut the inci- dence of jay walking. The mandate of government should be to enact proposals that are reasonable for all the citizens of the community. The rights and privileges of the responsible should not be trampled upon as an expedient way toward enforcement. I ask that you give the issues that I have raised in my letter your serious consideration. Thank you. cc: Saratoga News Sincerely y i7/ 1I' Martin Brant Fenster March 9, 1987 MAR 11 1987 Saratoga City Council 12777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Laura M Hansen Elementary School. Thank you for taking a stand on dogs -in- parks! The same simple minded people that ran their dogs -in -the parks are now using the Hansen School grounds as a dog latrine. Four wheel vehicles are jumping the curb, driving through the school onto the lawn and dumping their dogs off to dump. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that some of the soccer teams using the school grounds havn't slide into the goal posts on a pile of dog I have asked several dog owners to clean up after their dogs but, they (the owners) get a little antagonistic. Also, its a shame that the school buses let the school children off right into a Mess left by somebody's pet. I have a dog too, but she doesn't use the school as a latrine. What sort of action can the City take to reduce this problem? And it is fast becoming a greater problem. There have been four car loads of dogs within the last two hours (1:00 to 3:OOpm) today. Mr. and Mrs Earl Burke 12176 Titus Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)252-4175 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: March 18, ".1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: Recommended Motion: That the City Council approve Ordinances HP -12 and HP -13 designating the Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell and the Missionary Settlement House as Heritage Resources. Report Summary: The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed two applications for heritage resource designation at their February 18, 1987 meeting. The Commission de- termined that both applications meet the criteria for designation per Section 13- 15.010 of the City Code, and recommend to the City Council approval of the designations. Fiscal Impacts: None 3/18: Introduced ordinances4 -0. 4/15: -Staff recommendation 4 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor City Council 2. Ordinances HP -12 and HP -13 3. 2/10/87 Staff Report to Heritage Commission, including applications for designation. Motion and Vote: 9/c 46 AGENDA ITEM: g C,, D CITY MGR. APPROVAL HP -12 and HP -13, Ordinances designating the Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell and the Missionary Settlement House as Heritage Resources 4. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of 2/18/87. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: HP -12 and HP -13, Ordinances designating the Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell and the Missionary Settlement House as Heritage Resources Background The Heritage Preservation Commission received two applications for heritage resource designation in January. These applications were reviewed at their February 18, 1987 meeting. After careful consideration of the applications and supporting materials, the Commission determined that both applications meet the criteria for designation per Section 13- 15.010 of the City Code. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the designations. Recommendation The City Council should hold a public hearing on the designations and, if it can make the findings for approval, introduce the ordinances designating the heritage resources. A second reading would be required at the next Council meeting. The ordinances would go into effect thirty (30) days after the second reading. uchuek Hsia nning Director YH /vy /dsc 1 DATE: 3/2/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 3/18/87 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. HP -12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE SARATOGA VOLUNTEER FIRE BELL AT 14434 OAK STREET AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Preservation Commission, the application and supporting materials, the City Council has determined that the findings per Exhibit "A" can be made and hereby designates the property known as the Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell. Section 2: This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1987, by the following vote: 2 Mayor EXHIBIT "A" REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION OF THE SARATOGA VOLUNTEER FIRE BELL 1. The Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell reflects a special element of the cultural, social, political and engineering history of the City. 2. The Fire Bell is identified with persons and events significant in local and county history; and 3. The Fire Bell is a visual feature that contributes to an established historic area of the City. 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: ORDINANCE NO. HP -13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE MISSIONARY SETTLEMENT HOUSE AT 14683 OAK STREET (APN 517 -08 -017) AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Preservation Commission, the application and supporting materials, the City Council has determined that the findings per Exhibit "A" can be made and hereby designates the property known as the Missionary Settlement House. Section 2: This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1987, by the following vote: City Clerk 4 Mayor EXHIBIT "A" REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION OF THE MISSIONARY SETTLEMENT HOUSE 1. The Settlement House exemplifies special elements of the cultural, social, economic and architectural history of the City. 2. The Settlement House embodies distinctive characteristics of the Queen Anne Cottage architectural style; and 3. The Settlement House is a structure which contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing the established Village area. 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: arnf 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: February 10, 1987 Valerie Young, Secretary to Commission Consideration of two applications for heritage resource designation The Heritage Preservation Commission has received two applications for heritage resource designation. These are discussed more fully below: HP -12. Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell (14434 Oak Street) This application originally was initiated in early 1986 jointly by the Commission and the Saratoga Firemen's Social Organization. However, before proceeding with the designation process, the Fireman's Organization wanted to work out an agreement with the City of Saratoga regarding transfer of ownership of the bell in the future. Such an agreement has been signed and is included with the application materials. The Saratoga Fire Bell is currently located at 14434 Oak Street in front of Firemen's Hall. It hangs from a large wooden beam supported by two columns of red brick. Historic information about the bell and the Firemen's Organization is provided in the application. HP -13. Missionary Settlement House (14683 Oak Street) This application was submitted by the current owners of the property, Woodrow and Terri Lomas. The house is a single -story Queen Anne Cottage constructed in the 1890's. Additional historic and architectural information is provided in the application materials. Action by Heritage Commission According to Section 13- 15.060 of the City Code, the Commission is required to render its recommendation on the designation in the form of a report to the City Council. The report shall set forth in detail the reasons for the Commission's decision and the information and documentation relied on in support thereof. In order for the Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of a heritage designation, the resource must satisfy one or more of the following criteria: (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or achitect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. C CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM iJ 6Ignaz„ron M Date Fee (No fee for designation only) I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell 2) Historic Name Same B. Location /Address 14434 Oak Street in front of Firemens Hall C. Assessor's Parcel Number 517 013 D. Use of Site Landmark 1) Original Fire Call Bell E. Present Owner Firemen's Association (Saratoga Fire Department) (Please attach. documentation of ownership) 1) Address 14488 Oak Street 2) Phone Number 867 -3347 Andy Bogart, President 3) Public or Private. Ownership Private 4) Has Owner been Notified of Application? Yes II. Purpose of Application A. Application for Designation or Permit? Designation 1. If application for permit briefly describe proposal and alterations required. B. Application for Heritage Landmark, Lane or District ?Landmark eri age 1. If application for heritage lane or district please attach required petitions (Section 6(a) Ord. No. 66). III. Description A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site (including major vegetation features) or structure and describe any existing major alterations from its original condition: This fire bell hangs from a large wooden beam supported by two columns of red brick. It is surrounded by shrubs but is near the sidewalk where it can easily be seen. B. Architectural Style N/A C. Year of Construction 1962 D. Name of Architect or Builder E. Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) 1) Frontage 19.91 `h 2) Depth N/A 3) Approximate Acreage F. Condition of Structure and /or Site (circle one): 1) Excellent 3) Deteriorated G. Is structure altered or H. Secondary structures on site. Describe. The Fireman's Hall is the main structure on the site. The bell is in front of the hall. unaltered? I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? The fire bell has been moved from it's original site. (See IV A.) pmamOug 4 On OM a att siegama vattulw vi357:�l74Rt+�i xtzu 4 60 igigt4 elms, i yinntof !.s IV. v, A. Briefly describe historical and /or architectural importance of the resource (include dates, events and persons associated with the site): t As early as 1903, this firebell hung on a steel located directly over the jail on Fourth St. near Lumber St. (now Big Basin Way). In 1924, the Saratoga Fire District was legally incorporated by vote under the State of California Fire District Act of 1882. (Attach sheet if more space required) B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates) Cunningham, "Saratoga First Hundred Years" Today it rests as a marker in front of the Firemen's Hall on Oak Street. Significance Does this site /structure have a county, state or federal historical landmark designation? NO Form submitted by: 1) 2) 3) 4) C Location Map Name Andre' T. Bogart and Barbara Voester Address 20800 Wardell Rd., Saratoga, CA. 95070 Phone Number 867 3347 or Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission h N (Label site and surrounding stre roads and prominent landmarks) I M P O R T A N T Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation or permit application to alter such a resource, the following should be read carefully. .I, the applicant, understand that by applying for a permit to alter such a resource that the site of this resource will be subject to the limitations and provisions of Ordinance No. 66. I also agree that these limitations and provisions will be complied with as well as any conditions upon which the �,q hand ication J is C' granted. In of ss whereof, 1 unto set da y o jr Signature (L t� lr?, I A Ltd Print Name 'l el re; ��C7 r---/- L� LOLL Address 2 6 6 G 0 I'Z"Ce l 8 ti SSG( /"C( h, cif IAA G Phone: Residence 867 3347 Business l5 VI. R tion of Commission to (circle one): qty Council/ Tanning Commission /Community Development Department A. The Heritage Preservation Commission is for /against the proposed designation /permit application. AUL V4;1), CrIA Wc+ J7a B. Comments: A C. Findings: 1. The Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell reflects a special element of the cultural, social, political and engineering history of the City. 2. The Fire Bell is identified with persons and events significant in local and county history. 3. The Fire Bell is a visual feature that contributes to an established historic area of the City. 5 Signed a I+ C Chairman of Heritag� Preservation Commission 71 ..e r Members of Saratoga Fire Department try out new Food Ma- chinery Corporation fire equipment delivered over the weekend of April, 1951. Shown at near hose are Leo Dickie, Chief Wilbur Worden, Ralph Van Arsdale, David Teeple, August Boisserance and Bill Sharp. At far hose are Pete Albini and Virgil Campbell. Others are Donald Renn at door, Jerry Renn, and George Lam- phear. District commissioners are Walter I. Lindstrom, L. C. Renn and Ralph Eaton. A great deal of unselfish labor had always been required in the launching and development of all of the community's public im- provements, and the 1920's brought quite a number of such under- takings. About the first was the Fire District formed as provided by state law. The men who had been prominent in the prevention and control of fire over the years were the principal organizers. Ed Seagraves continued on as Chief, a position he had served faith- fully for many years. No group of public spirited individuals ever rendered a more efficient service to the community than the Saratoga Volunteer Fire Department. While Saratoga had never been devastated by fire as had other communities, it did have its share of outstanding blazes including Mac lay's tannery and grist mill in the sixties, the paste- board mill in the seventies, Saratoga paper mill in the eighties, and Congress Springs Hotel after the turn of the century. Saratoga's citizens, realizing the menace of fire, took up a collec- tion and purchased four hundred feet of two and one -half inch hose, mounted on a hand -drawn cart that was used until the Fire District was formed. This was kept inside the door of Kane's blacksmith shop, on the lower floor of Kane's Hall. A fire bell was bought and hoisted on a steel tower located directly over the village jail on Fourth Street near Lumber Street. The San Jose Water Works installed four fire hydrants along Lumber Street, one at Sixth, Fifth and Third Streets, and one at the end of the Saratoga Los Gatos Road. In 1924, the Saratoga Fire District was legally incorporated by vote under the State of California Fire District Act of 1882, which gave the district power to raise money for its needs through taxation. Three elected fire commissioners, Lee Renn, G. E. Tarleton aid W. A. Rice, soon purchased a 1924 Model T fire truck. In 1928, a chemical Model A fire truck was added to the fire equipment. Ten years later, the first fire pumper was bought and the old one was retired. A roll call of fire chiefs who made many contributions towards Saratoga's progress in its formative years included Ed Seagraves, Martin Kane, Eber Tarleton, Carl Taylor, Everett Priest, Lee Renn, Jack Clarke, Donn Renn, Eugene Heuer, Wilbur Worden, Virgil Campbell, Earl Renn, Jerry Renn and Henry Clarke. Ninety -one- year -old Pete Albini holds the distinction of honorary fire chief for the past twenty -five years. This old -timer came to Saratoga in 1897, worked for Hubbard and Carmichael Lumber Mills, and has been an enthusiastic volunteer fireman since the turn of the century. Up to his eighty -fifth birthday, Mr. Albini was a familiar figure rushing down Oak street to the firehouse responding to the ringing of the fire bell both day and night. The passing years have increased the skill of the fire fighters and brought great improvement in this equipment which today rates among the finest in the state. Quite a number of Saratoga property owners have reason to be grateful for the efficient work of the town's Volunteer Fire Department. AGREEMENT CONCERNING FIRE BELL THIS AGREEMENT, dated ��$(LI,t, between THE SARATOGA FIREMEN'S SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, no by profi association, hereinafter referred to as "Association," and THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" is made with reference to the following facts: A. Association is the owner of a steel fire bell presently located at Fireman's Hall at 14434 Oak Street, Saratoga, California. B. City's Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that said fire bell has special historical and cultural significance, interest and value as part of the history of the City and ought to be preserved as a heritage resource. C. Association has agreed to transfer ownership of the fire bell to City under the circumstances hereinafter described. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Association hereby agrees that upon any dissolution, termination of existence, or other circumstance resulting in the discontinuance of Association as an operating nonprofit organization, the ownership and possession of said fire bell shall automatically pass to City, without further action being required on the part of Association by way of executing an instrument of transfer or otherwise, it being the intention of Association to hereby make a present gift of said fire bell to City which shall become effective upon the occurrence of any of the events specified herein. 2. Association may, at any time, transfer possession of said fire bell to City, and hereby agrees to do so in the event Association is no longer able to provide safe custody of the bell at a location within the City of Saratoga. 3. City hereby accepts the gift of said fire bell from Association and agrees to keep and preserve the same as a heritage resource. Upon taking possession thereof, City shall display the fire bell at a location accessible to members of the public, as determined by the City Council after considering recommendations from the Heritage Preservation Commission. In considering possible locations for the bell, the Council shall give first preference to the Saratoga Fire Station (14380 Saratoga Avenue) and second preference to the Saratoga Historical Museum (20450 Saratoga Los Gatos Road). All costs of removing, transporting and installing the fire bell at its new location shall be paid by City, and City shall thereafter maintain said fire bell as may be necessary. In addition, City shall display with the bell a suitable form of identification describing its historic nature and significance. 4. For so long as Association retains possession of the fire bell, Association agrees to keep and maintain the bell in safe custody and good condition. It is further agreed that Association will not remove the bell from the City of Saratoga and will not sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the bell, except for a transfer of possession to City pursuant to this Agreement. In the event the bell is removed from its present location, Association will promptly give written notice of such fact to City's Heritage Preservation Commission indicating the place to which the bell has been relocated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. SARATOGA FIREMEN'S SOCIAL GANIZATION By THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a mu tigipal corp 9r do By r C CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Received I 7i1 '31 Designation No t1 j Meeting Date Fee (No fee for designation only) I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name G► 0 h/ p S w� 2) Historic Name /D/1AAy fR rj LF wca tip 4 SAC B. Location /Address /tie jk3 04 4 S'/- C. Assessor's Parcel Number S/ 7 8' -O D. Use of Site TYZI (1 e17 re, 1) Original SS /041.4tit Re: t Orr NCr ri E. Present Owner ,e‘,paOG✓ sl Fj{t{; p t,,.irgS (Please attach.documentatioh of ownership) 1) Address /'Y6 93 Q a/c. s' 2) Phone Number jr 7 7,9/4; 3) Public or Private Ownership l UA4 i ri 4) Has Owner been Notified of Application? II. Purpose of Application A. Application for Designation or Permit? PE'f t0 1. If application for permit briefly describe proposal and alterations required. B. Application for Heritage Landmark, Lane or District? 1. If application for heritage lane or district please attach required petitions (Section 6(a) Ord. No. 66). 4PN. S77-8- III. Description A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site (including major vegetation features) or structure and describe any existing major alterations from its original condition: J .S iik1 -L It S TO /l t` ■�C■J /9 N �IT Co S'f /c 3 G- AM t is de.. .4" s 0 11 Astu K. /t ...r£ 0A r F't a v 0 i is 0. r 73 c iC n eco et* o•µ /C'. re I+ r4.4 i3.4 04�5� c t ct c .o. I c' Z a Ti l a et, E'S To 1ri.9 f y. I B. Architectural Style QtA fit./ A .Sbc/14 Ce, A G-R C. Year of Construction Atitc�!",.t /8'P? A i8 9 D. Name of Architect or Builder (2 E. Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) 1) Frontage a.at Ft- 2) Depth .2t/9 tt/t' 3) Approximate Acreage 3 F. Conditi.n of Structure and /or Site (circle one): 2) Fair 3) Deteriorated G. Is structure altered or unaltered? H. Secondary structures on site. Describe. I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? (RI rirc 1) Name 2) Address 3) Phone Number f J. Photo (Date Taken: Location Map �Q S oAk St J p• s',, 4 rd Akt 1 n9 G- et 7b KR (20 /4) I d'6) 4) or Saratoga He itage Preservation Commission N 4 I1b8'3 OAK. v c S 7_ 8._0, 7) s (Label site and surrounding streE roads and prominent landmarks) IV. Significance A. Briefly describe historical and /or architectural importance of the resource (include dates, events and persons associated with the site): C x..,c., Grto -tc-tr /Ai 1k? 7 .4 M C. (-4' X11 o41'J 0 -CA A.49 444 Co.) •%C 4r rt d wPQ 1 C 4 196 47 i= c #404 cv•.rd.t. (Attach sheet if more space required) B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys; personal interviews and their dates): SA .94r .9-C 1 +m 3 1-4 c. /.v vIC.I Fart C. Does this site /structure have a county, state or federal historical landmark designation? NO C rorteNA TO tire' /Ass1s.. I'f 37 0■#(. SI Q) V. Form submitted by: VI. C I M P O R T A N T Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation or permit application to alter such a resource, the following should be read carefully. I, the applicant, understand that by applying for a permit to alter such a resource that the site of this resource will be subject to the limitations and provisions of Ordinance No. 66. I also agree that these limitations and provisions will be complied with as well as any conditions upon which the application is granted. In witness whereof, I here unto set my hand this 2.' day of j,"^1...ra•Al 19917 Signature 04.5".,%.-1.57 ;71.! Print Name Address (1' 6 8 Phone Residence q -2 f Business 7 4/ 3 7 c/O ndation of Commission to (circle one): anning Commission /Community The Herita•- vation Commission i proposed /permit application. B. Comments: ,foex rte- pment Department gainst the C. Findings: 1. The Settlement House exemplifies special elements the cultural, social, economic and architectural history of the City. 2. The Settlement House embodies distinctive characteristics of the Queen Anne Cottage architectural style. 3. The Settlement House is a structure which contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing the established Village area. Signed V V AkQ4'\ Chairman of Herita Preservation Commission 1 N. 1 7 J 1 7 f f DESI GNi °1 TION I 14683 OAK STREET -//1/ J SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA, 95070 •,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,%,•,1* yEAR 1 PARCEL \1 VESTED 1. 1 J J J 1 1 1 1 r 1 ,I 1 I 1 I 1 I I t 1 MISSIONARY SETTLEMENT HOUSE 517 -8 -017 WOODROW FERN LOMAS 14683 OAK STREET SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 t INVENTORY t t I 1 J J I f I .y..t r NOTES: EARLY LUMBERING PERIOD (1850 1880) In 1905 the Congregational Church acquired this house to use for their missionaries when they were on leave. Original Use: Missionary Residence Builder: Clarence George as a home h 1 "The objective of preservation is the retention of the full range of styles, sensations and refer- ences that record the city's history and achievements visu- ally and environmentally to keep then in the city's vital mainstream." Ada Louise Huxtable, Will They Ever Finish Bruckner Boulevard.? New York: Macmillan. 1970. SARATO "The preservation of historic buildings and sites has now become a part of the larger job of creating and managing com- plex environments. Preserve one building and you preserve one building. Preserve the set- ting and the larger environment, and you keep open a thousand doors and opportunities for a better life for the entire community." Grady Clay, "Townscape and Landscape: The Coming Bat- tleground." Historic Preservation, January —March 1972. A AVE. THE NUMERICAL ORDER OF THESE LANDMARKS IS FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY. FOLLOW ANY ORDER SA RAT` YOU WISH. CREEK Map for Self-Guided Walking Tour of Historic... VILLAGE MERCHANTS TRt HAVE SUPPORTED THIS EVENT ARE MARKED WITH CAPITAL LETTE7 YOU WILL FIND THEM LISTED ON THE BAt PAGE.. 7 SARATOGA V I L L A G E JOHN HENRY HOUSE...14630 Big Basin Way. An early, Pioneer Style house, built in 1869 by John Henry, the engineer for the Saratoga Paper Mill. Beautifully maintained, this is one of Saratoga's oldest homes and still retains its original appearance on the exterior. FABRETTI HOUSE...14669 Big Basin Way. Built in 1881, this was the home of Frank Fabretti, one of Saratoga's .early settlers. PETTIS LIVERY STABLE...14605 Big Basin Way (rear). This handsome red barn was built in 1898, by W.W. Pettis, to shelter horses for the Santa Clara Stage Line. The stage stopped regularly during its run over what is now Big Basin Way, to the summit of the Santa cruz Mountains. ERWIN T. KING HOUSE...14605 Big Basin Way. Built about 1875, the home was the residence of E.T. King co -owner of the Saratoga Paper Mill. The residence later served as a stage -stop rumored to be named the Oriental Hotel, and as a gambling parlor and bar in the lustier lumbering era of Saratoga's past. MARSH- METZGER HOUSE...14599 Big Basin Way. Built in 1909, by the wife and daughter of T.E. Marsh, a prominent Saratoga citizen, after his death. The lot was purchased from Hannah McCarty, as were most of the other lots in the area. 14523 BIG BASIN WAY -THE BRAID BOX A 107 year old building, believed constructed as a residence in in the late 19th century. isle purpose of preservation is not to arrest time but to mediate sensitively tt i h )rces of change. It is to tinders the present as a product c f the past and a of the f tture• John W. Lawrence. Dean, School of Architecture. Tulane University. April 24. 1970. to answer your more specific questions. As you can see, this amazing home reflects the personal warmth of two dynamic people. .MISSIONARY SETTLEMENT HOUSE 14683 OAK STREET This home was built by Clarence George in 1897 and was known in its early days as the Clarence George House. In 1907 the Saratoga Congregational Church purchased the house for visiting foreign missionaries. From its earliest days the Saratoga Congregational Church was an enthusiastic supporter of missionary work, and the house is rumored to have been used for recuperat- ing missionaries. In 1900, the Saratoga Missionary Settlement had been organized to give council, comfort and assistance to returning missionaries. Hence, the name Missionary Settlement House. St. Charles Street, which runs diagonally behind the house was built during the early days of 9 Saratoga so the drivers of spring wagons and fringe- topped surreys of the 1880's and 1890's could pull the grade more easily and reach the homes "on top of the hill," thus making Oak Street more accessible to Lumber Street (now Big Basin Way). One of the very important points about this historic home is its Victorian architecture. It exemplifies the Queen Anne Cottage style, which is a scaled down version of a Queen Anne "Mansion It has the small scale classic detail and variety of textures (fishscale shingles and horizontal boards) which is typical. It also has bay windows, a veranda, high pitched roof, and gables; there are three prominent, oversized gables on this house. Notice, too, the decorative brackets, spindles, and roof ridge ornamentation. The high, twelve foot ceilings are typical of that era. The redwood construction is common in this area, and we can assume that the wood was cut and milled in the hills above Saratoga. This home, along with the cottage across the street, exemplifies a style popular in America from 1876. Terri and Woodrow Lomas purchased this home from John and Joan Byrne is 1972. Before that, it was owned by Perry and Edna Crawford, who purchased it in about 1937. What the Lomases are doing to their home is a perfect example of historic preservation. They are preserving the exterior as is, and restoring the interior to its 1890 splendor. It is uncertain what constituted the original home. It is believed that the parlor, living and dining rooms, and front bedroom are the original part of the house. It is presumed that the kitchen, bath, and back bed room were added. We do know that in the early 1920's the house was as it is today. It is probable that the fireplaces were installed after the house was built and naturally electricity and plumbing have been added. We know that the sunporch was an addition. 6. SARATOGA SCHOOL SITE...Originally the site of the Sons of Temperance Hall which also housed the first publi. school room. Another school was buil r in 1869, became overcrowded and wa raised up to put two new rooms under neath. Again outgrown, in 1898 a hand some Victorian school house was built with a central tower, designed by loci architect, Chas. Boosinger. This wc again replaced by the building you se today, builtin1923. 7. CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH PARSONAGE...1466( Oak St. Built in 1886, this charmin residence was built in conjunction wit the pioneer Congregational Church, th first permanent religious organizatic in Saratoga. 8. WILLIAM KING HOUSE...14672 Oak St Built in 1870 as the home of Willia King, one of the owners and founders o the Saratoga Paper Mill. It is o redwood construction. The Kings wer very prominent in community affairs This home is a valued Saratoga desig nated Heritage landmark. MISSIONARY SETTLEMENT HOUSE...Se description in front section of booklet 9. MADRONIA CEMETARY See description i last section of booklet. 10. 14700 6th Street... Built in 1896, thi residence was originally St. John' Episcopal Church. It has been greatl' altered since its sale in 1919. 11. 14650 6th Street... Known also as the Nardie House, this tiny Victorian ir of the era of the 1890's. Recentl; sold, and designated a Saratoga Heritage Landmark, it will soon be restored an( used as an office. TYPE: Regular meeting None 1I. OLD_BUSINES CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 18, 1987, 3:0.0 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga Community Library Meeting Room, 12356 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga I^ ROUTINE_ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Present: Ansnes, Koepernik, Held, Voester, Cameron Absent: Landsness, Tyrrell (both excused) Staff: Young B. Approval of Minutes of 2-4-87 Passed unanimously Staff noted that agenda had been posted at the council chambers on 2-13-87. C. Oral Communications A. Heritage Resource Inventory There was general discussion on writing the physical description of resources. Commissioners discussed research done on the resource inventory and will continue working on their assignments. III. NEW_BUS A. HP-12 B. Voester gave a brief background on the application. The year of construction will read c.1900 and clarify that the marker was built in 1962. M/S Voester/Koepernik to recommend to the city Council approval of the designation of the Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell as a heritage resource, based on the following findings: 1) The Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell reflects a special element of the cultural, social, pdl.itical and engineering history of the City, 2) The Fire Bell is identified with persons and events significant in local and county history; and 3) The Fire Bell is a visual feature that contributes to an established historic area of the City. Motion passed unanimously B. HP-13 Missionary Settlement House B. Voester gave brief background on the application. The commission discussed the importance of the structure to the Village area. M/S Cameron /Voester to recommend to the City Council approval of the designation of the Missionary Settlement House as a heritage resource based on the following findings: 1) The Settlement House exemplifies special elements of the cultural, social, economic and architectural history of the City. 2) Thae Settlement House embodies distinctive characteristics of the Queen Anne Cottage architectural style; and 3) The Settlement House is a structure which contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing the established Village area. Motion passed unanimously