Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-1985 City Council Agenda packet0 2- 1905 !fa i1 DATE: Fiscal Impacts None 1. Memorandum BILL NO. q`/ q 9/24/85 (10/2/85) DEPA,R'IMENT: Community Development Exhibits /Attache nis CITY OF SARATOGA RELEASE OF BOND SDR -1462, DONALD SCHAFFER COX AVENUE Initial: Dept. Bd. Recordation Release Donald Schaffer's bond and accept bond of Robert McBride. C. Atty. C. Mgr Issue Sucnnary At its regular meeting of June 19, 1985, the Saratoga City Council granted Final Building Site Approval for the above project. Donald Schaffer is in the process of selling this property, and the new owner has provided a bond for $16,000.00 to replace Mr. Donald Schaffer's bond for the improve- ment of Cox Avenue and entered into a new Improvement Agreement. Council Action 10/2: Approved. New Policy to have these handled by staff if change in bond due merely to change in ownership. OTEW g2 Lni 121 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RSS:cd City Council Director of Community Development SDR -1462 Location: Cox Avenue DATE: 9 -24 -85 All improvements required of Cox Avenue and agreed to in the Contract Improvement Agreement dated June 19, 1985 have not been satisfactorily completed. The new owner has provided a security bond to replace Donald Schaffer's bond. Therefore, I recommend that Mr. Donald Schaffer's bond be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Donald Schaffer Address: 20015 Cox Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type: Assignment Investment Certificate Amount: $16,000 Issuing Co.: Bank of America Address: Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 Certificate No.: 8801 -87 3. Special Remarks: Bond has been issued by Transamerica Premier Insurance Co. Bond No. 612592 1 Rob~ t S. Shook Director of Community Development AGENDA BILL NO. 93 DATE: 9/23/85 (10/2/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development S Issue Summary Recommendation Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA Oak Street Area Traffic Review and Recommendations Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. As a result of requests to place traffic control devices (stop signs). at numerous locations around Oak Street the various intersections were analyzed. The discussion and recommendations are attached in the form of a mono. These locations. are as follows: 1. Stop sign on. Sixth Street at Oak Street 2. Stop sign on Komina Avenue at Oak Street 3. Stop sign on Third Street at Oak Street 4. Stop sign on Koinna Avenue at Aloha Avenue 5. Stop- Sign_on southwest -bound Aloha Avenue at Komina Avenue 6. Stop sign on northwest bound Lomita Avenue at Aloha Avenue 1. Resolution designating stop intersections 2. Memo with exhibits. 3. Letter from residents 10/2: Approved Resolution MV 160. Implement the recommendations shown in the memo. A resolution establishing six (6) stop signs will be necessary. A cost of approximately $750.00, based on time and materials for the installation of the stop signs and the necessary double yellow striping and reflectorized markers. Another $250.00 to remove the large stump on Bohlman Road. Total cost $1,000. )14- The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I: The following intersections in the City of Saratoga are hereby designated a stop intersections: NAME OF STREET Sixth Street Komina Avenue Third Street Komina Avenue Aloha Avenue Lomita Avenue AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF SIXTH STREET AND OAK STREET; KOMINA AVENUE AND OAK STREET; THIRD STREET AND OAK STREET; KOMINA AVENUE AND ALOHA AVENUE; ALOHA AVENUE AND KOMINA AVENUE; VICKERY AVENUE AND ALOHA AVENUE AS STOP INTERSECTIONS City Clerk DESCRIPTION All vehicles traveling on Sixth Street southeast bond shall stop before entering Oak Street. All vehicles traveling on Komina Avenue northwest boudn shall stop before entering Oak Street. All vehicles traveling on Third Street southeast bound shall stop before entering Oak Street. All vehicles traveling on Komina Avenue southeast bound shall stop before entering Aloha Avenue. All vehicles traveling on Aloha Avenue southwestbound shall stop before continuing straight or entering Komina Avenue. All vehicles traveling on Lomita Avenue northwest bound shall stop before continuing straight or entering Aloha Avenue. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Sarartoga at a regular meeting held on the second day of October, 1985, by the following vote: 1 MAYOR TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: September 23, 1985 FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGR. TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: OAK STREET AREA TRAFFIC REVIEW ANJJ RECOMMENATIONS Recently. there have been requests to analyze- various. streets. and intersections in the vicinity of Oak Street, particularly adjacent to the. elementary school on Oak Street. As a- result of these requests a summary of the review for each location is as follows: Oak: St. /Sixth St. /Bohlman Rd-- Request• for a. three -way stop- This. intersection. can be. improved immediately by: 1. Assignment of right -of -way by establishing a stop sign on Sixth St., making vehicles stop on sixth prior to entering Bohlman Rd. or Oak. St.. Painting a double yellow. centerline stripe on Bohlman Rd., Sixth St. and Oak St. for better alignment and keeping vehicles. on the proper side of the road. Use type D markers with stripe. 3.• Remove the large stump that is located on the southerly side of Bohlman Rd. approximately 150 feet from Sixth. Street. 4. Install a type "L" reflective paddle adjacent to the 40" Oak tree located on southerly side Bohlman Rd. approximately 110 feet from Sixth St. 5. Paint directional arrows on Bohlman Road for further clarity. 6. See sketch. (Exhibit A.) showing the above improvements. The intersection may be improved further, at a later date, by realignment and widening. This could possibly be accomplished. under the FY 86 -87 budget. There has been no significant accident history at this location. OAK ST. /KOMINA AVE.. Request for a stop sign In order to more clearly assign right of way at this intersection. a stop sign could be installed on Komina Avenue, making vehicles on Komina Avenue stop prior to entering_ Oak. Street. There is an existing painted. school crosswalk across Komina Avenue at Oak Street. There is no significant. accident history at this location. 1 OAK ST. /THIRD ST. Request for a stop. sign In order to more clearly assign right of way at this intersection a- stop. sign could be installed on. Third. St.., making vehicles on Third Street stop prior to entering Oak. Street. There is. a very steep uphill grade on Third Street, approaching Oak Street making it some what unsafe to enter Oak. Street without first coming to a complete. stop. There is no significant accident history at this location. KOMINA- AVE./ALOHA- AVE. Request for a three -way atop. The primary problem with this intersection is the poor sight distance on two (2) of ±he. three approaches, due to shrubbery, bushes etc. and the narrow alignment of Komina Avenue._ Trimming of the shrubbery would have. to be drastic in order to help the sight distance and it would have to be continually monitored and kept. trimmed. The recommended solution would be to install a stop sign on Komina Avenue, making vehicles stop. prior to entering Aloha. Avenue, and installing a stop sign on southbound aloha Avenue., making vehicles stop. prior to turning onto Komina Avenue or proceeding straight. There is an existing school crosswalk across Aloha Avenue at its. southbound approach to Komina Avenue. The northbound Aloha Avenue leg should only receive a. double. yellow centerline with Type. 0 markers. for the entire length between Komina Avenue and Lomita Avenue. The other two .legs should. also have a double. yellow centerline with Type D markers, but for only 50' back from the stop bars. See sketch (Exhibit. "B The continued trimming of the shrubbery should be ongoing as necessary. There. is no significant accident history at this location, only resident reported "near misses ALOHA A'JE. /LOMITA AVE. Request for a stop. sign. This intersection has limited sight distance due to a heavy growth. of junipers at the northeasterly corner, combined with the vertical alignment of both streets. The solution to this situation would be to completely remove the junipers. adequately enough to allow proper sight distance or the placeme.nt of stop. sign on Lomita Avenue. at its northwesterly approach to Aloha Avenue along with some reasonable trimming of the junipers. This- along with- the- striping of the centerlines with double yellow and Type 0 markers, which would keep- vehicles on the property side of the. roadway, increasing the safety for both vehicles and pedestrians. See sketch. (Exhibit "8"). There is no significant accident history at this location. 2 LOMITA AUE. /VICKEY. AVE. Request for stop sign- This intersection does not have any apparent problems-, other than. the. need. to trim the. junipers on. both corners. A11 three approaches are adequate in width and alignment. The major circulation of this- intersection ia southwesterly bound Vickery Avenue to northwesterly bound Lomita Avenue, and southeasterly bound Lomita. Avenue. to northeasterly bound Vickery Avenue. The minor movement leg is northwesterly bound. Lomita Avenue (straight), northwesterly bound. Lomita Avenue to northeasterly bound Vickery Avenue and southwesterly bound Vickery Avenue. to southeasterly Lomita Avenue. See Exhibit C for diagram of intersection. The only possible recommendation other than the trimming of the junipers would be to stripe all three approaches with 5m feet of double. yellow along with- Type Q markers. to keep. vehicles from "cutting corners There is no significant,- accident history at this- location. 3 N. Exiagif r N N 4,9 4 t er I I i 1 I I 1 i 48",o 1 Siw Remove, 11 I la au/dee SCALE: /"=.20' ,i t/ 02 .slad Komm A 1- /J.-- ?I'..''''-'.21.7-•- re.4.1S,C., -fr-c;i:Fe .------\P- A'e)ceci) LOM/TA SCALE:/3cy C..") A 4 FII 1 111 111 jil 111 1 1 1 1 111 111 111 11 111 111 1 I I! slop Aar for .6v0/4 -7\\,,,•\\‘•\ \NV's."' EXHIBIT B A VE TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR OAK STREET SCHOOL We are a group of concerned parents and citizens living within the immediate vicinity of oak street school urging that immediate action be taken to insure the safety of local pedestrians. There are no sidewalks in our neighborhood allowing safe walking,jogging or bike riding.The only protection from traffic for us and our children is when drivers are forced to be cautious by slowing down and stopping. Attached is a map requesting localities where stop signs need to be placed. Especially now when school starts we believe it is mandatory that all of us consider every possible options that prevents accidents involving school children. august 7th,1985 1, ////7��' t��//7}�\/�^1 u� (2 7 7 /r/'( y�/��'' rr L l 5- L 4, ��u^�� J 0 'TS b�L�__ 41 7 Z O(l U 74/^. L/-7/� 0 ��J ve �./�w_ t�T- 7ylL�� ��z4 c°�8 �v/ 1 b7 1 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: ISSUE SUMMARY 9/23/85 (10/2/85) HP -7, Ordinance Designating Saratoga Historical Museum as a Heritage Resource 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission, at its own initiative, had an application for Heritage Resource Designation prepared for Saratoga Historical Museum. 2. The Commission has determined that Saratoga Historical Museum meets the criteria for Heritage Resources per Ordinance No. 66. 3. If this designation is approved, all proposed modifications to the museum would have to be reviewed by the Commission. RECOMMENDATION• 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission= recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance designating Saratoga Historical Museum as a Heritage Resource. 2. To adopt this ordinance the Council must make the necessary findings at the time of the ordinance's first reading. 3. A second reading of the ordinance would be required at the next Council Meeting. The ordinance would go into effect 30 days after the second reading. FISCAL IMPACTS None anticipated EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. HP -7 2. Application and Commission Report /Findings COUNCIL ACTION 10/2: Introduced Ordinance. 10/16: Adopted ordinance. Initial Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. 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 "B" can be made and hereby designates the property known as the Saratoga Historical Museum as a Heritage Resource of the City of Saratoga. 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 2nd day of October, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. HP -7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE SARATOGA HISTORICAL MUSEUM (APN 517- 10 -13) AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE MAYOR EXHIBIT "B" HP-7 REPORT OF FINDINGS 1. The Saratoga Historical Museum (Saratoga Drug Store /Swannee's Dress Shop) exemplifies and reflects special elements of the architectural history of Saratoga in that it is one of the oldest commercial structures in Saratoga utilizing a false front typical of the early 1900's. 2. The structure embodies the distinctive characteristics of the false front commercial style. 3. The structure contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the Village commercial district as part of the City's Historical Park. CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name Saratoga Historical Museum 2) Historic Name Swanee's Dress Shop, Saratoga Drug Store II. B. Location /Address 20450 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, CA C. Assessor's Parcel Number 517 -10 -013 D. Use of Site Historical Park and Museum 1) Original Residential E. Present Owner City of Saratoga (Please attach documentation of ownership) 1) Address 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 2) Phone Number 867-3438 3). Public or Private Ownership Public 4) Has Owner been Notified of Application? Yes 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 1. If application for heritage lane or district please attach required petitions (Section 6(a) Ord. No. 66). 1 Date Received Designation No. P 7 Meeting Date A2-2. Fee (No fee for designation only) 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-false front and wood frame building was preserved in 1975 by moving it to the oak studded Historical Park. An addition consisting of a vault and storage /lavatory rooms were added in 1975. As part of the park it has simple and colorful planting to represent the gardens of its period. B. Architectural Style Pioneer False Front Commercial C. Year of Construction 1904/05 D. Name of Architect or Builder E. Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) 1) Frontage 124.53' 2) Depth varies with park 3) Approximate Acreage 0.80 acres F. Condition of Structure and /or Site (circle one): 1) Excellent G. Is structure altered or unaltered? 2) Fair 3) Deteriorated vault /storage added at rear H. Secondary structures on site. Describe. First library in area and McWilliams House (Chamber of Commerce) occupy Historical. Park with structure I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? The structure was donated to the Saratoga Historical Foundation and was moved to the site in 1975 for the Bicentenial celebration. 2 J. Photo (Date Taken: Location Map A N (Label site and surrounding streets, 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)• From about 1905 to 1910 the building housed the Saratoga Drug Store, which moved next door in 1910. From 1910 to 1975 various businesses occupied the building including a restaurant, creamery, variety store, and for the last 25 years a dress shop "Swanees Construction is typical (Attach sheet if more space required) of the period. B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates): Santa Clara Co. Heritage Resource Inventory Saratoga's First 100 Years Florence Cunningham and Frances Fox Saratoga Planning Department Letter dated 5/15/77 Melita Oden, Saratoga Historian of Saratoga Historical Foundation C. Does this site /structure have a county, state or federal historical landmark designation? Listed in Santa Clara Co. Heritage Resource Inventory V. Form submitted by: 1) Name Barbara Voester and Warren Heid 2) Address 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. 3) Phone Number 857 -3438 4) or Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission 3 Members of Commission 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 hereof, I here unto set my hand this 6th day of March 985. Signature Warren B. Reid Address 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Print Name Barbara Voester Phone: Residence 4 Business 867 -3438 VI. Recommendation of Commission to (circle one): City Counci Planning Commission /Community Development Department A. The Heritage Preservation Commission is'for against the proposed designation /permit application. B. Comments: This structure is one of the oldest commercial structures in the City of Saratoga. The style of architecture is typical wood frame with the false front, which was typical of the period. It is a significant resource for its simple style and was saved in 1975 by the citizens of Saratoga for use as a museum. It was dedicated as part of the Historical Park during the bicentennial celebration on July 4, 1976. C. Findings: 1. The Saratoga Historical Museum (Saratoga Drug Store /Swannee's Dress Shop) exemplifies and reflects special elements of the architectural history of Saratoga in that it is one of the oldest commercial strictures in Saratoga utilizing a false front typical of the early 1900's. 2. The structure embodies the distinctive characteristics of the false front commercial style. 3. The structure contributes to the unique physical characteristics repre- senting an established and familiar visual feature of the Village commercial district as part of the City's Historical Park. hairman of-Heritage Preservation Commission AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 9/23/85 (10/2/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development' FISCAL IMPACTS None anticipated 1. Ordinance No. HP -9 2. Application and Commission Report /Findings COUNCIL ACTION 10/2: Introduced ordinance. 10/16: Adopted ordinance. Initial Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. HP -9, Ordinance Designating Saratoga Village Library, 14410 Oak Street as a Heritage Resource ISSUE SUMMARY 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission, at its own initiative, had an application for Heritage Resource Designation prepared for Saratoga Village Library at 14410 Oak Street. 2. The Commission has determined that Saratoga Village Library meets the criteria for Heritage Resources per Ordinance No. 66. 3. If this designation is approved, all proposed modifications to the Saratoga Village Library would have to be reviewed by the Commission. 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance designating Saratoga Village Library as a Heritage Resource. 2. To adopt this ordinance, the Council must make the necessary findings at the time of the ordinance's first reading. 3. A second reading of the ordinance would be required at the next Council Meeting. The ordinance would go into effect 30 days after the second reading. 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 "B" can be made and hereby designates the property known as the Saratoga Public Library at 14410 Oak Street. 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 2nd day of October, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. HP -9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE SARATOGA PUBLIC LIBRARY AT 14410 OAK STREET (APN 517- 10 -12) AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE MAYOR rXHT -0 REP IF FINDINGS HP-9 1. The Saratoga Uillage Library exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social and architectural history of the Cit since it is the first public building of masonry construction in the City. 2. The Saratoga Uillage Library iS identified with persons and events significant in local history. 3. The Saratoga Uillage Library embodies the unusual and distinctive characteristics of concrete block masonry construction in the 19Z0s. 1. The Saratoga Uillage Library is representatiue of the notable design of local architect E. Spencer. S. The Saratoga Uillage Library contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing the established and familiar features of the City Historical Park and the Uillage area. CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name 2) Historic Name B. Location /Address C. Assessor's Parcel Number 517 012 Saratoga Public Library Saratoga Village Library D. Use of Site Friends of Saratoga Library "Book -go= Around" 2) Phone Number (408) 867 -3438 3) Public or Private Ownership Public Date Received Designation No. Meeting Date Fee 4) Has Owner been Notified of Application? Yes II. Purpose of Application A. Application for Designation or Permit? Designation --/q -BS (O -BS (No fee for designation only) 14410 Oak Street, Saratoga (corner of Saratoga -Los Gatos Raod) and VITA. 1) Original Saratoga Library (Member of Santa Clara Co. Library System) E. Present Owner City of Saratoga (Please attach documentation of ownership) 1) Address 13337 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 1. If application for permit briefly describe proposal and alterations required. B. Application for Heritage Landmark, Lane or District? Landmark 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 concrete block building is a small, rectangular _building and consists of one large room for entry, reading, and stacks, with access- ory rooms to the rear. It was considered as very modern in 1927 as it was one of the first to be constructed of concrete blocks. The roofing is terra cotta clay Spanish style tiles. A memorial plaque, located at the front door, honors Mr. Sheldon P. Patterson (continued at bottom of page) B. Architectural Style Modified California Spanish Revival C. Year of Construction 1927 D. Name of Architect or Builder Eldredge Spenser, architect from Oakland E. Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) 1) Frontage 121.8 feet (Building is 3,082 sq.ft.) 2) Depth 62.5 feet 3) Approximate Acreage .18 acres (parcel part of Historical Park) F. Condition of Structure and /or Site (circle one): 1 $c# x c Very good 2) Fair 3) Deteriorated G. Is structure altered or unaltered? Unaltered H. Secondary structures on site. Describe. None I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? A cont. who led a citizens committee to build the library. Many large and mature trees (deodora cedars, cypress, redwoods, and oaks) are on the site. 2 J. Photo (Date Taken: Location Map 6A ate` o II I a Y' N Site 4 34 0 4 g o v (Label site and surrounding streets, 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): In 1903 Saratoga began participating in the Traveling Libraries Project that had been inaugurated by the State Librarian to supply the people in the country areas with books. The $12,000 needed to build the lib building was raised in one year entirely by (continued on next page) (Attach sheet if more space required) B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates): Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory 1979 Saratoga's First Hundred Years by Florence Cunningham C. Does this site /structure have a county, state or fctderal historical landmark designation? Listed in Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory, 1979 V. Form submitted by: 1) Name i j /3/44 WD657E_ 2) Address r.-5;777 /T(r' L A-U s4,0072964, 6A, 3) Phone Number /67 3 it 3t 4) or Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission f.emiler IV. SIGNIFICANCE CONTINUED public subscription. Several prominent Saratogans were responsible for initiating the need for Saratoga's own library building. Sheldon Patterson a school board mem- ber was asked by Mrs. James T. Richards, chairman of the library committee, to negotiate the purchase of the vacant lot for future expansion. Mr. Patterson daily supervised the construction upon his death the following year, it seemed appropriate to make the library a memorial to him. Miss Edith Parsons from an early Saratoga family who lived near by planted several of the trees that landscaped the grounds. 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 fq day of Juj' .e.„ 19SS: Signature ,ice, /}z44.J detel 41 'x Print Name 6: S7 X Address I M P O R T A N T C Vs 1 414, 1 Phone: Residence 847-2_4-.12..._ Business 7'/ //0 VI. Recommendation of Commission to (circle one): (City Council Planning Commission /Community Development Department A. The Heritage Preservation Commission is for against the proposed designation /permit application. B. Comments: This structure, through public support, was the first major public building the the Saratnga area of Santa Clara County_ The style of architecture compliments the California Spanish Revival in general feeling, however the design was modified by the use of concrete block for the wall material. The tile roof, window treat- ment, and interior details reflect the main style. Because of the financial assistance by public donation, the involvement of prominent members of the community, and the early use of concrete blocks as the major building material, this structure provides a heritage resource for the City of Saratoga. 4 C. Findings: 1) The Saratoga Village Library exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social and architectural history of the City since it is the first public building of masonry construction in the City. 2).'. The Saratoga Village Library is identified with persons and events significant in local history. 3) The Saratoga Village Library embodies the unusual and distinctive characteristics of concrete block masonry construction in the 1920's. 4) The Saratoga Village Library is representative of the notable design of local architect E. Spencer. 5) The Saratoga Village Library contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing the established and familiar features of the City Historical Park and the Village area. Chairman o Heritage Preservation Commission. AGENDA BILL NO. ,DATE: 9/23/85 (10/2/85) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community DpvPlopment C. Mgr. SUBJECT: ISSUE SUMMARY 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission, at its own initiative, had an application for Heritage Resource Designation prepared for McWilliams House (Office of Saratoga Chamber of Commerce) 2. The Commission has determined that McWilliams House meets the criteria for Heritage Resources per Ordinance No. 66. 3. If this designation is approved, all proposed modifications to the McWilliams House would have to be reviewed by the Commission. RECOMMENDATION 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance designating The McWilliams House as a Heritage Resource. 2. To adopt this ordinance, the Council must make the necessary findings at the time of the ordinance's first reading. 3. A second reading of the ordinance would be required at the next Council Meeting. The ordinance would go into effect 30 days after the second reading. COUNCIL ACTION 93 7 FISCAL IMPACTS None anticipated EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. HP -10 2. Application and Commission Report /Findings. 10/2: Introduced ordinance. 10/16: Adopted ordinance. Initial Dept. Hd. HP -10, Ordinance Designating McWilliams House (Office of Saratoga Chamber of Commerce) as a Heritage Resource AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: ORDINANCE NO. HP -10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE MC WILLIAMS HOUSE (OFFICE OF SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE) (APN 517- 10 -13) 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 "B" can be made and hereby designates the property known as the McWilliams House (Office of Saratoga Chamber of Commerce). 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 2nd day of October, 1985, by the following vote: CITY CLERK MAYOR EXHT REPORT OF FINDINGS 1. The McUilliams House exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural and architectural history of the City and the State since it is an excellent example of the California Pioneer style of architectural. 2. The McUilliams House is identified with persons and euents significant in local history since the structure was built and occupied by Saratoga's second blacksmith and the structure was moued to the City's Historic Park and restored by many interested citizens. 3. The McUilliams House embodies the unusual and distinctiue characteristics of California Pioneer style architecture as described in the Comments section of the application. i. The McUilliams House contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing the established and familiar features of the City Historical Park and the Uillage area. HP -le CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Date Received I q -gs Designation No. tIPiO Meeting Date (O 2 OS Fee No fee for designation only) I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name Office of Saratoga Chamber of Commerce 2) Historic Name MCWill House B. Location /Address 20450 Saratoga Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, CA C. Assessor's Parcel Number 517 013 D. Use of site Historical Park, Museum, and Chamber Office 1) Original Residential E. Present Owner City of Saratoga (Please attach. documentation of ownership) 1) Address 13777 'Fruitvale AveJrue, Saratoga, CA 2) Phone Number (408) 867-3438 3) Public or Private Ownership Public 4) Has Owner been Notifies: 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 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 structure is of single wall, redwood, construction,originally with hand split redwood shingles. It was preserved in 1975 when it was moved to the site with the museum. The early bath addition was moved with the original living room /bedroom /kitchen structure, however the original brick chimney could not be moved. The chimney was rebuilt from the orig- inal bricks and a storage shed was added at the rear in 1975. B. Architectural Style Pioneer C. Year of Construction Early 1850's D. Name of Architect or Builder Unknown E. Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) 1) Frontage 124.53' 2) Depth varies with park 3) Approximate Acreage 0.80 acres F. Condition of Structure and /or Site (circle one): 1) lExcellen.d 2) Fair 3) Deteriorated G. Is structure altered or unaltered? Restored with small addition H. Secondary structures on site. Describe. Saratoga Historical Museum with Saratoga Village Library on adjacent parcel all as part of Historical Park I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? The structure was donated to the Saratoga Historical Foundation and was moved to the site in 1975 for the Bicentenial celebration. 2 J. Photo (Date Taken: Location Map Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory 1979 Heritage Resource Inventory (Label site and surrounding streets, 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): This typical Pioneer, style building was built in the early 1850's by James McWilliams, Saratoga's second blacksmith. It was located at 14407 Big Basin Way behind the Hogg Drug Store. It was used as a residence until moved in 1975, when it was restored by local citizens. (Attach sheet if more space required) B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates): Saratoga's First Hundred Years by Florence Cunningham and Frances Fox Saratoga Histbrian Melita Oden C. Does this site/structure have a county, state or federal historical landmark designation? Listed in Santa Clara County V. Form submitted by: 1) Name Warren B. Hei.d (vice chairman of Heritage Commission) 2) Address 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 3) Phone Number (408( 867 3438 4) or Saratocja Heritage Preservation Commission Member of Commission 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 i:. In witness whereof, I here unto set my hand this 9th da of June 1985'. Signature Print Name Warren B. Heid (vice chairman of commission) Address 13777 Frutvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Phone: Residence Business 867 -3438 VI. Recommendation of Commission to (circle one): 'City Council Planning Commission /Community. Development Department The Heritage Preservation Commission is for; against the proposed designation /permit application. B. Comments: This structure is an excellent example of California Pioneer style of architecture with three rooms under a main ridge with front porch full width and lean -to additions. It is constructed of A. single wall redwood members (1 "x12 with plates at top and bottom. Cheese cloth was attached to interior surface to support wallpaper and bungalow siding (1 "x6 was applied horizontally at the exterior. Sash are double hung and mantel is the original. After being moved to the Historical Park site in 1975 many interested and prominent citizens restored the structures, removing wallpaper to expose wood interior walls, paint and varnish to expose original pine flooring, and generally ref- erbishing the building. It was dedicated as part of the Historical Park during the bicentennial celebration on July 4, 1976, and is considered as one of the heritage resources of the City of Saratoga. 4 C. Findings: 1) The McWilliams House exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural and architectural history of the City and the State since it is an excellent example of the California Pioneer style of architecture. 2) The McWilliams House is identified with persons and events signifi- cant in local history since the structure was built and occupied by Saratoga's second blacksmith and the structure was moved to the City's Historic Park and restored by many interested citizens. 3) The McWilliamsHS -nse embodies the unusual and distinctive characteristics of California Pioneer style architecture as described in the Comment section of the application. 4) The McWilliams House contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing the established and familiar features of the City Historical Park and the Village area,. Sig Chairman of Heritage Preservation Commission AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 9/23/85 (10/2/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development S Issue Summary Recorm endation Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action qss COMM[JNITY LIBRARY PARKING LOT EXPANSION On August 7, 1985 the City entered into the contract for the Community Library Parking Lot Expansion, with Cushman Construc- tion Company, Inc. for the contract amount of $28,339.00. Construction began on August 12, 1985 and was completed on August 28, 1985. Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion on the above project. Final contract costa $28,009.00 which comes from the Library Bond Fund (55- 4521 863 -3:1). 1. Notice of Completion. 10/2: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Bd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Na r Street City d State RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO That STATE OF CALIFORNIA SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ?Intimm of QQII141tEttun M aitre is hereby given that I the undersigned, Harry Peacock /the agent ofJ* the owner of th certain lot piece or, parcel of land situated in the City o Saratoga County of Santa Clara State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: COMMUNITY LIBRARY PARKING LOT EXPANSION City of Saratoga as owner of said land, did, on the seventh day of August 19 85 enter into a contract with C71$hmdll ...GO.l1S.ti ,wta.pn Company, Inc. Community Library Parking Lot Expansion upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the county of State of California, on the day of 19 That on the twenty eight day of August 19 85 the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said Gualucan. Company., Inc. That the name and address of all the owner of said property are as follows: CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 and the nature of title to said property is Agent Harry Peacock being duly sworn, says: am the agent of)* the owner of the property described in the foregoing notice. 1 have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the .same is true of my own knowledge. County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 City of Saratoga Owner 13y Deputy City Clerk (Govt. Code 40814) Delete words in brackets if owner signs. This document is on(v_. general form which may be P!op!r for use in simple transactions end in no acts or it intended_ Kt. as substitute for.th..edvice of en attorney—The Publisher does not make env_warr.nl, either express or implied as to N. I.0.I ...AilT,T4 env p:o.i.ion or the suitebiliry of thew forms in any specific trant.,ion. Cowderv's Form No. 774 NOTICE OFCOMPLETION BY OWNER. (C. C. P. Sec. 1193.1) for S D Issue Summary Recommendation Exhibits /Attachmmnts Council Action 10/2: Approved. AGENDA BILL NO. Q3 D?TE: 9/23/85 (10/2/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development PAMELA WAY STORM DRAIN CITY OF SARATOGA On August 7, 1985 the City entered into the contract for the Pamela Way "Storm ;Drain, with 'Glage Underground Construction, Inc. for the, contract amount of $12,947.50. The work started on August 19, 1985 and was completed on August 28, 1985. Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion on the above project. Fiscal Impacts Final Contract amount: $12,947.50 funded by the Capital Improve- ment Budget (87- 4521 951 -72). 1. Notice of Completion Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. r Name Street AddreH City 8 J Srate II RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO N atirP is hereby given that I the undersigned, Harry Peacock !the agent of] the owner of jh certain lot piece or, parcel of land situated in the City of Saratoga County of S.anta...Cl.ar.a State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: That as owner of said land, did, on the seventh day of AAqust 19 85 enter into a contract with G1age. ..Underground.. .COA5tnuc.tk.P.n Inc. for Pamela ..Way ...$tOr R..Drain upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the county of State of California, on the day of 19 That on the twenty eighth day of August 1 9 85 the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said (],Age pidergound Construction Inc. That the name and address of all the owner of said property are as follows: STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of J Nuttlae of (IIumplettun PAMELA WAY STORM DRAIN City of Saratoga CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER•S USE and the nature of title to said property is Delete words in brackets if owner signs. Tbit document is only a genets! form which m0, be Prop. Ice toe in simPle tr.nections and in no wry Ku, or it intended to ea a .obadtute for -the advisor of.sn attorney-The publish., dou not make any. w.remy. litn« eaprw w tenoned es-to the Mst Middy of .ly provision er.tM suiebility. 05:draw fans in any spscrlie trsmsctro2 Cowden, Form No, 774 NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY OWNER. IC. C. P. Sec. 1193.11 City of-Saratoga Owner By Rent Harry P eacock Deputy City Clerk (Govt. Code 40814) being duly sworn, sans: 1 am /the agent of] the owner of the property described in the foregoing notice. 1 have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 day of 19 1 1 AGENDA BILL N0. q DATE: 9/23/85 (10/2/85) DEPT: Community Development S Issue Summary Recornnendation Fiscal Impacts Final Map approval TRACT 7499, Lots Gatos Joint Union High :School District/ Osterland Enterprises, Inc, Herriman Avenue (5 lots) 1. The Tract 7499 :.is ready for final approval. 2. All requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met. 3. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City. Adopt Resolution NO. 1512 -02 attached, approving the final map of Tract 7499 and authorize execution of Contract Improvement Agreement. None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1512 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map Council Action 10/2: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Bd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. e//6) RESOLUTION NO. 1512 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF Tract 7499 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 7499 having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of th. estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60 as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. 1512 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF Tract 7499 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 7499 having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-60 as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City cf Saratog ArPROVED DYt DATE: TrA17 gif 0 U00 Revised 5/5/83 Revised: 5/11/83 DATE: 3/3/83 Commission Meeting: 5/11/83 SUBJECT: SD -1512, Los Gatos Joint Union High School District, Herriman Avenue near River Ranch Circle (Saratoga High School) Tentative Subdivision Approval 5 lots REQUEST: Applicant requests tentative subdivision approval for 5 lots (4 new residential lots and the school site). Requires exception for cul -de -sac exceeding 400 feet in length by Subdivision Ordinance. General Plan states new cul -de -sacs exceeding 500 feet should have an emergency access. OTHER APPOVALS REQUIRED: Public Hearing Design Review for proposed residences. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 42.3 acres ZONING: R- 1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Facility School /Open Space Resource and Medium Density Residential (M -12,5) SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential, Church SITE SLOPE: Less than 10% NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: High School fields sloping to a lower bench area above Saratoga Creek containing at least 70 significant trees (oak, pine, bay, black walnut, and eucalyptus). Unimproved roadway to creek for Santa Clara Valley Water District use exists on the easterly property line from Herriman and is separated from the fields by a row of large pines. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed minimum access road to the four new residences (divided by the row of large pines) is located behind five existing homes, which front on River Ranch Circle, and along the creek. The existing homes on River Ranch slope down sharply from Report to the Planning Commission Page 2 SD -1512 Herriman while the proposed road slopes gently from Herriman and there- fore the road becomes higher then the homes. The applicant proposes to place an additional landscaping as a buffer between the road and the homes along the easterly edge of the property and concs`truct a chain link fence on the property lines where none exists. Three of the large pines would be removed with creation of the divided road- way. The four new residences would front on the private access road with their rear yards towards the school playing fields. The adjacent lots to the southwest (Lands of Miner) are potentially developable. By this map, the School District would be offering an emergency access to Herriman for these lots and shows the main access to the potential lots to be via a continuation of Alta Vista Avenue as a public road. The newly adopted General Plan states: "CI.2. For safety, every new or developing public or private cul- de -sac greater tha 500 feet in length, and every new and developing residential area in the City with more than 15 residential lots on a cul -de -sac should have a primary and an,emergency access. CIRCULATION: The proposed minimum access road is 880' in length longer than the 400' allowed by ordinance. In order to approve the subject map the Planning Commission must make the finding that the proposal with a cul -de -sac longer than 400' is "the only feasible method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned The Fire Chief state he does not need an emergency access road for the four units as proposed but would require one for a roadway that would extend from Alta Vista. For the present proposal the Fire Chief is requiring a 30' roadway near the homes for additional parking area. The site has been reviewed by the City Geologist (reports attached). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the subdivision application since developing the property without a longer cul -de -sac is feasible (with a through road between Alta Vista and Herriman). This pro- posal also does not provide the actual emergency access. A denial of the map is required IT the Commission makes one or more of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plan. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Report to the Planning Commission 5/5/83 SD -1512 page 3 (e) That the design of the subdivision of the proposed,improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or sub- stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvments is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. If the Commission wishes to approve this map staff recommends they do subject to the following finding and conditions: PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga, given that this proposal (with a cul -de -sac longer than 500 feet) is the only feasible method to develop the property. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environ- mental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: January 28, 1983, The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1512 (Exhibt "B -2" filed April 14, 1983) subject to the following conditions: 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 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 regulations 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 Ordiance No 60. Report to the Planning Commission SD -1512 II. GENERAL CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Tract Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking and Recordation Fees). C. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. 5/5/83 Page 4 D. Construct Access Road 18 feet wide plus 1 foot or as approved by Director of Community Development. Shoulders using 2 1/2 inches of Asphalt Concrete on 6 inch aggregate base from Herriman Avenue. Scope of access road shall not exceed 12 1/2% without adhering to the following: Southerly along the rear of Tract No 1574 to the point where it is parallel with Saratoga Creek where it is to be widened to 26 feet wide to the cul -de -sac. Note: The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 feet. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 feet. Bridges and other roadway structures shall:,be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. E. Construct cul -de -sac having 32 foot radius. F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow I. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills. J. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Department of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. Report to Planning C...LnL,_asion SD -1512 p. Q K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Storm Drain Construction 2. Access Road Construction 5/5/83 Page L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Im- provement Plans. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.; O. Sound Wall along read of Tract No. 1574. Execute private road maintenance agreement prior to Final Map Approval. Dedicate and improve emergency access road (road width to be 18' with 1' shoulders with easement width to be as required to construct roadway). Design review of gate and landscaping re- quired prior to Final Map Approval. *R. Landscaping and pedestrian easement adjacent to adjoining properties (which front on River Ranch Circle) to be granted by staff. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued. C. 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 feet or higher. Report to Planning Commission SD -1512 5/5/83 Page 6 4. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map. north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. D. Comply with City Geologists recommendations. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATIN DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated November 9, 1982. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope of driveway shall not exceed 121% without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 121% to 15% shall be surfaced using 22 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17h% shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough sur- faced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. B. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 foot inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. D. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. E. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is re- quired for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. F. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for two hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) 1 rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. Report to Planning Commission SD -1512 5/57‘83 page 7 G. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. H. Developer to install one hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. I. As the hydrant will be on -site, the developer is to grant an easement to make these hydrants public, prior to Final Approval. J. Construct access road 30 feet wide adjacent to homes to provide parking area on one side of roadways as required by Fire Department. Details shall be shown on Final Plans. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District no. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Details of proposed outfall to be shown on plans. No overbank drainage into the creek from the developed lots is approved. Final plans to be reviewed and approved by Santa Clara Valley Water District. B. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and certification. C. Access road to be back at least 10 feet from top of bank. Decorative sound wall not to be within 22 feet of high bank or adjacent to creek. Plans to be reviewed and approved by Santa Clara Valley Water District prior to Final Approval. D. Dedicate right-of-way along entire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley Water District. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Public Hearing,Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasibility for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the sub- division /building site. Report to Planning Commission SD -1512 VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION, cont'•d. *C. Design review of sound wall or fencing and landscaping adjacent to minimum access road required prior to Final Map Approval. IX. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. APPROVED: KK /bjc P.C. Agenda 3/9/83 Kathy Kerd Planner as amended by Planning Commission 5/11/83 5/5/83 Page 8 E 6l CT HER R, MAN •ARKS CT DURHAM CT. 0 LOCATION MAP TRACT 74 9 9 0 44 4 3 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 9/23/85 (10/2/85) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development S Issue Summary Recommendation Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1553 -02 2. Staff Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map 4. Status Report Council Action 10/2: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Mgr. Final Building Site Approval, SDR -1553, Eric Protiva, Oak Place (1 lot) 1. The SDR -1553 is ready for final Building Site Approval 2. All requirements City departments and other agencies have been met. 3. All fees and agreement have been submitted to the City. Adopt resolution No. 1553 -02 attached, approving the final Building Site Approval of SDR -1553 and authorize execution of Deferred Improvement Agreement. SECTION 1: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 1553 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Eric Protiva The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 6750 square foot parcel as shown It 10 on Map, prepared by H. B. Fisher recorded in Book 0 of maps, Pages 58 and sub- mitted to 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 meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: MAYOR SUBJECT: SDR -1553, Eric Linda Protiva, Oak Place Tentative Building Site Approval 1 Lot giuT ©2 0 '0 o121 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Cit bt Saralbg APPROVED DA 7E: INI T;ALS *Revised: 11/9/83 DATE: 11/3/83 Commission Meeting: 11/9/83 REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval for a lot of record on Oak Place. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval, Design Review Approval and Building Permit. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 6,750 sq. ft. ZONING: R -1- 10,000 SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential SITE SLOPE: 3% NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: A level Village site with several significant oak trees and a 12" fir. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: The site is one of 5 contiguous parcels owned by the applicants with their residence on Oak Place. The subject lot is a lot of record Lot No. 10 shown on the original Saratoga Park Lots Map, recorded in 1914. In 1978, Brian Sear received tentative map approval for two (2) lots overlaid on 3 of the existing lots of record (including the one with the existing residence) in order to place one additional home on the site (SDR 1334). The adjacent parcels were not part of the application. The applicants did not work towards Final Approval, but in- stead placed sewer connections in front of the lots of record and sold the site. SETBACKS: Setbacks for the nonconforming lot will be: Side: 6' Front: 25' Rear: 25' if a one story 35' if a two story GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -10) ,<eport to Planning Commi ss ron'' SDR -1553, Eric Linda Protiva, Oak Place 11/3/83 Page 2 The residence will be subject to design review. In this zoning district, the allowable floor area standard is 3,500 sq. ft. and coverage is 60% (4,050 sq. ft.). RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The site is visible from the residences to the west and south although the oak trees and persimmon partially screen it from the resi- dence to the west. DRIVEWAY CIRCULATION: The applicant is proposing a driveway in the center of the lot. A site development plan is not required since the lot slopes less than 10 The develop- ment of the structures on site will be regulated at the time of design review. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date: 10/19/83 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1553 (Exhibit "B" filed 9/28/83) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, in- cluding 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 regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further par- ticulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition there- to, 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Construct standard driveway approach. B. Dedicate and improve Oak Place to provide for a 25 foot half- street including curb, gutter and sidewalk. (Deferred Improvement Agreement) C. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the Director of Community Development. D. Engineered improvement plans required for street, and storm sewer construction. (D.I.A.) E. Bond and inspection fee as determined from engineered plans to be posted and paid. (D.I.A.) report to Planning Commission ommi ss ron !��SDR -1553, Eric Linda Protiva, Oak Place Approved: KK /dsc P.C. Agenda: 11/9/83 Kathy Kerd Planner 11/3/83 Page 3 III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to Sanitation Dist. No. 4 in accordance with letter dated 10/11/83 prior to issuance of permits. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation Dist. No. 4. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. V. 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 and certification. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. Residence shall not exceed 2,380 sq. ft., inclding garage, sunless exp ft.) approved by the Planning Commission. (Approximately B. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Permit Review Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or na- tural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. VII. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. LOCATION MAP SD R 1553 'MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1553 Eric Protiva (have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 11 -9 -83. Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication N A Date Submitted N/A Record of Survey or Parcel Map N/A Date Submitted Storm Drainage Fee $600.00 Date Submitted 9 /13/85 Receipt All Required Improvement Bonds N/A Date Submitted All Required Inspection Fees $200.00 Date Submitted 9/13/85 Building Site Approval Agreement N/A Date Signed Park and Recreation Fee $1300.00 Date Submitted 9/13/85 Receipt# N/ A R?7O Receipt #8 Receipt# R2 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (Co4dit4a1) (Final) Building Site Approval for Eric Protiva SDR- 1553 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non Compliance Director of Community Development AGENDA BILL NO. q q.2 DATE: 9/23/85 (10/2/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development S Issue Summary Recommendation Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits/Attachments 10/2: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Final Building Site Approval of SDR -1594, Wendell Whitfield, Fruitvale Ave (1 lot) 1. ThelISDR- -1594 is ready for final Building Site Approval 2. All requirements for City Departments adn other agencies have been met. 3. All fees and agreements have been submitted to the City. Adopt Resolution No. 1594 -02 attached, approving the Final Building Site of SDR -1594 and authorize execution of Building Site Agreement. 1. Resolution No. 1594 -02 2. Staff Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map 4. Status Report for Building Site Approval. Council Action Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 1594 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Wendell Ilhitfield The 40,000 square foot parcel shown as Parcel #2 on Record of Survey prepared by M Thomas Co., Inc., recorded in Book M178 of Maps, Page 31, and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) 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 meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: CITY CLERK MAYOR APN: 397 -19 -34 HEIGHT: 29.5 Ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 1 st'Floor(including garage): Second Floor: TOTAL: 1,125 sq. ft. 6,027 sq. f t. 7,152 ct REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Revised 4/10/85 Date: 3/20/85 Commission Meeting: 3/27/85 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR 1594, A 1067; 15021 Fruitvale Ave. APPLICANT: Wendell Mary Whitfield OWNER: Same ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative.. Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval for a two- -story single family residence. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval, Building Permits. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential PARCEL SIZE: 44,921 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Significant large oaks and some pines. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 7.5% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7.5% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 385 Cu. Yds. Fill: 385 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 3 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 38 Ft. Rear: 59 Ft. Left Side: 20 Ft. Right Side: 30 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 33.6% Per Applicant Cut Depth: 5 Ft. Residential -Very Low Density Single Family Per Staff 1,842 sq. ft. 6,027 sq. ft. 7,869 sq. ft. City of Sarat APPROVED BY: DATE: Report to Planning Commission SDR -1594, A -1067, Whitfield, Fruitvale Ave. 3/20/85 Page 2 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards -of the zoning ordinance in that it maintains a 59' rear yard where 60' is required. This problem can be easily rectified. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: Grey stone and earthtone stucco Trim: Dark Brown Roof: Wood Shingles (Cedar) PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1594 (Exhibit "B" filed 2/19/85) subject to the following conditions: 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. 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). B. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse. C. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Fruitvale Avenue to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: Report to Planning Commission SDR -1594, A -1067; Fruitvale Ave. 3/20/85 Page 3 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 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 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. c) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. D. 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. E. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. F. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. G. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. H. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. I. Engineered Improvements required for: 1. Access Road Construction J. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. K. 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 Report to Planning Commission SDR -1594, A -1067, Whitfield, Fruitvale Ave. 2. Foundation Investigation /Design B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 3/20/85 Page 4 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. C. Other requirements: Drainage measures necessary to protect ad- joining properties must be shown on plans. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service has been provided to this project through sanitary sewerage 1967 -2 Assessment Project. The applicant shall contact the district regarding this matter. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. Provide an approved fire truck turnaround that is within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of the building. 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. If remnants of any old tank or drainfield are discovered, please contact the County Health Dept. 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. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1594, A -1067, Whitfield; Fruitvale Ave. 3/20/85 Page 5 C. 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. Report to Planning Commission SOR -1594, A -1067, Whitfield, Fruitvale Ave. A -1067 DESIGN REVIEW 3/20/85 Page 6 ANALYSIS CONCERNS The applicant proposes a structure which is about 1,600 sq. ft. larger than the 6,200 sq. ft. guideline of the R- 1- 40,000 district. The proposed structure will not have a significant visual impact due to its location, which is well back from any street and in a slight depression, and the fact that it is mostly single -story in design about 20 -24 ft. in height. Considering these factors, the proposed size of the structure should not create any adverse visual impacts. Staff's major concern with the project is the impact of the proposed structure and driveway on the site's existing oak trees. In this context, the size of the structure may have an impact on the condition of these oaks. It should be noted that the applicant has designed the structure to save as many of the oaks as possible. Two oaks 8" and 10" in diameter are called out for removal but the major oaks will be preserved. The problem with the proposed layout of the structure and the driveway is that a considerable amount of the construction will take place within the driplines of these trees. This is not in conformance with staff's recently adopted policy of keeping development outside the dripline of trees or, at a minimum, a distance of 8 -10' from the trunk of a tree if the constraints of the site warrant such consideration. Staff is concerned primarily with two trees. The 30" oak near the western property line will be impacted by the proposed driveway entrance to the garage. About 2 ft. of fill and a retaining wall would be required underneath the tree. This combined with the impervious surface of the driveway, could cause the tree to decline in health and eventually die. The applicant has indicated that this garage and driveway orientation had been discussed with neighboring property owners and this solution seemed to be best in terms of storing the applicant's recreational vehicles and protecting privacy and views. The applicant feels this proposed driveway can be built without causing the oak to decline since it has been done elsewhere in Saratoga. He has indicated a willingness to use grasscrete or some other non impervious materials for the driveway near the tree. Staff would propose that the garage entrance be oriented to the north' rather than the west to eliminate the driveway and grading in the vicinity of the 30" oak. This option might require the removal of a 12" oak on the north side of the garage depending on how the garage entrances are designed' but this solution would preserve the health of the 30" oak. The second oak affected by the proposed structure is the 44" oak which is located near the center of the site. The structure would bracket the tree on 3 sides within the dripline and from 8 -16 ft. from its trunk. Because of the location of this tree, some portion of the house will have to be within its dripline. Staff would suggest that the portion of the house FINDINGS Report to Planning Commission SDR -1594, A -1067, Whitfield, Fruitvale Ave. 3/20/85 Page 7 only 8 ft. from the oak be setback at least 10 ft. The structure could also be reduced in size to minimize the amount of construction within the drip1ine. Although the deck near the 60" oak should not have the same impact as a building, staff would recommend that the deck be setback at least 8 ft. from the tree trunk.\ 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy and Compatible Infill Project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the of the surrounding residences in that it is located in a slight depression away from public streets and is primarily single -story in profile. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the structure will be lower in elevation than most surrounding properties and decks and windows are oriented away from private areas. 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal and grade changes in that the structure will be located at least 10 ft. away from any tree trunk and only minor oaks will be removed. This preservation can be further enhanced by modifying the extent of the driveway. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that it is primarily single story in profile and is located in a slight depression. 4. Compatible Bulk and Height The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 ft. and in the same zoning district in that although it exceeds the size guideline for the R 1- 40,000 district its location, single story profile, and tree preservation mitigate its size. The shadow cast by the proposed structure will not interfere with the solar access of adjacent properties. 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that a minimum amount of grading is required to accommodate the stepped foundation of the structure. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1594, A -1067, Whitfield, Fruitvale Ave. 3/20/85 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 3/20/85 and Exhibits "B and C subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans for staff review and approval: MF /dsc A. A revised site plan showing the structure end driveway setback at least 40 ft- from any oak tree not to be removed unless the 8zty'-a tree specialist requires a greater setback.- The pion ehoeld Eliza show a 60 ft- building end deck setback from the southern property line end an 8 ft- separation between the deck end 60- oak.- B. A revised driveway and garage plan showing access to *he garage from ite northern aide rather than its western side to prevent grading underneath the 3g- oak next to the western property line. The western entrance to the garage can be used if approved by the 6ityla tree specialist.- C. Plans showing how the existing oak trees will be protected during construction. Applicant shall comply with the tree specialist's recommendations in this regard. D. Any modifications to the site development plan or structure elevations. air E. Comply with conditions in City Tree Specialist's report dated April 4, 1985 APPROVED: P.C. Agenda: 3/27/85 Michael Flores Planner 4 6.1.1 I •cy LOCATION M A P SDR X594 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval Offer of Dedication N/A Date Submitted Condition(s) Reason for Non Compliance Roper S. S loo All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1594 Wendell Whitfield (have) (11ay.e- -r.et) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 4 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: N/A Record of Survey or Parcel Map N/A Date Submitted N/A Storm Drainage Fee $1100.00 Date Submitted 9/25/85 Receipt 8336 All Required Improvement Bonds $1000.00 Date Submitted 9/19/85 Receipt# 8301 All Required Inspection Fees 705.00 Date Submitted 9/19/85 Receipt# 8301 Building Site Approval Agreement yes Date Signed Park and Recreation Fee $1300.00 Date Submitted 9/25/85 Receipt# 8336 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (Card -i-; .1) (Final) Building Site Approval for Wendell Whitfield SDR- 1594 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Director of Community Development AGENDA BILL NO. 944 DATE: July 11, 1985 (October 2, 1985) DEPARTMENT: City Attorney CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Regulation of satellite dish antennas Recommendation (a) Conduct public hearing; (b) Approve negative declaration; (c) Introduce ordinance. Fiscal Impacts None. Council Action INITIAL DEPT. HD. C. ATTORNEY C. MGR. Issue Summary The City currently has no regulations covering the installation or placement of satellite dish antennas. The proposed ordinance will require the issuance of a building permit for these structures and will generally restrict the location thereof to rear yards. No such antenna may be attached to the roof or exterior wall of a structure or be pole mounted. The standards set forth in the ordinance can be modified through the issuance of a use permit. The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the ordinance. Exhibits /Attachments (a) Memo from City Attorney to Planning Commission dated August 22, 1985; (b) Proposed ordinance; (revised) (c) Negative declaration; (d) Resolution and findings of Planning Commission; (e) Minutes of Planning Commission proceedings conducted on August 28, 1985. ADDED:f. Council minutes, 10/2/85 10/2: Continued to 11/20. 11/20: Revised ordinance; to be presented for first reading 12/4. 12/4: Approved Negative Declaration, introduced ordinance as amended. 12/18: Adopted ordinance NS 3.73. PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD 5. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI. JR. ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET RO.. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04042 (4151 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney RE: Regulation of Satellite Dish Antennas DATE: August 22, 1985 Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance adding Section 14.13 to the zoning ordinance for the purpose of regulating satellite dish antennas. At the present time, no such regulation exists and such antennas could be located anywhere upon a site (subject only to setback requirements) or upon the roof of a structure. With the increasing popularity of these large and unsightly devices, many cities have now begun to regulate the placement of satellite dish antennas and to require appropriate screening. The proposed ordinance would require the issuance of a building permit for installation of a satellite dish antenna. With respect to location, no such antenna can be located in any front or side yard between a street and a building, or within any required setback from the property line. In addition, such antennas may not be attached to the roof or wall of any structure or be pole mounted. The probable effect of this regulation is to limit the placement of satellite dish antennas to rear yard areas which comply with required rear yard setbacks. In addition, the antenna may not exceed ten feet in height and must be properly screened to obscure visibility from adjacent streets and properties. The ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to modify any of the regulations set forth in this section through the granting of a use permit. Existing satellite dish antennas which do not comply with the regulations of the ordinance must be either removed or brought into conformity within six months from the date the ordinance is adopted. D S.T��`'" Saratoga City Attorney J. M. ATKINSON. (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) EIA -4 Saratoga The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga to establish regulations for the placement of satellite dish antennas. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 File No. C -226 The proposal project will have no significant effect on the environment since the changes are intended to advance the aesthetic and safety objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. Executed at Saratoga, California this 9th day of August 1985. ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 6 -lac/ ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Schaefer RESOLUTION NO. C 226 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REGULATE SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and place, to wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 28th day of August 1985, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B," and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of August 1985, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried NOES: None Chairman of the Planning Commission Findings: EXHIBIT B 2. The proposed zoning amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely effect public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance will promote the aesthetic and safety objectives of the zoning ordinance by regulating the location, height, appearance and manner of installing satellite dish antennas. FNo. C -226 1. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance are required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the ordinance. Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes Meeting 8/28/85 A -1126 as much fill in tha. area. Commissioner Peterson commented that the Commission is oppose to cutting out the hillsides and making level pads. He added that .hey want to encourage people to take the natural slopes and build their houses, and if necessary step down. Mr. Fara stated that he could go along with the Commission's desire but questions how a home cou d be constructed on this lot without moving an appreciable amount of d'rt, because there is a lot of it next to the road. He described the t.pography of the site. At Commissioner B. Harris' inquiry, Mr. Fara clarified to create a level pad they would have to im.ort 340 cubic yards. Commissioner Siegfried asked what if it were a ho e with a stepped foundation, and commented that that question needed t be answered. He stated that he would like to see if there are some of er options other than the proposal. There was a consensus that this atter should go to a study session, to further discuss the grading a other possible options. Marty Oakley, the designer, i \dicated that he could submit some cross sections to illustrate option Commissioner Peterson stated that the Commission's concern is the 3,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, and he encouraged the applicant to co e in with a modified, stepped down plan. Staff added that they also ha difficulty with the pitch of the roof creating the impression of execs ive bulk. Mr. Fara explained that the hom is designed as a Country French home and will be in a neighborhood f elegant homes, many of which have pitched roofs. He commented that he feels the roof is fitting with the design of the home and its location. Commissioner B. Harris asked how is the impact of the height mitigated as the house is moved back on the site. Mr. Oakley stated that he felt this would not help the appearance H of the bulk. He commented that the design requires a steep pitched roof Staff noted that the applicant is limited as to how much they can ove the home back because of an easement. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on September 17, 1985 and the regular mee ing of September 25, 1985. 12a. LL #9 Richard Ward, Request f r Lot Line Adjustment and 12b. V -708 Variance Approval to pe it a 6.5 ft. right side yard setback where 10 ft. is equired at 20472 Glasgow Drive in the R- 1- 12,500 %oning district application was withdrawn by the app icant. 13. C -226 City of Saratoga, Consider an Amendment to the City of Saratoga's Ordinance NS -3 to include regulations for satellite dish antennas The City Attorney explained the proposed amendment. He pointed out that the Planning Commission would have authority to modify the regulations by use permit; otherwise it would simply be a building permit process. Discussion followed on the height. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. At Peggy Corr's inquiry, the City attorney clarified that the amendment does provide a fairly short period of time of six months, during which the existing satellite dish antennas would have to be brought into conformity. Commissioner Pines inquired :shout attics, and it was determined that Subparagraph D.2 should read that the satellite dish antenna shall not Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 8/28/85 C -226 be attached to the roof or exterior wall. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve Resolution C -226, recommending the text amendment, as modified, to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 14. C -227 Cit of Saratoga, Consider Amending Certain Zoning Regu ations of the City of Saratoga to change the floo area definition to include all floor area under roof, and to revise the impervious coverage definition The City Attorney expl -fined the proposed text amendments. Staff noted that wooden decks was n.t listed, and they commented that they would like to see the issue res.lved as to whether a wooden deck is impervious or not. Discussion foll.wed on this issue, specifically when dealing with the hillsides. The pity Attorney commented that, relative to the amendment recommended by t e Commission on accessory structures, which also included a recommends ion to increase the impervious coverage in the R -1- 20,000 and R- 1- 40,00 districts from 35% to 50% and 45% to 50 the Council modified that t eliminate the 50% and allow 5% additional impervious coverage solely dicated for the purposes of walks, patios and decks. He added that the e has been no change, either recommended by the Commission or adopted b' the Council in the NHR or HC -RD hillside districts. Discussion followed on Section 1 relative to excluding interior courts without a roof when calculating floor area. The public hearing was opened at 9:01 p.m. No one appeared, and Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, whic was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the definitiokl of impervious coverage, and there was consensus that wooden decks shold not be considered impervious coverage. Discussion followed on wh ther exterior balconies should be included in floor area calculations. The City Attorney suggested that this matter be continued for at least 0 days, to give Staff a chance to review the issues discussed. It wad directed that this matter be continued to October 10, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS 15. Options for Zoning Amendment to Add Dsulti- Family Use to C -N Zon- ing District, Requested by Joyce Lyan Staff was directed to include this matter with the discussions of the Zoning Ordinance revisions. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Isaac N. Abrams, dated Augrast 12, 1985, enclos- ing application for Christmas tree operation. Staff was directed to analyze the traffic situation created at that to 'c ation. 2. Letter from Andrarch Associates dated August 22, 1985, rega ing Parcel 20, Parker Ranch. After input from M. Anderson and rev discussion by the Commission regarding the height, it was the consensus that Design Review Modification would be `required. Page( 3- 10/2/85 City Manager submitted report on deferred pavement maintenance for certain streets. D. New Business from Councilmembers Hlava reported that the Saratoga Sheriff's substation personnel would not fingerprint residents and asked that staff determine why. Hlava reported on Paratransit Coordinating Council. Callon reported on hearing to be held by Planning Commission for public input on use of Paul Masson property. E. Action Referral Log No comments. Since the Council had completed all business except public hearings, Mayor Clevenger returned to that item on the agenda, taking up those for which little input was expected first. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Amendment of General Plan Designation of Property at 20661 Fifth St. and portion of property at 14644 Oak St. from Residential Multi- Family to Retail Commercial (Applicant, D. Morrison) (GPA 85 -1) (continued from 7/3) Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission was not yet ready to make recommendations on the Village; he recommended continuing the item. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. No one appearing to speak, it was continued for 90 days. B. Ordinances granting Historical Resource designations to the Saratoga Historical Museum, Saratoga Village Library at 14410 Oak St., and McWilliams House (Office of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce) (first reading) The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 7:41 p.m. HLAVA /GALLON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE GRANTING HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION TO THE SARATOGA HISTORICAL MUSEUM BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3 -0. HLAVA /CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE GRANTING HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION TO THE SARATOGA VILLAGE LIBRARY BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3 -0. HLAVA /CALLON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE GRANTING HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION TO THE MCWILLIAMS HOUSE BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3 -0. C. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to include regulations for satellite dish antennas (first reading) In response to Councilmember Hlava, City Attorney stated that the ordinance exempted the cable television franchisee from regulation. He further explained that at the time the ordinance was drafted the franchise, as well as the antenna, had been owned by Saratoga Cable Television; the franchise, but apparently not the antenna, had since passed to Hearst Cablevision. Councilmember Hlava wished to provide for a hardship exemption in the ordinance. Councilmember Callon expressed concern about owners of existing installations being required to go through City processes and perhaps to move their antennas. She felt the prohibition against placing antennas in the setbacks might be unjustified if the antenna were lower than the fence. City Attorney stated the accessory structure ordinance could be changed to include these antennas. He explained other liberalizations which could be made, such as extending the time period for relocation, grandfathering in certain installations, or lengthening the amortization period. The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. Charles Gors rose to speak as a seller and installer of satellite dish antennas. He informed the Council about the necessary size of antennas and type of installation for various levels of reception, saying that the proposed ordinance would eliminate the most effective types of antennas for this area. Don Jones, 18850 Ten Acres Rd., spoke as a resident of Saratoga, saying the ordinance should be liberalized with respect to existing installations. 4- 10/2/85 John Crosley, 20152 Pierce Rd., felt the proposed ordinance was too strict and asserted that he would file a claim with the City if his present antenna were made unusable because of the ordinance. He also stated that federal regulations rather than local ordinances controlled satellite dish antennas. Scott McLaughlin, Ten Acres Rd., opposed the ordinance, saying it would cost over $700 to move his antenna. Anne Cathcart, Pierce Rd., also stated that it would be costly to move her antenna, and it would receive fewer signals. She added that it was not ugly. Councilmember Callon requested that staff consider her previous comments on possible changes in the ordinance, perhaps consulting industry representatives, while keeping in mind the need to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhoods. Councilmember Hlava suggested that the staff check records to see if there have been complaints about the satellite dish antennas. There was consensus to continue the public hearing to November 20. D. Public Hearing to continue receiving comment from the community on alternatives for the construction of the Route 85 Freeway through the City of Saratoga and the impacts thereon which began at the City Council Study Session held on September 10, 1985. Letters received: Grace Germany (and 13 identical form letters dated 9/25); Frank and Susan Linn (undated); Naomi Hoffman (dated 9/25); Christina Gulrich dated•9 /20; Maurice Martin dated 9/6; Brett and Millie Cross dated 9/23; Gay and Roy Crawford dated 10/2; Shelley Williams dated Sept. 27; HD. and Jotnn Powell dated Sept. 30; James Kenny dated Sept. 30; Phillip Boyce dated Sept. 30; Robert Dwyer dated Sept. 26; Mr. and Mrs. Ken Colson dated Oct. 2; Francine Beach dated September 27; Eunice and K. E. Peterson (undated); Jack and Judy Vance dated Oct. 2; Mike Bullock dated Sept. 28. Mayor Clevenger reviewed the procedures to be gone through, noting that any questions raised by the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement must legally be answered by CalTrans. Ron Lemmon of Caltrans confirmed that such was the case. Mayor Clevenger then suggested that the issue be limited to two hours. Councilmember Hlava suggested that the Council write Assemblyman Konnyu asking the following questions, to be forwarded to the Legislative Counsel: 1. Could the Legislature amend the Traffic Authority enabling legislation to delete the provision giving Saratoga design review? 2. Does each city through which Hwy. 85 passes have to give its approval in order for it to be built within that city? 3. What agency has the final authority on the design and width of Hwy. 85, the State of California, the Hwy. 85 Policy Advisory Board or the Traffic Authority? 4. Does the Traffic Authority have the power to overrule the PAB decision in the event that there is less money available or protests by individual cities? 5. If the City of Saratoga did not agree with the design adopted by the PAB or Traffic Authority, could it prevent Hwy. 85 from being completed in Saratoga? Councilmember Hlava moved to send the letter, but there was no second. Other Councilmembers suggested other representatives to whom the letter could be sent. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Col. E. T. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, stated that the Council needed more information before making its decision, including facts on such matters as the depth of the water table and the effect of not allowing the freeway through the northern borders of the City. He expressed concern that the recent Community Newsletter had not noted that there was a no -build alternative for the corridor. He stated that studies showed that 63% to 70% of Saratoga voters opposed anything in the corridor other than houses. He recommended an advisory ballot on the matter at the next election. AGENDA BILL NO. Council Action ADDED: g CITY OF SARATOGA DEPARTMENT: City Attorney C. MGR. SUBJECT: Early warning fire alarm system Council minutes, 10/2/85 12/4: Read and adopted ordinance 38.136. INITIAL DEPT. HD. DATE: July 24, 1985 (October 2, 1985) C. ATTORNEY Issue Summary The City Council previously approved certain recommendations of the Fire Services Task Force concerning expansion of the early warning fire alarm system. As described in the Memorandum to the Planning Commission submitted herewith, the City Attorney is of the opinion that the Task Force recommendations should be implemented through an amendment to the safety element of the General Plan and corresponding amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and Building Regulations. The proposed amendments were considered by the Planning Commission, which recommended adoption thereof as modified to also include a requirement for sprinkler systems in new or expanded commercial structures to be connected with the early warning fire alarm system. Recommendation (a) Conduct public hearing on proposed amendment to General Plan and ordinances; (b) Adopt General Plan amendment; (c) Approve Negative Declaration; (d) Introduce ordinance. Fiscal Impacts None. Plan check and inspection will be performed by the fire districts. Exhibits /Attachments (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to Planning Commission dated September 11, 1985, with copy of Task Force Report; (b) Proposed amendment to General Plan and City Council Resolution; (c) Proposed Ordinance; (d) Negative Declaration; (e) Planning Commission Resolutions; (f) Minutes of proceedings conducted by Planning Commission on September 11, 1985. 10/2: Continued to 11/20. 11/20: Revised and int uc&d ord' ed ative adopted resolution amen g_ eismi ety ety_ emen o General Plan. PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEOELI, JR. ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney RE: Early Warning Fire Alarm System DATE: September 5, 1985 J. M. ATKINSON, )1892-1992) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) In May of this year, the Fire Services Task Force rendered its report to the City Council concerning the required installation of the early warning fire alarm system in structures located beyond the hazardous fire area, including residential and commercial structures within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Central Fire District. A copy of such report is attached hereto. The City Council reviewed and approved the report and directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances for implementation of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the report. At the present time, the provisions concerning the early warning fire alarm system are contained as an amendment to the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City (these provisions are set forth in Section 3 -21.4 of the City Code). For a variety of technical legal reasons, we are recommending the following procedure for implementation of the Task Force report: 1. Amend the Safety Element of the General Plan to establish the basic policies concerning installation of the system as recommended in the report. 2. Remove the existing provisions regarding the early warning fire alarm system from the Uniform Building Code and establish the same as a separate article in Chapter 3 of the City Code (Building Regulations). 3. Amend the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances by adding thereto a section specifying those circumstances under which installation of the system will be required, as mandated by the Safety Element of the General Plan. The amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are substantially identical and are contained in both ordinances in order to provide an independent authority for imposing this requirement. In other words, installation of the system may be required as a condition for tentative building site approval in the absence of design review or other approval under the Zoning Ordinance, or installation may be required as a condition of design review approval in the absence of building site or other approval under the Subdivision Ordinance. The Fire Services Task Force has recommended, and the City Council has approved, installation of the early warning fire alarm system in the following cases: 1. All new dwellings or fifty percent expansion of existing dwellings located within the hazardous fire area. 2. All new single family dwellings having a floor area of 5,000 square feet or more, or expansion of existing single family dwellings which increase the size thereof to 5,000 square feet or more. 3. All multi family dwellings or other structures containing multiple sleeping units. 4. Commercial structures and community facilities, when specifically required by the Chief of the Fire District having jurisdiction over the project. The Task Force made no recommendation concerning the connection of existing alarm systems to the receiving station maintained by the Saratoga Fire District. Various commercial 'buildings in the City are equipped with automatic sprinkler or alarm devices which, when activated, will transmit a signal over telephone lines to a private security service. This service will then notify County communications that a fire alarm has been activated and such message will then be transmitted by County communications to the appropriate fire district. The proposed ordinance does not require the automatic dialing device in these existing alarm systems to be recoded so as to transmit the signal to the Saratoga Fire District. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the General Plan and then recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendments to the Building Regulations, Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations. S. Toppe Saratoga City Attorney Report of the Fire Services Task Force May 24, 1985 The Fire Services Task Force was requested by the City Council to make recommendations on the expansion of the Early Warning Fire Reporting System. The Fire Services Task Force makes the following recommendations 1. The Early Warning Fire Reporting System should be required in all new dwellings over 5,000 square feet and in 50% expansion of existing dwellings with a total footage which exceeds 5,000 square feet. 2. The Early Warning Fire Reporting System should be required in all new multiple occupancy living quarters such as hotels, motels, apartment units, condominiums, town houses and rest homes. 3. New commercial buildings shogld_ be evaluated for full Early Warning System requirements on an individual basis by the Fire Chief responsible for fire service in the jurisdiction of the new building site. 4. Each District Fire Chief should retain authority and responsi- bility for the installation of Early Warning Fire Reporting System in his jurisdiction. Installation responsibilities in clude the design plan for detectors, a spot check of detectors, final inspection, programming of information for hook -up and hook -up to an alarm system. Central Fire District may choose to develop its own system and should have the discretion to determine the choice of the alarm notification to a monitoring station. 5. The Fire Chiefs should establish standardized fees for the City. Fees should be based on a cost recovery basis. 6. The Early Warning Fire Reporting System (EWFRS) should be monitored by trained technicians on a 24 hour basis. Current Saratoga Fire District operation assures monitoring by fire fighters trained to monitor. It is anticipated that by mid or late 1986, or when 100 structures are on line with the system, that it will be necessary to employ a full -time techni- cian. The Task Force recommends that the Saratoga Fire Distric forward to the City an operational plan for 24 hour coverage. 7. Mandatory retrofit of the EWFRS for commercial structures was not considered appropriate, but concern was raised about in- creasing fire safety in older structures in the Village. 8. The City should support increased fire safety for new and existing dwellings and commercial buildings. This could be accomplished by optional installation of the EWFRS and by optional installation of automatic sprinklers. 9. The Saratoga Fire District and the Central Fire District should submit annual reports to the City and to each other. Reports should include current activities and planned goals and activities for the next five years. The Fire Services Task Force studied the Early Warning Fire Reporting System in depth including the Saratoga Fire District's financial and operational plans. The Task Force accepts the integrity of the system, the use of current technology, the back- up measures and the system components. The EWFRS is capable of handling more hook -ups, up to 999. Costs for the Saratoga Fire District and for consumers decrease as more units are brought in- to the system. Standardized fees, uniform procedures and coopera- tion between the two fire districts can insure a fair process and equitable service throughout Saratoga. Discussion about Underwriters Laboratories' certification with Douglas A. Anderson, Associate Managing Engineer for Underwriters Laboratories, revealed that UL certification is for central alarm stations and is not indicated for residential municipali- ties. Mr.. Anderson stated that Saratoga is way ahead of national fire protection with the EWFRS residential monitoring. The Task Force would like to express its appreciation to Harold Toppel, City Attorney, who offered to meet with the Task Force 'on a regular basis. Mr. Toppel was invaluable in presenting the City's legal position and authority and in clarifying the issues. The Task Force would like to acknowledge and thank Chief Ernest Kraule and Chief Douglas Sporleder for their willingness to pro- vide information, respond to questions with directness and to act as technical experts. They helped us resolve jurisdictional issues and respected the Task Force's responsibility for objective analysis and recommendations. Saratoga's unique position of being served by two fire districts requires unusual communication and cooperation between the dis- tricts, between the districts and' the City and between the dis tricts and the residents. The Fire District Task Force recognizes that advances in equipment and technology will permit improvement in systems and service. The Task Force believes that the City of Saratoga with the aid of the two fire districts will be able to address future fire safety issues with a pro- active rather than a re- active stance. 3 John Saunders Ralph Stepp Resource People Joy Drinker, Chairman Vince Garrod Jay Geddes Chief Ernest Kraule Saratoga Fire District Chief Douglas Sporleder Central Fire District Harold S. Toppel City Attorney 1985 FIRE SERVICES TASK FORCE 14711 Fruitvale Ave. 22600 Mt. Eden Road J 13917 Lynde Avenue 13570 Beaumont Avenue 13662 Old•Tree Way 14380 Saratoga Avenue 3071 Driftwood prive San Jose 95128-4499 867 1974 867 -9145 (H) 867 -1735 (W) 284 -2029 867 -6846 867 -3176 867 9001 378 -4010 P. 0. Box 279 (415) 967 -6941 Mountain View 94042 C A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SEISMIC SAFETY /SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has initiated an amendment to the Seismic Safety /Safety Element of the General Plan, relating to installation of early warning fire alarm systems, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A; ".lnd WHEREAS, on September 11, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Cbuncil amend the Seismic Safety /Safety Element of the General Plan as set forth in Exhibit "A;" and WHEREAS, at its regular meetig on October 2, 1985, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment, at which time any person interested in the matter was given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the. City Council has found and determined that it would be in the best interests of the City and its residents to amend the Seismic Safety /Saf Element of the General plan as set forth in Exhibit "A," and such amendment will promote the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that the Seismic Safety /Safety Element of the General Plan be, and hereby is, amended by adding thereto Goal No. SS /S.3.0 and policies thereunder designated as SS /S.3.1, SS /S.3.2 and SS /S.3.3., in the form as set for in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 20th day o f November 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: 3 City Clrk RESOLUTION NO. 2287 Councilmentbers Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger Councilmember Callon None A 2 LCIetJ Mayor EIA -4 Saratoga 41; The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no'significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves amending Chapter 3 of the General Plan, Seismic Safety and, Safety Element, to require in- stallation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System to new residences over 500 sq. ft., residences which expand 50% increasing the total square footage to greater than 5000 sq. ft., multi- family dwellings,'hotels, motels and such commercial structures as determined by the Fire Cheif. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project will not have a sig- nificant effect on the environment since it will enhance the response time of the fire department to a fire or emergency call. Executed at Saratoga, California this 27th day of C -228 File No; GPA -85 -5 August ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 1985 WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga has initiated an amendment to the Safety Element of the General Plan to require installation of an early warning fire alarm system in certain new and existing structures; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on September 11, 1985, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Safety Element in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the draft negative declaration attached as Exhibit "B NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the amendment to the Safety Element of the General Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 11th day of September, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson and Pines NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: Secretary GPARES RESOLUTION NO. GPA 85 -5 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN REGARDING EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS Cha rman, Planning Commis ion WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and place, to wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 11th day of September 1985, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B," and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of September 1985, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson and Pines NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried ABSTAIN: None ATT RESOLUTION NO. C -2 2 8 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLATION OF EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS I Chairman of the Planning Commission Findings: EXHIBIT B 1. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance are required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the ordinance. 2. The proposed zoning amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely effect public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance will implement Goal No. SS /S.3.1 as set forth in the Safety Element of the General Plan and the policies described therein. Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes Meeting 9/11/85 GPA -85 -4 Staff explained the proposed amendment of the policy within the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. They noted that Staff has provided four optio s for the Commission's consideration and discussed these. They stated hat they were recommending approval of Option 4, which would have the text of the General Plan modified to indicate the three -story height li it for buildings on sites designated quasi public in the General Plan ma where the slope underneath the footprint of the structure is 10% or mo e and a stepped pad is used. The public hearing was opened at 10:29 p.m. The architect for the Od Fellows described the site on which they will have a forthcoming appl cation. He stated that they were making this request because they feed that in this particular case and hillside location that the three-st ry building is more environmentally sensitive than a two-story building the bottom of the hill and a separate one- story building on the top the hill. He indicated that they have met with the neighbors. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Peterson commented that Option 4 is almost specific to the Odd Fellows Home. At Commission r Pines' inquiry, the City Attorney explained that a use permit would be required as part of this project, and under the ordinance the Co mission would have the authority to modify height limits through thA issuance of the use permit. He added that under Option 4 the height would possibly be implemented by some amendment to the Zoning Ordinance'as well. Commissioner Pines moved to direct Staff to bring back the appropriate resolution, recommending Option 4 to the City Council. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney explained that under State Law there is a limit on the number of amendments to the General Plan that can be adopted this year, and there may be a decision to delay this item. The Odd Fellows indicated that a delay should not be alproblem. NS -60.17 Consider an Ordinance adding Section 13.10 to the C -228 Subdivision Ordinance, 14.14 to NS -3 and XIII to Chapter 3 of the City Code relating to the require- ment for installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System GPA -85 -5 Amend Chapter 3 of the General Plan, Seismic Safety and Safety Element, to require installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System to new residences over 5,000 sq. ft., residences which expand 50% increasing the total square footage to greater than 5,000 sq. ft., multi family dwellings, hotels, motels, and such commercial structures as determined by the Fire Chief The above two items were discussed simultaneously. The City Attorney explained the proposed amendments. Discussion was held on the 5,000 sq. ft. figure. The public hearing was opened at 10:48 p.m. Chiefs Ernie Kraule, of the Saratoga Fire District, and Doug Sporleder, of the Central Fire district, appeared. Chief Kraule discussed the cost and outlined the system. Chief Sporleder explained how the 5,000 sq. ft. figure evolved from the Task Force discussions. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 9/11/85 COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral by Commission and Staff ADJOURNMENT 10 Page 10 GPA -85 -5, NS -60.17 and C -228 Chief Kraule stated that he would like to see the ordinance speak to the monitoring of the water flow alarm which would be in a commercial building, which would then be transmitted into the system. Therefore, if there was an activation of the sprinkler system the Fire District would get that information into the computer bank. There was a consensus to make this modification. Chief Kraule also asked that the ordinance require a sprinkler system in any new two -car garage. He discussed the cost of such a system. Chief Sporleder commented that the Central Fire District is completely in support of the Task Force findings. He stated that if the Commission moves beyond that they would like an opportunity to review and analyze the impact. After further discussion it was the consensus to table the issue of the sprinkler system in any new two -car garage, as suggested by Chief Kraule. There was also consensus to keep the 5,000 sq. ft. figure in the ordinance. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution No. GPA -85 -5, recommending approval to the City Council, as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution No. C- 228 -1, recommending approval to the City Council, as amended. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. 1. Letter from aron Berman, dated Septemer 3, 1985, regarding Via Tesoro Court. Staff was directed to send a letter to Mr. Berman, informing him that the Commission will include the points that he brings out in his letter in the Code revision discussions. 2. Letter from J.hn Loera, dated September 5, 1985, regarding business license for JP oera Automobile Interiors. After input from Mr. Loera and his fath =r regarding their operation, there was a consensus to direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to add this use as a conditiona, use, so it could be controlled by a use permit. 3. Letters from Owen Companies, dated September 4, 1985, regard- ing roofing materials and p ecast wall for Saratoga Office Center. Staff described the requests, .nd after a presentation by Ken Pastrof of Owen Companies, it was the consensus to allow a staggered wall and the roofing material proposed by th- applicant. 1. The following dates we e noted: September 24th Commission Appreciation Dinner, and October 15th Joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting. 2. Commissioner B. Harris give a brief report on the City Council meeting held on September 4, 1985. A copy of the minutes of that meet- ing is available in the City Adminis ration Office. 3. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coff1111 Commissioner Burger moved to adjour the meeting. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was .arried unanimously. The meeting Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes Meeting 9/11/85 GPA -85 -5, NS -60.17 and C -228 Chief Kraule stated that he would like to see the ordinance speak to the monitoring of the water flow alarm which would be in a commercial building, which would then be transmitted into the system. Therefore, if there was an activation of the sprinkler system the Fire District would get that information into the computer bank. There was a consensus to make this modification. Chief Kraule also asked that the ordinance require a sprinkler system in any new two -car garage. He discussed the cost of such a system. Chief Sporleder commented that the Central Fire District is completely in support of the Task Force findings. He stated that if the Commission moves beyond that they would like an opportunity to review and analyze the impact. After further discussion it was the consensus to table the issue of the sprinkler system in any new two -car garage, as suggested by Chief Kraule. There was also consensus to keep the 5,000 sq. ft. figure in the ordinance. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution No. GPA -85 -5, recommending approval to the City Council, as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution No. C- 228 -1, recommending approval to the City Council, as amended. Commissioner B. Harris Seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from P�aron Berman, dated Septemer 3, 1985, regarding Via Tesoro Court. Staff was directed to send a letter to Mr. Berman, informing him that the Co mmission will include the points that he brings out in his letter in the Code revision discussions. 2. Letter from Jahn Loera, dated September 5, 1985, regarding business license for JP Lpera Automobile Interiors. After input from Mr. Loera and his father regarding their operation, there was a consensus to direct Staff `;to prepare the appropriate resolution to add this use as a conditional use, so it could be controlled by a use permit. 3. Letters from Owen \Companies, dated September 4, 1985, regard- ing roofing materials and precast wall for Saratoga Office Center. Staff described the.requests,. 'and ..after a presentation by Ken Pastrof of Owen Companies, it was the consensus to allow a staggered wall and the roofing material proposed by th applicant. Oral by Commission and Staff 1 1. The following dates were noted: September 24th Commission Appreciation Dinner, and October 15th Joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT 2. Commissioner B. Harris gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on September 4, 1985. .',A copy of the minutes of that meet- ing is available in the City Administration Office. 3. Chairman Peterson thanked, the Saratoga News for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group', attending and serving coffe- Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting 7- 10/2/85 that his car would pollute less with the freeway. He felt owners of property newar the freeway bought it at a discount and could not thus complain of lowered property values because of the freeway. Bill Phillips, Bonnett Way, representing homeowners in his area, said he did not want the freeway, but if it were to be built the work should not start until all the land was acquired; it should be four lanes; interchanges should be minimized; a wall should be built before roadway construction starts; it should be depressed. He wished the PG&E towers to be undergrounded and did not wish the railroad tracks relocated nearer his property. The hearing was continued at 10:14 p.m. to November 7. Councilmembers agreed to send Councilmember Hlava's draft letter to Mr. Konnyu and others. They suggested the following items be formulated as questions for CalTrans. Callon: traffic counts on Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd.; effects of none, one or more interchanges in Saratoga; traffic projections if Saratoga took a stand against the freeway within its borders, and the freeway were built up to, but not through, the City; noise profiles in neighborhoods. Hlava: mitigation measures to bring noise to acceptable levels. Mayor Clevenger asked the TJKM consultant about building a freeway where air pollution standards have not been attained; consultant replied that there was no prohibition against it. She then asked about pollution attendant upon park- and -ride facilities, and the consultant said he was not in a position to provide the information. Councilmember Callon suggested that be added as a question to CalTrans. Mayor Clevenger then asked about using earth from the median to create a barrier; Mr. Lemmon stated that about 47 -50 feet of land would have to be kept free if that were desired, and the median would have to be at least 22' wide. Councilmember Hlava then asked that the growth- inducing effects of the corridor be considered further in the DEIS. Councilmember Callon asked the TJKM consultant about traffic counts, and he stated that he could prepare some figures on areas near where the interchanges were proposed. Councilmember Callon wished to have them for Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and for Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. She feared that not building the freeway through Saratoga might worsen traffic if the freeway were built to Saratoga's borders. City Manager believed that CalTrans should be able to project those figures. Councilmember Hlava noted that interchanges may not alleviate traffic in some areas that are now congested. Mayor Clevenger asked whether there was a table showing how many workers leave the city; Mr. Lemmon said that there were for some other communities. Councilmember Callon acknowledged that she had not yet had a chance to read the DEIS and might have further questions later. Mayor Clevenger recessed the meeting from 10:38 to 10:57 p.m. Councilmembers discussed the Planning Commission vacancy. Noting that there were only four applicants and that the full Council would not be present to conduct interviews until next month, Mayor Clevenger suggested that the application period be extended and interviews held in November. Councilmember Hlava suggested, and the rest of the Council concurred, that individual rather than group interviews be held. E. Early Warning Fire Alarm Systems Letters Received: Douglas Sporleder dated 9/26; William J. Ladd dated 9/26. a. Amendment to Ch. 3 of the General Plan, Seismic Safety and Safety Element, to require installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System to new residences over 5000 sq. ft., multi- family dwellings, hotels, motels and such commercial structures as determined by the Fire Chief (first reading) 8- 10/2/85 b. Amendments to the City Code adding Section 13.10 to the Subdivision Ordinance, 14.14 to the Zoning Ordinance, and XIII to Ch. 3 of the City Code relating to requirement for installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System (first reading) City Attorney answered Councilmembers' questions on the proposed changes. The public hearing was opened at 11:06 p.m. Bruce Wallace rose to speak as President of Guardian Alarm. He feared that the ordinance would allow wiring of fire alarms which he had installed to fire district equipment over which he had no control. He believed this would result in problems with monitoring and maintenance of the fire alarms, and he felt it exposed the City to liability. Further, he feared that his insurance carriers would not allow him to work in Saratoga under those conditions. In answer to Councilmember Callon, he stated that his company could monitor the burglary aspects of the system if they installed a separate panel. City Attorney stated that the specifications for the system require testing once per day, which he believed would be done by the fire district. Russ Maynard spoke as owner of Pacific Systems alarm company. He stated that their attorney said they could not install systems involving life safety if they could not monitor the systems themselves. Otherwise, he said, he would need a hold harmless agreement. The testing system mentioned by the City Attorney, he said, did not actually test whether the alarm system is working properly: In answer to Councilmember Callon, he stated that they could deal with the system if double alarm were sent. Chief Kraule of the Saratoga Fire District stated that there was a difference between commercial and residential installations; the residential systems are stand- alone. The problems mentioned by the alarm company representatives, he said, did not relate to residential applications. He wished to delay requiring dialers in commercial installations until further study could be performed. City Attorney noted that the draft still provided that each chief has the authority to require whatever he thinks appropriate. Chief Kraule added that if there are problems with an alarm the fire district can respond and fix the problem. In answer to Councilmember Hlava, he stated that the district had increased its liability insurance when they started the dialer system. Chief Sporleder of the Central Fire District stated that he supported the Task Force findings. His district would not be taking out more liability insurance, he said, because the dialer was not in their system. At 11:49 p.m. the public hearing was continued to November 20, when a full Council was expected to be present. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk 26 September 1985 CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 3071 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95128 -4499 SINCE 1947 (408) 3784010 TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Douglas G. Sporleder, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Early Warning Fire Reporting System I am writing to advise you that the Central Fire Protection District is in support of the recommendations concerning the expansion of the Early Warning Fire Reporting System (EWFRS) as presented to you by the Fire Services Task Force in its May 24, 1985 report. Many hours of dedicated work were expended by the Task Force in working through the problems associated with implementing and expanding new alarm system technology. Central Fire is not, however, in support of expanding the system beyond the limits recommended by the Task Force. Two weeks ago, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance that would have carried out the Task Force's recommendations. Unfortunately, the Chief of the Saratoga Fire District took the opportunity to resurface conditions and terms which were contrary to the findings of the Task Force. The Planning Commission rejected all but one of the Chief's proposals. And, I believe that had the Planning Commission studied all of the testimony which had been considered by the Task Force, not a single modification would have been made. It would be presumptuous of me to speak for the -Task Force on all issues which were studied by the group, however, I believe that a disservice would be done if the last minute addition by the Planning Commission was adopted. At issue with the Planning Commission's recommended change is whether EWFRS should be the one and only system which can be installed in new commercial buildings. It is my professional opinion that the EWFRS was designed to meet the needs of a residential setting, specifically the hazardous hillside area. The Central Fire District has always concurred with such an application. Early Warning Fire Reporting System, page 2 However, it was the conclusion of the Task Force that the EWFRS is not singularly ideal for commercial buildings. The Task Force's recommendations are attached for your review. The pertinent finding is that the EWFRS has not earned recognition as a Central Station Alarm System from Underwriters Laboratories or, other industry- sanctioned testing companies. While such a listing is not available for residential alarm systems, it is relatively common for professional alarm companies to have such a rating when they provide service to commercial occupancies. Because the EWFRS and the original ordinances were designed for residential (bedrooms, kitchens, etc.) buildings, a commercial occupancy would need to spend significant amounts of money for relatively little built -in fire protection. The Owens Development, for example, would have incurred between $75,000 and $100,000 additional costs for no material fire protection gain. In summary, I would respectfully request that the Council adopt the ordinance, without the Planning Commission's recommendation. I believe that the Task Force arrived at a set of conclusions which will assure that the City is properly protected against fire and related emergencies. The Central Fire District agreed to the Task F:orce's consensus, and we are prepared to honor, that commitment. Atts. DGS:jm cc: Harry R. Peacock, City Manager Hal Toppel, City Attorney Fire Services Task Force Committee Members Ernie Kraule, Saratoga Fire:Distr,ict Chief Early Warning Fire Reporting System, page 2 However, it was the conclusion of the Task Force that the EWFRS is not singularly ideal for commercial buildings. The Task Force's recommendations are attached for your review. The pertinent finding is that the EWFRS has not earned recognition as a Central Station Alarm System from Underwriters Laboratories or other industry- sanctioned testing companies. While such a listing is not available for residential alarm systems, it is relatively common for professional alarm companies to have such a rating when they provide service to commercial occupancies. Because the EWFRS and the original ordinances were designed for residential (bedrooms, kitchens, etc.) buildings, a commercial occupancy would need to spend significant amounts of money for relatively little built -in fire protection. The Owens Development, for example, would have incurred between $75,000 and $100,000 additional costs for no material fire protection gain. In summary, I would respectfully request that the Council adopt the ordinance, without the Planning Commission's recommendation. I believe that the Task Force arrived at a set of conclusions which will assure that the City is properly protected against fire and related emergencies. The Central Fire District agreed to the Task Force's consensus, and we are prepared to honor that commitment. Atts. DGS:jm cc: Harry R. Peacock, City Manager Hal Toppel, City Attorney Fire Services Task Force Committee Members Ernie Kraule, Saratoga Fire District Chief SERVICE SINCE 1947 10 October. 1985 Ernie Kraule, Fire Chief Saratoga Fire Protection District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ernie: On Friday afternoon, October. 4, 1985, I monitored the radio communications traffic for an alarm handled by your department at the Plumed Horse on Big Basin Way. It appeared that the primary alarm was received at your station on the Early Warning Fire Reporting System but not at County Communications who should have received the secondary (backup) alarm. My reason for writing is to ask for some clarification. In the event the City of Saratoga mandates hookup to Saratoga Fire's alarm system in the Central Fire District portion of the city, and an alarm is transmitted over the Early Warning System (ESW) for an occupancy in Central Fire's jurisdiction while your station is unmanned and your backup capability housed at County Communications fails again, how would Central Fire receive the alarm? If this scenario occurred, the emergency response time, undoubtedly, would be protracted. Obviously, this is of concern to me because if your system is the only one allowed within the entire city, then Central Fire residents are extremely vulnerable and reliant on the secondary signaling protocol via the Saratoga Fire's Early Warning System /County Communications hookup. Your system is designed to decrease emergency response time but may, in fact, increase it because of unsolvable system problems. Although the law might provide government agencies some immunity from lawsuits, it is conceivable that a property owner would bring a legal action against the agencies responsible for monitoring and maintaining the alarm system if it failed to function adequately. The situation that occurred on Friday was one of the problems I had in mind when I suggested to the Saratoga City Council on October 7, 1985, that they go slow in mandating the expansion of an unproven alarm system. I am sure we both agree that the interest of the citizens we serve must be safeguarded. Very truly yours, TRAL E PJT' CTION4 DI )'RICT Dougla G. Sporle Fire ief CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 3071 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 951284499 DGS: jm cc :vHarry Peacock, City Manager Hal Toppel, City Attorney (408) 3784010 /&'-IrL JrZ SARATOGA FIRE DIST CT Douglas Sporleder, Fire Chief Central Fire Protection District. 3071 Driftwood Drive San Jose, California 95123 -4499 28 October 1985 COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Telephone; (408) 867 -9001 Dear Doug: The following information and clarification is in answer to your letter dated 10 October 1985. The primary alarm answering point,1Saratoga Fire District computer, was in the -process of being demonstrated. to a visitor. During. the demonstration the computer :and alarm software was placed in ,a self -test mode. This automatically` drops the secondary (back -up) answering point, Santa Clara .County Communications' Center.. Naturally, during this procedure the primary alarm answering point is always:staffed.. The alarm in question at 1443 hours, 4 October 1985 wa received'on. the Digital Alarm Receiver.which is a UL approved permanent record and alarm reporting receiver..During this alarri, the staff was, in'the process of putting the secondary answering point back on line. The alarm was transmitted to County Communications via the normal radio, procedure (Control Two). In the "what- if".scenar.io described in your letter, the'trade -offs that are obtained through having an Early Warning Detection, Reporting and Extinguishing System connected directly to the Early Warning Alarm System is far superior than doing nothing. ,It might be helpful "to know that each installed system has its own stand alone local enunciator warning system to alert the residents and /or neighbors that a fire situation is present. This is far superior to receiving a report of a large column of black smoke visible from some locale in the area. The Early Warning Alarm System and the equipment used is not new to the alarm industry. Similar systems to that in use are found widely throughout the United States. The scenario described A n your letter could happen in any alarm: center, that transmits alarm information via telephone lines. Modem and equipment failure is not common; it does happen where this type of. equipment is utilized. My reason for not immediately:responding to your letter results from .the heed for a complete analysis and review of the Early ,Warning Alarm System'; ;coupled with working with the technical staff at County Communications to ,asFe;rtai n whether or not potential problems exist. 1f. such exist or';.,ar.'e found' to exis corrections would certainly be in order. .fie are. constantly i n the process of upgrading our equipment and operational procedures., It seems. to me that 'we should_ consider the needs of Saratoga and determine whether. we_ are: inte,rested:merely. i.n-supp'ression activities or early detection with suppression leading 'to a reduction in response time and loss of life or property: 6 March 1984 marked the arrival of the computer equipment. Nine months later, after installation and technical inspections, the system was placed in operation on 14 January 1985.. By January, 1986, at.,least 4.7 homes will ..be monitored. Should you have any question's related to .this matter please 'do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Ernest 0.Kraul Chie Saratoga Fire Department cc: Harry. Peacock,' City Manager,. City of Saratoga Hal Toppel, City Attorney, City of Saratoga President Bill Ladd Bolt Security Systems 3098 Kenneth Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 (408) 727-2658 Secretary Victor Chernoff Guardian Burglar Fire 296 Brokaw Road Santa Clara, CA 95050 (408) 727 -6300 Treasurer Bruce Wallace Guardian Burglar Fire 296 Brokaw Road Santa Clara, CA 95050 (408) 727 -6300 Director Jim Walz Well Fargo Alarm Services 466 Vendome Street San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 287 -7300 Director Dave Oswalt Sonitrol 331 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 279-8500 °'"""Directoi Golden Pacific Systems 1490 Camden Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 371 -9177 SANTA CLARA VALLEY ALARM ASSOCI4 P.O. Box 4525, Santa Clara, CA 95054 City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Vice President Chris Burnside Golden Pacific Systems 1490 Camden Avenue ATTN Har PeaCOCk 6ampbeli ssoo8- City Manager (408) 371 -9177 Dear Mr. Peacock: WJL /kt Sept. 26, 1985 Sincerely, W iam J. Ladd President RECEOVED SEP 8 t 198.1 MAGER 1 On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Alarm Association, we wish to be heard on the subject of implementation of the proposed changes to the Saratoga City Code pertaining to Early Warning Fire Reporting Systems. The subject is complex and we wish to present a detail- ed explanation of our Associations' concern. I will be out of town frcm September 27, 1985 through October 11, 1985 on business. Preliminarily, may we request that the topic sched- uled for public hearing on October 2, 1985 be continued for thirty (30) days to allow us to present our viewpoint? With- out going into details, we are concerned about potential lia- bility assumed by the City Fire Department, with regards to monitoring, maintenance, diagnostics, insurance require- ments, etc. as well as the interference with existing and future eontractural agreements involving the private sector. We believe the objective of your Early Warning Fire Re- --por- ding Systems is 1- audabie, namely, increased safety f -ran fire. Never the less, our industry has a long and honorable history of providing such protection to the public at low cost and high reliability. Our input should be considered by the City Council before any changes are effected in the City Code. SANTA CLARA VALLEY ALARM ASSOCIATION