HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS1'
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Q
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 17 q4 AGENDA ITEM V
MEETING DATE: April 4, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
If
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Section 6- 15.120
and 6- 15.130 to the City Code Concerning Unlawful
Gatherings and Disturbances
Recommended Motion:
After public hearing, introduce ordinance by title only and
direct staff to return to Council with a resolution affixing fees
for the second response component of the ordinance.
Report Summary-
The Public Disturbance Ordinance proposed by the Public Safety
Commission, which is modeled to a large extent after two similar
ordinances in place in Los Gatos, consists of two parts. The
first part of the ordinance focuses on juveniles in possession of
alcohol. It would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to serve
alcohol to a juvenile on private property unless that juvenile is
under the supervision of his /her parent or guardian. Existing
law already makes it illegal to serve minors alcohol on public
property or at places open to the public. The second part of the
ordinance sets up a civil mechanism whereby the City can elect to
recover its costs for a second police response to a public dis-
turbance (such as a party) if one is required. The ordinance
would apply to both adult and juvenile disturbances, and makes a
finding that officers responding to a disturbance a second time
are deemed to be on a special security assignment over and above
the level of services financed by the general taxpayer.
Fiscal Impact:
Should the above - referenced ordinance be adopted, an unknown
revenue savings in the Sheriff's budget may result through the
recovery of costs for second responses to parties together with a
possible decrease in the number of parties requiring the atten-
tion of the Sheriff's Office.
Attachments:
1. Report dated 3/29/90 from the Community Services Director
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. Summary of party statistics from Sheriff's office for
calendar year 1989
4. Summary prepared by CASA on Saratoga juvenile parties
5. Summary of public disturbance ordinances in other
jurisdictions
6. Petition presented to Public Safety Commission in October
containing 129 signatures encouraging the adoption of a
public disturbance ordinance.
Motion & Vote:
(408) 867 "144'38
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
April 4, 1990 Martha Clevenger
David Movies
Donald Peterson
To: City Counc i l Francis Stotzrnao
From: Todd W. Argow, Community Services Director
Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Section 6- 15.120
and 6- 15.130 to the City Code Concerning Unlawful
Gatherings and Disturbances
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommendation
1. Hold Public Hearing
2. Close Public Hearing
3. Waive the Reading of the Ordinance
4. Introduce Ordinance by Title only
5. Direct staff to return to Council with a Resolution affixing
fees for the second response component of the Ordinance
Background
In response to City Council direction, the Public Safety
Commission has explored the feasibility of enacting an ordinance
dealing with social disturbances including but not limited to
parties requiring the attention of the Sheriff's Office. Many
other State and County cities have enacted other similar ordi-
nances providing for the recovery of costs for second police
responses, and establishing regulations for the consumption of
alcohol by juveniles.
The Commission has met with the police chiefs of neighboring
cities which have adopted such ordinances, and held a series of
meetings with the Sheriff's Office to explore the extent of the
problem in Saratoga. Finally, the Commission held a public
hearing on March 12, 1990, which was extensively publicized to
obtain community input prior to finalizing their recommendations
to the Council.
The Problem
Unsupervised juvenile alcohol parties have been a continuing
concern in Saratoga and in many of our neighboring communities.
Frequently parents, away on weekend trips, leave their high
school age children alone and unsupervised. Associated with
these parties are alcohol and other forms of intoxicants, party
Printed on recycled paper
crashers, neighborhood vandalism to lawns, shrubs, mailboxes,
debris; and a new aggressive, rather than passive, ethic generat-
ing assaults at the parties, and challenges to responding Offi-
cers.
Conservatively, Saratoga can anticipate approximately eighty
parties a year which get out of hand and require the attention of
the Sheriff's Office. Current procedure in responding to com-
plaints from neighbors is to make contact with the party host,
disperse those in attendance, and confiscate or destroy the
alcohol. Only very flagrant violators are addressed at the scene
due to the large number of participants. Follow -up contact is
then initiated with a letter to the parents of the host from the
City Manager suggesting precautions which could be taken to
prevent reoccurrences.
As the parties continue, and as there is very limited enforcement
authority for minors in possession of alcohol on private proper-
ty, and as there is substantial continued community concern
regarding youth substance abuse, the Public Safety Commission
with the assistance of our City Attorney developed a very simple
and straight forward ordinance designed to fix responsibility and
accountability on the host of parties who either ignore, encour-
age, or do not take any action to prevent a public disturbance
and the illegal consumption of alcohol.
The Proposed Ordinance
The Ordinance proposed by the Public Safety Commission, which is
modeled to a large extent after ordinances in place in Los Gatos,
consists of two parts.
The first part of the Ordinance focuses on juveniles in posses-
sion of alcohol. It would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to
serve alcohol to a juvenile on private property unless that
juvenile is under the supervision of his /her parent or guardian.
Existing law already makes it illegal to serve minors alcohol on
public property, or at places open to the public. Therefore, the
ordinance actually extends the application of existing law to
include private places in addition to public places.
The second part of the ordinance sets up a civil mechanism where-
by the City can elect to recover its costs for a second police
response to a public disturbance (such as a party) if one is
required. The ordinance would apply to both adult and juvenile
disturbances, and makes a finding that officers responding to a
disturbance a second time are deemed to be on a special security
assignment over and above the level of services financed by the
general taxpayer.
-2-
Printed on recycled paper.
In terms of process, officers responding to a public disturbance
the first time would ask the host to sign a warning notice which
states that they could be held liable for the costs of a second
response if one is required. The host receives a copy of the
warning; the original is kept for the record. If the individual
responsible for the disturbance is a juvenile, then the parents
could be held responsible for the costs of the second police
response.
Analysis
The Public Safety Commission has spent a considerable amount of
time examining alternative ways of addressing the local party and
public disturbance issue. They agreed that there is no way which
is faultless; that is where there are not exceptions or loopholes
involved. They found that the issue of greater significance over
what a given ordinance says is how the ordinance is applied in
the field. Clearly, the Commission felt that the ordinance they
proposed was not intended to be applied across the board without
exception. Rather, it was to be an added tool available to law
enforcement personnel in the field to be applied on a discretion-
ary basis if the circumstances warranted it. The degree to which
the ordinance is appropriately applied would depend on how clear-
ly the City communicated its intentions to the Sheriff's Office,
and on how well the Sheriff's command trained their officers in
the application of the ordinance.
The Commission chose the Los Gatos models for their proposed
ordinance for a number of reasons; two are noteworthy. First,
the Los Gatos ordinances attack the public disturbance problem
from two perspectives. The first is a criminal approach to the
use of alcohol by juveniles which treats one aspect of the prob-
lem.' The second approach is a civil one which deals with all
public disturbances, both juvenile and adult in nature. The
Commission felt it was important to communicate that they were
not singling out juvenile parties specifically, but rather were
attempting to deal with the broader issue of public disturbances,
regardless of the cause.
The other reason the Commission chose the Los Gatos models
concerned a statement made by one of the police chiefs at a
Commission fact finding meeting. That comment was a recommenda-
tion that public disturbance ordinances should be as similar as
possible between neighboring jurisdictions. The police chief
pointed out that party -goers run from jurisdiction to jurisdic-
tion in search of their parties. When the regulations between
jurisdictions are significantly different, it sends mixed mes-
sages especially to the kids and young adults, thereby decreasing
the effectiveness of either jurisdiction's ordinances.
-3-
Printed on recycled paper.
Conclusion
If Council approves the ordinance as proposed by the Public
Safety Commission, staff will instruct the Sheriff's Office on
the intended application of the ordinance in Saratoga. Staff
will also develop a fee schedule for the second response part of
the ordinance which will be presented to the Council in a resolu-
tion format at a future Council meeting.
PREPARED BY:
r
Todd W. Argow,
ity Services Director
SUBMITTED BY:
r
Harry R. Peacock, City Manager
jm
-4-
Printed on recycled paper.
AD
ORDINANCE NO_ 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUX OF SARATOGA
ADDING SEMONS 6- 15.120 AND 6- 15.130 TO THE
CITY CODE CONCERNING UNLAWFUL
GA'i'FIESQi�S AND Dl T MBANCES REQUIRING A
SECOND POLICE RESPONSE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECIION L: A new Section 6- 15.120 is added to Article 6 -15 of the City Code, to
read as follows:
nS645.120 Certain gathermgS imjawful
(a) No person under the age of twenty-one. years sba1L have in his or her
possession or consume any alcoholic beverage at any place not open to the public,
Mess that person is accompanied by and under the supervision of his or her parent or
legal guardian.
(b) No person shall suffer, permit, allow, or host a gathering at his or her place
of residence where one or raore persons under the age of twenty-one years are present
and alcoholic beverages are in the possession of, or being consumed by, any person
under the age of twenty -one years who is not accompanied by and under the
supervision of his or her parent or legal guards.
(c) Any violation of this Section shall constitute a misdemeanor:
SECTION 2: A new Section 6 -15 -130 is added to Article 6 -15. of the City Code, to
read as follows;
■ll a': I ! %r; I :-1 111 I!.' 411:1 f "- It 6; t�v •.1-c
Where a disturbance occurs at a premises which is determined by a police officer
to constitute a treat to the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, and a
second response by police personnel to such disturbance is made, the police personnel
utilized dining the second response shall be deemed to be on special security
assignment over and above the services normally provided. The person or persons in
charge of the premises and the person or persons responsible for the event, or if any of
those persons is a minor, then the parents or legal guardians of that minor, shall be
jointly and severally liable for the cost of providing police personnel on special
security assignment, such cost to be determined according to rates and charges as
established from time to time by resolution of the City CoumciL"
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
Rev. 2121/90 _1_
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, ]-*respective of the fact that one -. or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4-. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
sr * *ss
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regalady introduced and after the
wafting time reel &ed by la-w, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1990, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSF.N-T:
ATTEST:
'MAYOR
CITY C`_T.FRK
Rev. 2/21190 -2_
o
SARATOGA PARTIES FROM JAN 01 THRU DEC 31, 1989
04 01 05 08 10 19 13 11 05 04 06 02
SARATOGA VANDALISMS FROM JAN 01 THRU DEC 31, 1989
18
11
28
20
25
28
30
29
14
16
22
.29
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO PARTY DISTURBANCES: 88
NUMBER OF REPEAT RESPONSES TO PARTY DISTURBANCES: 08
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO JUVENILE PARTIES: 63'
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO ADULT PARTIES: 25
AVERAGE TIME SPENT AT EACH CALL IN MINUTES: 33
HOURS SPENT AT JUVENILE PARTIES: 38 ADULT: it
NUMBER OF JUVNEILE CITATIONS: 37. ARRESTS FOR OTHER: 06
TWO VANDALISM REPORTS RESULTED FROM JUVENILE PARTIES, ONE WAS DAMAGE TO A PATROL VEHICLE,
THE OTHER TO THE RESIDENCE.
. LUDED 'IN THE "ARRESTS FOR OTHER" ARE ARRESTS MADE FOR DUI, ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON,
DRUNK IN PUBLIC (03) AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR.
3 /y/oo
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTIES IN SARATOGA
7 mo 48
#Depties
Total Min. Spent
Warnings
Month
Total Calls
Party Size
4
Jan.
4
15-100
Mar
4
12- 150
Apr
4
8 - 50
May
8
7 - 300
June
12
8 - 150
July
10
6 - 150
Aug
6
10- 350
7 mo 48
#Depties
Total Min. Spent
Warnings
Arrests
9
225
4
0
24
880
2
0
10
250
0
1
25
1810
2
2
34
925+
2
7
21
535
5
1
14
635
0
0
137
5260+ Min.
15
11
Charges: Calculations for Second Response Fees
Santa Clara: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = 594 to 76C per min. + any damage to City property
Gilroy . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;r any damage to City property
Los Gatos . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = $1.39 per min. + any damage to City property
Alameda . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;+any damage to City property
San Fernando: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given; +any damage to City property
Alcohol & Minors (contrasting Los Altos & Los Gatos Ordinances)
The Los Altos Ordinance makes it unlawful for adults to serve alcohol to minors in their homes under all circumstances.
Los Gatos Ord. #2 allows alcohol to be served as long as each minor is under direct supervision of her /her parent or guardian.
PEEPARED BY TODD ARGOW (8/31/89)
Z
y
Adult
Party Size
COMPARISON OF "PARTY ORDINANCES"
Fee /Fine
Minimum
Required?
Charged
FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS
No
Fee varies.
Effective
Applies to:
Charged by minute
Time
Applies
to:
City /Agency
Date of Ord.
1st response
2nd response Period
Adults
Juveniles
Santa Clara
4/1/88
Warning
Cite
Within
Yes
Yes
to max. of $500.
Not stated
No
12 hours
Los Altos
2/28/89
Cite
N/A
N/A
No
Yes
Gilroy
1/4/88
Warning
Cite
Not
Yes
Yes
Charged by minute to
stated
Not stated
No
Los Gatos
5/1/89
Warning
Cite
Not
Yes
Yes
Ord. #1
stated
Los Gatos
5/1/89
Cite
N/A
N/A
No
Yes
Ord. #2
Alameda County
3/28/89
Warning
Cite
Not
Yes
Yes
stated
San Fernando
11/7/88
Warning
Cite
Within
Yes
Yes
12 hours
Charges: Calculations for Second Response Fees
Santa Clara: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = 594 to 76C per min. + any damage to City property
Gilroy . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;r any damage to City property
Los Gatos . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = $1.39 per min. + any damage to City property
Alameda . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;+any damage to City property
San Fernando: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given; +any damage to City property
Alcohol & Minors (contrasting Los Altos & Los Gatos Ordinances)
The Los Altos Ordinance makes it unlawful for adults to serve alcohol to minors in their homes under all circumstances.
Los Gatos Ord. #2 allows alcohol to be served as long as each minor is under direct supervision of her /her parent or guardian.
PEEPARED BY TODD ARGOW (8/31/89)
Z
y
Adult
Party Size
Supervision
Fee /Fine
Minimum
Required?
Charged
3 or more
No
Fee varies.
persons
Charged by minute
to max. of $750.
10 or more
N/A
Fine /or infraction
($100 - $500)
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
Charged by minute
to max. of $500.
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
Charged by minute,
no max.
One or more
Yes
Fine /or misdemeanor
($1,000 max. and /or jail)
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
Charged by minute to
max. of $1,000.
Not stated
No
Fee varies.
Charged by minute to
max. of $500.
Charges: Calculations for Second Response Fees
Santa Clara: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = 594 to 76C per min. + any damage to City property
Gilroy . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;r any damage to City property
Los Gatos . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead = $1.39 per min. + any damage to City property
Alameda . Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given;+any damage to City property
San Fernando: Hourly direct costs + fringe benefits + overhead; No actual calculations given; +any damage to City property
Alcohol & Minors (contrasting Los Altos & Los Gatos Ordinances)
The Los Altos Ordinance makes it unlawful for adults to serve alcohol to minors in their homes under all circumstances.
Los Gatos Ord. #2 allows alcohol to be served as long as each minor is under direct supervision of her /her parent or guardian.
PEEPARED BY TODD ARGOW (8/31/89)
Z
y
s,
SARATOGA JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A
"PARTY ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS PARTY ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
/-2,(Q (.91 Au" �x
_�. �' - e -..._C lam. ►_� -..- ___._._...._._� ��.�1..4 � . w-�►�► � � ....I -. . __�.__�l_. _...� � �� __..
111�1111 01111
- - --
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRES S PHONE
7V Ce % 73
A 7- 7ff -?
5 S --835
QAQ
�� /7/1�'n�c�' %3�(� ��� / r� fir-
�-►���
� % ��
,q
L,4�4
l OQD f c ��
�04,13 ln07 AA�Z44-0� ��
SC z �
��. ,z-
g6 7
�'S'l —�'y30
SARATOGA JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A
"PARTY ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS PARTY ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME
,� P-L-1
ADDRESS
im
PHONE
u .
� � �/
4u� (9
A
14 q
0
1�
.:5'55-
74 1
4c)
` CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
1
(7,'1- k r> ( 1 tl-,A -J !1
M C,?�c
�� -1 Scoff
f_
7 --
r
T
• SARATOGA JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
L. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A
"PARTY ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS PARTY ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
7
Air.-
.�- I u
5so7
G�! L�
CDLV-Vl
-A-v
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
1 WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS
PHONE
0&vL -71iri u) I F
d�6v
6,7 l C'i� lf1 �, - ry a _
w
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I.WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES. *See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
7
T :7 :L
-14
9
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED By LOS GATOS AND LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE
.ALCOHOL PARTIES. *s UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ee thb LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE P9. 2.
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
2 717
PC-
C"2 I
rj
/L
Alw I-
CITY OF SARATOGA
JUVENILE ALCOHOL PARTY ORDINANCE
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER PASSING A "PARTY
ORDINANCE" SIMILAR TO THOSE ADOPTED BY LOS GATOS AI4D LOS ALTOS.
THESE CITY ORDINANCES WERE PASSED TO DISCOURAGE UNSUPERVISED JUVENILE
ALCOHOL PARTIES
NAME
*See the LOS ALTOS ORDINANCE pg. 2.
�- ADDRESS
l� �•�`- ' � `�` . �� UCH � 7
PHONE
Y �i2<� o(,- oo�rw 9Ccc�
v � -
C
s,.
l�
7� / - YS
-7
L'�) (, -7 - -(60
6- �, ✓i
—
2
1-2 ?7i.L
?,u3Yo
i
14
t -:- /
�!�; • /!yam
�; 7 4-17
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ( j AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 4, 1990
r
ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
SUBJECT: Draft 1990 Community Open Space Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Recommended Motion: Review the draft survey and direct staff to return
with final survey with cross tabulated results.
Report Summary: The Open Space Survey has recently been completed and
the results compiled. The consultants who prepared the questions and
conducted the survey will be present at the Council's meeting to re-
spond to specific questions. The Council has the opportunity to request
additional information to cross reference the survey results with spe-
cific geographic regions of the City. Staff and the Survey Review
Committee can be directed to prepare the final survey and the cross
referenced information.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments:
1. Draft Open Space Survey
1
i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.1 ` AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 4, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering_
SUBJECT: Status of SD 88 -006 and Pierce Road Improvements
Recommended Action: Receive as information.
Report Summary:
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
b(L ..
01LJT�x 99 O (VV A\
(4OS) 867-134" IS
March 30, 1990
MEMO
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Raven Anderson
Martha Clevengei
David Movies
Donald Peterson
Francis stutzman
RE: Status of SD 88 -006 and Pierce Road Improvements
DISCUSSION:
This is an information item only. No Council action is required.
At your March 7 meeting, Council asked for a status report on
SD 88 -006 (the three lot subdivision on Pierce Road by Ralph
Saviano) and the related offsite improvements. Council's request
was in response to concerns raised by Mr. Steve de Keczer, the
property owner at 13415 Pierce Road.
As a condition of approval for SD 88 -006, Mr. Saviano is required
to widen Pierce Road to a 26 foot width along the frontage of his
subdivision, approximately from Surrey Lane to Old Oak Way.
Included in this work is the widening of the bridge just north of
Chalet Clotilde Drive, a storm drain crossing approximately 400
feet south of Surrey Lane and the typical underground utility
services to each of the three lots. To date, Mr. Saviano has
performed only a small portion of the required road widening and
has installed sections of berm in the vicinity of the two curves
on Pierce Road. The berms, which are substandard in workmanship
and which Mr. Saviano has been informed he will need to replace,
are also what Mr. de Keczer's concerns are about. Mr. de Keczer
maintains the berms further reduce the width of the roadway in
certain spots and thus create more of a hazard than before they
were installed. To some degree Mr. de Keczer's concerns are
valid although it was believed by staff that it was better to
have the berms remain in place throughout the winter to block
debris from sliding into the road. As it now appears that the
rainy season has ended, the berms can probably be removed without
consequence and Mr. Saviano has been directed to do so.
As for the completion of the remaining offsite improvements, Mr.
Saviano's schedule calls for work to begin in mid to late spring
and be completed by early fall. As a good portion of the work
involves activity in Calabazas Creek, it is necessary to wait
until creek flows subside to perform such activities.
1
Printed on recycled paper.
The City Inspector is keeping a close watch over Mr. Saviano to
insure that all work is performed in a quality manner and that
impacts from his project are kept to a minimum. Should any
Council member notice problems with the project or desire further
information, please see me.
E
Printed on recycled paper.
4
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO- -L7
MEETING DATE: April 4, 1990
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
AGENDA ITEM q (\1 /i
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Storm Drainage Agreement for Tract 8311 -
Paul Masson
Recommended Action: It is recommended that Council approve the
proposed agreement between the City and Dividend Development Corp.
regarding the storm drainage improvements for Tract 8311 and authorize
the City Manager to execute the agreement for the City.
Report Summary:
See Attached Memo.
Piscal Impacts:
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
None.
i
t
2s ,
?)7 u
�wtl
(_Q 1 � Y( JoR � ° ° HOC
I:37 ; � t- }�UrI���,�I_I.:�V'I.�l'�.. s.��l,�►�� ��� .�.<:,�t_ii��>►zNl.�s�. >��7E�
( 4081 867 -:34: 38
March 29, 1990
MEMO
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer
RE: Storm Drainage Agreement for Tract 8311 -
Paul Masson
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
DISCUSSION: Attached for consideration is a proposed agreement
between the City and Dividend Development Corp. concerning storm
drainage improvements for Tract 8311 (Paul Masson). The agree-
ment stipulates the terms under which Dividend will construct
storm drainage facilities to serve their project as well as a
large portion of the Quito area which is subject to periodic
flooding. In exchange for constructing these improvements, the
City will waive the payment of storm drainage fees by the de-
veloper. The estimated cost to install the storm drainage im-
provements is $130,000. The fees which would be waived total just
under $77,000. The developer is willing to proceed in this
manner because if they opted to pay the fees, they would still be
required to install costly retention facilities as part of their
project to prevent the City's storm drain system from becoming
overburdened during peak storm events. In addition, the develop-
er would be required to maintain any such retention facility for
as long as it were in use. The City Attorney has reviewed the
proposed agreement and is satisfied with its contents.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the
proposed agreement between the City and Dividend Development
Corp. regarding storm drainage improvements for Tract 8311 and
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement for the City.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approve recommendation.
Printed on recycled paper.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. j I q& AGENDA ITEM 0
MEETING DATE: April 4, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: En ineerin
SUBJECT: Implementation Agreement for Non -Point
Source Control Program
RecommendedActim It is recommended that Council review and approve
the proposed Implementation Agreement for the Santa Clara Valley Non -
Point Source Control Program and authorize the Mayor to execute the
Agreement for the City.
Report Summary:
Please see Attached Memo.
Pbud Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
n
l�J �
C01 N-\V @g (C�,, IDA
408) 867-1' 34" 38
COUNCIL, MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stotzman
March 30, 1990
MEMO
TO:
The Mayor
& City
Council
FROM:
Larry I.
Perlin,
City Council
RE: Implementation Agreement for Non -
Point Source Control Program
DISCUSSION: At your last meeting, Council authorized the City of
Saratoga to be listed as a co- applicant on the NPDES Permit
Application along with the other Santa Clara Valley cities, the
county and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It was reported
that staff would be returning with an agreement which would bind
the permit applicants together to carry out an NPS Control Pro-
gram in the Santa Clara Valley. Attached for your consideration
is the proposed Implementation Agreement for the Santa Clara
Valley Non -Point Source Control Program. The agreement was
developed by the Cities of Palo Alto and San Jose and is now
being circulated to each agency for execution. The City Attorney
is reviewing the Agreement and will be prepared to comment on it
at your meeting.
As previously reported, the NPS Control Program is envisioned to
contain both an areawide component and a local component. The
estimated cost of the areawide component for FY 1990 -1991 is $2.6
million. Saratoga's share of this cost is proposed to be 1.59 %,
the same percentage we have assumed for the development of the
program thus far. This amounts to a little over $41,000 and
excludes the cost of the local component which is,as of yet,
undetermined.
As more information about the NPS Control Program is developed,
Council will be kept informed. For your next meeting, I am ar-
ranging for representatives from the Water District to give a
presentation on the NPS Control Program. The information which
will be presented will assist the Council with decisions that
will need to be made during the upcoming budget review sessions
about Saratoga's level of involvement with the program.
Printed on recycled paper
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that
Implementation Agreement
Source Control Program
Agreement for the City.
ACTION RE8'D:
Approve recommendation.
Printed on recycled paper.
Council review and approve the proposed
for the Santa Clara Valley Non -Point
and authorize the Mayor to execute the
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 11 1 AGENDA ITEM 813
MEETING DATE: April 4, 1990
ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -124: Planning Commission denial of second
addition. Appellant /Applicant: DR. and Mrs. Levin, Location: 18851
Ansley Place.
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council consider the
compatibility of the second story addition in the one story neighborhood
and consider granting approval of DR -89 -124 subject to additional land-
scaping and reduction of second story windows.
Report Summary: The application was reviewed and denied by the Planning
Commission. The Commission felt that the second story addition was
inappropriate for this one story neighborhood. However, the Planning
Commission allowed the applicants to return with a revised plan by
denying the application without prejudice.
The residents in the neighborhood are on opposite sides of the issues
involved in this application. Staff feels that the City must look
toward its existing regulations and policies for resolution of this
request. Provided the addition does not result in privacy impacts nor
appears over built for the site, staff feels the compatibility findings
to be present.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments:
1. Memorandum from Planning Director
2. Planning Commission minutes 2 -14 -90
3. Previous staff report
4. Correspondence
A � f n♦
ugu'ff @:T O& ° &U(Mo&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 4/4/90
FROM: Y Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJEC Appeal of DR -89 -124: Appeal of the Planning Commission
denial of second story addition; Applicant /Appellant: Mr.
and Mrs. Levin. Location: 18851 Ansley Place.
OVERVIEW
The Planning Commission denied a second story addition to a one
story home in the predominantly one story Saratoga Woods neigh-
borhood. Much input was given to the Planning Commission from
adjacent neighbors as well as residents of the area. Concerns
were expressed that the second story addition would establish a
precedent that, over time, would negatively change the character
of this neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
The applicants are proposing to add a 637 sq. ft. master bedroom
to their existing 2730 square foot home. The addition is oriented
on the extreme left side of the existing residence and is a
maximum of 22 ft. high. The second story wall is located at the
minimum side yard setback which is 10 ft. and coincides with the
lower floor. The front second story wall is set back approxi-
mately seven ft. behind the lower level wall creating a roofline
separation between the two floors. The second story is also
behind the rear first floor wall which creates a visual separa-
tion when viewed from the rear yard.
The existing lot meets the minimum size required by the R -1 -10,00
zone district, measuring 11,000 sq. ft. The left side yard
contains dense foliage which screens views from the adjoining
neighbor. The rear yard also contains some mature landscaping
but views from rear yard neighbors are not completed obliterated.
The existing residence is located at the minimum side and rear
setbacks resulting in no available location for a one story addi-
tion except for in front of existing residence.
1
The project details can be summarized as follows:
ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN: M -10
PARCEL SIZE: 11,000 sq. ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1%
GRADING REQUIRED: none
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Cedar shingle roof; horizontal wood
siding to match the existing home.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 5356 sq. ft. (49 %)
HEIGHT: 22 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 2730 sq. ft.
2nd Floor: 637 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 3367 sq. ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
6050 sq. ft. (55 %)
(existing)
(proposed)
26 ft.
3370 sq. ft.
SETBACK: Front:
25
ft.
Front:
25
ft.
Rear:
25
ft.
Rear:
25
ft.
Right Side:
10
ft.
Right Side:
10
ft.
Left Side:
10
ft.
Left Side:
10
ft.
The Saratoga Woods can be generally classified as one story ranch
style tract developed over a short period in the 1950's and
19601s. The neighborhood has seen second story additions of
varying degrees of architectural success. One second story is
visible from the applicant's property.
Many Saratoga Woods residents presented written and oral testi-
mony to the Planning Commission objecting to the approval of a
second story at this location. Specific concern was raised from
the property owner adjoining the applicant's rear yard regarding
privacy intrusions and view obstruction. The other residents
opposing the proposal stated their concerns that further second
stories would destroy the neighborhood character by propagating
further inappropriate and overbuilt additions throughout the
neighborhood.
The Planning Commission also received the testimony of the
applicants and their representatives. The applicants stated
their intention to add to the residence in a sensitive and com-
patible manner. The applicant stated that since the layout of
the existing floor plan and the lack of developable rear yard
prevented single story additions, the second story proposal was
their only option. The applicants also felt that the addition
enhanced the quality of the existing residence and neighborhood.
2
Staff reported that the proposed addition was incompatible with
the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff rea-
soned that the location of the addition at the extreme end of the
existing structure produced an unbalanced and isolated addition.
Further staff reported that while two story additions were seen
in the neighborhood, this specific block was completely one
story. Although the addition proposed similar finished materi-
als that are presently found on the home and throughout the
neighborhood, and employed both hip and gable and roof features
also typical, staff was unable to recommend that the project
would be compatible with its surroundings.
The Planning Commission found the proposed addition to be incon-
sistent with the one story character of the neighborhood. Al-
though several commissioners felt continuing the public hearing
would allow the applicant and the Planning Commission to consider
revised plans, a majority felt such action would not be produc-
tive. Therefore, the proposal was denied without prejudice which
would have allowed the applicants to return with a revised appli-
cation as soon as possible.
ANALYSIS
The issues involved with this application are divisive, provoca-
tive and have far reaching implication for the neighborhood.
Many are concerned that approval of the second story addition in
any form will open the door for further additions that may create
negative impact on other residents. Many are also concerned that
denial of the second story addition will stifle positive improve-
ment to the neighborhood and will discourage fulfillment of the
needs of growing families. Staff feels that denial of the addi-
tion must be only considered after exhausting architectural
options that address the compatibility with this one story neigh-
borhood and reduce the impact to immediate neighbor.
The following facts are essential to staff analysis of the issues
surrounding this application.
1. Saratoga maintains a two story, 26 ft. height limit through-
out the City.
2. The applicants proposal conforms with all development stand-
ards such as height set back and coverage, and is less than
the maximum square footage allowed by code.
3. Although the Planning Commission has begun a program to
identify neighborhood characteristics for specific geographic
areas, this program has not been completed for Saratoga
Woods. No definitive policies are in place to guide develop-
ment in this neighborhood except the City's design review
criteria that applies City wide.
4. Saratoga Woods is approaching an important transition its
lifecycle. Changing family needs for space and amenities are
exerting great pressure to expand existing homes. Given that
many homes are built to set backs on 1/4 acre lots continued
requests for second story additions will result regardless of
the outcome of this application. Therefore, the precedent
created by the application will have far reaching implica-
tions. In order to establish high standards for future
requests the utmost consideration should be given to archi-
tecturally pleasing proposals that do not adversely impact
surrounding properties.
5. The location of the addition must be considered in terms of
the most compatible architectural appearance as well as in
terms of impact to adjacent residences. Staff was concerned
that the addition's location at the extreme end of the
structure procedures an unbalanced architectural appearance
from the street. However, this location also produces less
visual intrusion in to the rear yard areas of adjacent neigh-
bors. Therefore, staff feels the chosen location represents
a compromise between architecture and privacy.
6. There are proposed second story windows on the rear elevation
that produce visual and glare impacts. Staff feels the
windows in the proposed upper story bathroom should be re-
duced in size and number to minimize glare to adjacent
properties and be made obscure to prevent privacy intrusions.
7. The side property line adjacent to the addition contains
mature vegetation that effectively screens the adjacent
owner, however the rear property line is not as screened.
Additional mature landscaping in essential at the rear
property line to mitigate rear yard impacts to adjoining rear
yard owners.
8. The applicants have submitted revised architectural eleva-
tions for the second story addition. Essentially the revised
plan retains the addition in the same location, reduces the
height to 21.5 ft.; uses conventional windows to match the
existing structure; and converts the gable end to a hip roof
which reduces the wall height of the front elevation. Staff
feels these changes, although minor, further promote a more
compatible architectural exterior.
In conclusion, Staff feels the addition in and of itself is com-
patible with the existing structure. However, the question asked
by both proponents and opponents is: Are second stories appropri-
ate for this neighborhood. While the City may ultimately decide
that this neighborhood must remain single story in order to
retain its uniqueness, such direction is not currently in place.
Staff must look toward existing criteria for guidance in evaluat-
ing this proposal. If modifications are made to reduce impact to
surrounding neighbors staff would conclude it has no option other
than to recommend approval.
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing,
receive appropriate testimony, consider the compatibility of the
second story addition in this one story neighborhood, and approve
DR -89 -124 subject to reduction of upper story windows and in-
creased landscaping.
5