HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1987 City Council Staff ReportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: , AGENDA ITEM /
METING DATE: September 16, 1987 CITY MGR APPROVA
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: DONATION FOR TRAILS AND PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Recommended Motions
Accept and acknowledge Mr. Stanley Thompson's donation of time,
labor and expenses totaling $67.30 in producing graphics to
assist Parks and Recreation Commission in reviewing trails and
pathways.
Report Summary
Mr. Stanley Thompson of Saratoga has donated his time, labor and
$67.50 of his own money to produce graphics that will enable the
Parks and Recreation Commission to evaluate the trails and
pathways within Saratoga in conjunction with updating the Trails
Trails and Pathways Master Plan.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Letter of acknowledgement to Mr. Stanley E. Thompson.
Motion & Vote
Staff recommendation 5 -0.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ! AGENDA ITEM !�
MEETING DATE: 9 -8 -87 (9- 16 -87) CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: "Notice of Completion" Addition and Alterations
to Village Library
Recommended Motion:
The work on above project has been satisfactorily con pleted and it is our
recommndation that this work be accepted and "Notice of Completion" filed.
Report Summary:
The Saratoga City Council at their regular meeting on September 17, 1984,
awarded contract for above project to Andero Concrete, Inc. The work on the project
has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be acceptable.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Ccaipletion.
2. Progress Payment - total construction cost of $10,849.00.
Motion and Vote:
Staff recc iendation 4 -0.
PROJECT: Addition and Alteration to Village Library
.DATE: EST. NO.
FROM: 2 -4 -87 TO: 8 -31 -87
UNIT
BID ITEM QUANTITY PRICE
1 Addition and Alterations
Village Library
RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS
L.S.
10,849.00
1
2 -4 -87
9,275.89
TOTAL
It
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE Sheet 1 of 1
CITY OF SARATOGA CONTRACTOR: ANDERO CONCR.E1'E, INC.
13777 FRUITVALE AVE. ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 7852
SARATOGA, CALIF. 950.70 San ,lose. Ca. 95150 -'7sg2
WRK'.DONE WRK. DONE TOTAL UNIT TOTAL %WORK
TOTAL PREVIOUS THIS EST. WRK.DONE PRICE DUE DONE- REMARK
EST.
10,849.00 1 94.0°% 1 6.
10,849.00
TOTAL DUE 10,849,00
LESS 10% RETENTION 1,084.90
TOTAL PAYMENT 9,764.10
Made By: LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 9,275.89
Checked By: + PAYMENT DUE THIS EST. 488.21
Approved by:
C1t7y Engineer
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: September 16, 1987
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Regulation of Smoking
Recommended Motion:
AGENDA ITEM & is
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Introduction and adoption of ordinance amending Article 7 -35 pertaining to
regulation of smoking in certain places.
Report Summary:
In accordance with the directive from the City Council at your meeting on
August 19, 1987, the proposed ordinance represents a combination of
provisions contained in the original draft which accompanied the memorandum
from the City Manager to the Council dated July 9, 1987, various provisions
drawn from the ordinance adopted by the City of Cupertino (particularly with
respect to regulation of smoking in the office workplace) and some original
language as drafted by the City Attorney. In general, the ordinance will: (a)
prohibit smoking in places of public assembly, except in designated lobby
areas; (b) require the separation of smoking and non - smoking areas in
restaurants having a seating capacity of 50 or more persons, and require
restaurants having a lesser seating capacity to adopt a policy concerning
smoking and post the same on the premises; (c) prohibit smoking within various
areas of the office workplace and allow individual employees to self- designate
their own workplace as a non - smoking area. The ordinance would allow any
owner or operator of any establishment to voluntarily designate the entire
premises as a non - smoking area.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance.
Motion and Vote:
9/16 :Public hearing held and closed; ordinance extensively amended; to be
introduced as amended 10/7/87.
10/7: Amended and introduced.
10/21: Adopted.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /33/ AGENDA ITEM 4L
MEETING DATE: September 16, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Regulation of Massage Establishments and Massagists
Recommended Motion:
Introduction and adoption of ordinance adding Article 4 -55 to the City Code
concerning massage establishments and massagists.
Report Summary:
The proposed ordinance is generally based upon similar legislation adopted by
the County on October 21, 1986. The ordinance will require all massage
establishments to first obtain a permit before commencing business, and will
similarly require all massagists to first obtain a certificate of registration
before engaging in the practice of massage. The initial permit or certificate
would be issued by the City Manager, following an investigation into the
background and experience of the applicant and a determination that the
proposed use and the premises comply with the regulations contained in the
new Article and all building codes, zoning regulations and other applicable
ordinances. With respect to massage establishments, a public hearing must be
conducted by the City Manager before a permit is issued, with notice thereof
being given to all persons owning property within 500 feet of the proposed
location and additional notices being posted upon the premises and published in
the Saratoga News. Applications for renewal of a permit or certificate would
be handled by the Community Services Director, but all of the findings
required for issuance of a permit or certificate must still be made at the time
of each renewal. Appropriate conditions can be imposed at the time of
issuance or renewal of any permit or certificate.
Fiscal Impacts:
None. At the time the ordinance is adopted, the City Council should also
adopt a resolution amending the fee schedule to include a processing fee for
the issuance and renewal of massage establishment permits and certificates of
registration. The fee should be set at an amount which is sufficient to cover
all of the estimated time to be expended by the City staff, the cost ,of
investigations to be conducted by the Sheriff's Department and the County
Health Department, and the cost of noticing the public hearing.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance.
Motion and Vote:
9/16: Staff reccmnendatiori 4 -0.
1'0/7: Staff recommendation 5 -0.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1332-
MEETING DATE: 9 -3 -87 (9- 16 -87)
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT.
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL
SD 87 -011 Paul Avenue, David Cunningham
i
AGENDA ITEM — r
CITY MGR. APPROVAL_
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution 87- 011 -02 attached, approving final Building Site.
Report Summary:
1. SD 87 -011 is ready for Final Building Site approval.
2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. SD 87- 011 -02.
2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
Staff recommendation 4 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. SD 87- 011 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF DAVID CUNNINGHAM
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows.:
SECTION 1: ,
7.,500 square feet lot designated as Lot 9 on Subdivision No. 1 of
the Mary Spring Tract recorded in Book "K of Maps at Page 69 in the
Santa Clara County Recorder's Office and submitted to City Engineer;
City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual Building Site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of 19 by the following
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY. CLERK
YOR
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
2 '7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /3
MEETING DATE: September 16, 1987
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
5-o') �2 "
AGENDA ITEM:
I�WCITY MGR. APPROVA
SUBJECT: GPA- 87 -01. Consider General Plan Amendment for revised Safety Element.
Recommended Motion: Conduct public hearing, adopt Negative Declaration, approve
GPA -87 -01
Report Summary:
The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the revised Safety
Element. The Element includes the identification of hazards, related
impacts, and proposed goals, policies and implementation measures.
The final draft addresses the concerns and suggestions made by the
Planning Commission, Technical Review Committee, City Attorney, and
general public to date.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: 1) Report to Mayor and City Council.
2) Negative Declaration.
3) Letters from Chief Kraule and Councilman Moyles.
4) Planning Commission minutes of June 2 and August 12, 1987.
5) Safety Element - final draft(this is included in a separate binder
in the Council packets)
Motion and Vote:
Staff recamnendation 4 -0.
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 9 -10 -87
COUNCIL MEETING: 9 -16 -87
SUBJECT: GPA -87 -01 Consider General Plan
Amendment for revised Safety Element
Background
Attached for your review is the final draft of the revised Safety Element
of the General Plan, as recommended for approval by the Planning Commis-
sion. The Commission reviewed the Element at two Committee -of- the -Whole
study sessions (June 2 and 16) and a public hearing (August 12). This
draft incorporates all of the concerns and suggestions made to date by the
Commission, the City Attorney and the public.
The Safety Element was last updated in 1974. This revised Element consists
of a main text which identifies various hazards and discusses them in terms
of their history and impact in Saratoga. The main text is followed by the
identification of potential impacts associated with the hazards. The final
section consists of an analysis of existing City policies and programs
related to safety issues, and proposed new goals, policies and implemen-
tation measures to address the identified issues.
Because of the technical nature of the Safety Element, a Technical Review
Committee consisting of representatives from public agencies and the
private sector was selected earlier this year to review the original draft
of the Element. Their comments and suggestions were incorporated into the
draft which was then reviewed by the Planning Commission.
All of the maps in the Safety Element will eventually be replaced with
reductions of the computer- generated maps now being prepared by the City's
mapping consultant. Some of the large, wall -size maps will be available at
the Council meeting.
1
Response to Memo from Councilman Moyles
At its August 19, 1987 meeting, the City Council received a letter from
Saratoga Fire District Chief Kraule, expressing suggestions reg- arding fire
issues in the Safety Element: These concerns and others were further elabor-
ated on in a memo received by the Council at its September 2, 1987 meeting by
Councilman Moyles. These letters are attached: The fire hazards section of
the Safety Element is found on pages 19 -2.3: The proposed goals, policies, and
implementation programs are found on pages 38 -40. These sections are referred
to in the following response to Councilman Moyles' memo.
1. Consider Expansion of Hazardous Fire Zone Boundaries:
The Hazardous Fire Zone map was adopted by the City in 1981; its
boundaries are shown on map 5 of the Safety Element. Location
within the zone requires the installation of a Class A or B roof and
the early warning fire alarm system. The map is amended administra-
tively by the Fire Chief: Policy 4.4 of the Element relates to the
hazardous fire area, with a proposed implementation measure (4.4a)
of updating the map as needed.
2. Consider Additional Regulations Relating to Village Fire Hazards.
Existing regulations enable the Fire Chief to require installa -tion
of the early warning system in any new commercial structure or with
expansion of an existing commercial building by 50% or more in floor
area. This policy has been carried over to the new Safety Element
(4.2). The policy currently does not mandate retrofitting.
3. Fire. Regulations for Development of Paul Masson property on
Saratoga Avenue.
Existing regulations require the installation of the early warning
system in new multi — family structures such as apartments and condo-
miniums, and in nursing homes: This has been carried over to the
new Safety Element (Policy 4.1(d).). If the property were developed
with a senior housing /continuing care facility, installation of the
system would be required.
4. Consider Regulations Regarding Roofing Replacement:
The Uniform Building Code does permit the covering of a shake roof
with metal or tile, if the materials and method are approved by an
ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) evaluation
report. The Chief Building Official has the discretion of either
approving or not approving the request:
2
5. Consider Lowering. Square Footage Threshold.
The 5,000 sq. ft. threshold for installation of the early warning
system was originally chosen because if there's a fire in a struc-
ture that size, it requires more manpower and fire - fighting equip-
ment. The average cost of installation of the early warning system
to the current standards in a new residence is about $1.00 /sq.ft.
The cost of retrofitting an existing residence with the system is
higher, about $1.50 - $2.00 /sq. ft.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council review the final draft and conduct the public
hearing. The Council should suggest changes if necessary, adopt the Negative
Declaration, and approve GPA- 87 -01, adopting the revised Safety Element of the
General Plan.
Y UEK H S I A
Planning Director
EIA -4
Saratoga
File No•: .GPA -87 -1
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)-,
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
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 6S3- of the'City of Saratoga, that the following 'described•:project will,
have no significanti effect - (no s- ubstantial'. adverse• impact) on :-thee- environment
within the terms and meaning.of said Act.
PRO.TF.CT nr..grPTVTTnu
General Plan Amendment to adopt revised Safety Element
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE - DECLARATION
The proposed project is a revision to the existing Safety/ Seismic Safety Element of the
General Plan of the City of Saratoga. The project appears to have-no potential adverse
environmental impacts. Furthermorg,it establishes.goals, policies; and implementation
measures to preserve and protect both the natural environment'and human life. The project
would also aid in preserving the health., safety and welfare of community residents by
applying more stringent standards and guidelines for the development of specific areas of
the City.
Executed at Saratoga, California this
day of'' - , 19 - .
Yuchuek Hsia
Planning Director
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF -MEMBER-_ •
COUNTY OF SANTA CLAD <A
14380 SARATr1GA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
Teiephone(408) W -9001
25 July 1987
Mr. Don Peterson, Mayor
City of Saratoga
1 {777 Fruitvaie Avenue
Saratoga, Calitornia
L +ear• Mayor Peterson:
RECEIVED
JUL 2 J )98/
CITY MANAGER
AS the City of Saratoga is developing the Saratoga village Plan and
reviewing the Safety element for the City, a plan should be established
whereby existing village buildings are evacuated in accord with the age
of the structure, the building and Fire Codes that were user: at the time
the structures were completed, the structural soundness and the present
rooting composition.
For obvious reasons, the Saratoga Fir-, Protection District strongly urges
consideration of the below recommendations:
I. Because of congestion, it is strongly recommended that the
C- Commercial Lones (C- N,CC,CV) and the R -M Zones be c'assified
as requiring a (.lass "A" or Class "B" root coveing in accord with
the Building Coae.
2. It is strongly urged that suppression systems (Fire 5prinkiers) or
detection systems (smoke and Heat) be made mandatory within a reasonable
period of time as established by the City of Saratoga. It is recommended
that all systems be monitored by the Saratoga Fire District Remote
Central Station.
?. Existing Sprinkler and Fire uetection 5yseems should be considered for
placement in the computerized monitoring mope witi: signai; reporting
to the Saratoga Fire District Remote Central Station.
As part of the City of Saratoga Satety Element Study, the Saratoga Fire District
would be interested in joining with representatives from Central Fire District
in reviewing with the City the possibility of expanding the hazardous fire area.
Shoula you have any questions relayed to t��, above please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely..
Ernest O.Krau <,- iet
Saratoga Fire Deparrtmc -lt
cc: marry Peacock, City Manauer
Hal ioppel, City Attorney'
w
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: HARRY - PEACOCK SEP t '07
FROM: DAVID P. MOYLES
DATE: AUGUST 31, 1987
RE: SAFETY ELEMENT
Harry:
Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, I submit
the following areas of concern for your consideration and advice:
1. Hazardous Fire Zone Boundaries.
Are there presently areas outside
this zone but contiguous to it
where fire haz -ards are similar? If
so, in what way are the fire
prevention practices different
between them. Is there reason to
consider expanding this zone's
boundaries?
2. Early Detection. Are there fire
hazards in the Village that would -
warrant mandating the retrofitting
of the properties in it for hook up -
to Saratoga Fire District Early
Detection System?
3. Paul Masson. (Champagne Cellars) .
Would the development of this area
as presently zoned create risks
that would warrant mandating
participation in the Early
Detection System, or another
comparable system?
4. Shake Under Tile /Metal. Does
current ordinance permit covering
of shake roof with metal or tile?
If so, should the practice be
allowed to continue?
5. Square Footage Threshold The
safety element presently requires
new homes of more than 5,000 square
feet to subscribe to the Early
Detection System. Should a lower
threshold be considered?
Having had the chance to reflect on the council's
response and Joyce's observations in particular, I regret having
characterized these matters as "proposals" when I spoke at the
last council meeting. Clearly they are now in rough form only,
and require a good deal of' inves.tigation and analysis before
being reduced to proposals.
Your thoughts on an appropriate procedure would be
appreciated.
CITY OF SRRRTOGR PLRNNING COMMISSION
MINUTES'
DRTE: Tuesday, June 2, 1987 - 7:00 p.m.
PLRCE: Community Center Rrts a Crafts Room, 19655 Rllendale Rue.
TYPE= Committee -.of- the -Whole
I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
R. RZO -87 -003 (see minutes of Planning Commission, regular
adjourned meeting)
B. Review of draft Safety Element
Staff opened the discuss',i,on on the draft Safety Element of the
General Plan at 9:05 p.m. Copies of pages 36 through 90 were
distributed to members of the Committee to replace the duplicate
copies of pages '31 through 35. Staff explained that a
preliminary draft of the Element was reviewed by a Technical
Review Committee and the State Department of Mining and Geology.
Their suggested changes were incorporated into the current draft.
The Commission reviewed pages 1 through 35, containing Chapter I
(Introduction), Chapter II (Hazard Identification), Chapter III
(Impact Identification), and the Rnal.9sis of Existing Policies
and Programs section of Chapter IU (Goals, Policies and
Implementation Programs). General, questions regarding the
technical information were answered by the staff. No changes
were recommended by the Commission. City Attorney, Hal Toppel,
advised deletion of the reference to the Northwestern Hillsides
Residential Water Distribution System on pages 12 and 20, since
it is now apparent that funding for the project will not be
available. Mr. Toppel also mentioned that the City recently
received a copy of the Floodplain Management Model Ordinance from
the State, and the City will be developing a similar ordinance
within the next few months. Reference should be made to this
ordinance in the Element's text under Flood Controls and Land
Development Review on page 16.
The Commission agreed that the section of Chapter IU entitled
Issue Identification and Proposed Goals, Policies and
Implementation Programs will be reviewed during the next
Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on June 16.
cow6 -2
a...
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
AUGUST 12, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga, felt that the only concession made by Applicant
was the relocation of the garage door. In addition, she noted the following:
- The new driveway cut
- Apparently plans called for retaining the horseshoe driveway across the property; she
suggested that once a building permit had been issued, the Protiva's would grant
themselves an easement across the front yard of this property
- Large size of the proposed structure on an infill lot on an old street;
- The adjacent home, which was approximately 700 sq. ft. larger than would currently be
allowed on a 6700 sq. ft. lot and encroachment of the side yard setbacks. She
suggested a reduction of the proposed structure by 700 sq. ft. to maintain the proper
proportion between structure and yard and prevent the overbuilding of Oak Place.
The City Attorney suggested consideration of a Condition of Approval stating, "The driveway
access shall not be widened or relocated; no additional driveway cuts shall be made on this lot."
He added that the City required a cancellation of the easement.
Mr. Pines responded that the Applicants had fully complied with the Commission's requests;
he noted the approval of a nearby two -story house, with 1270 square feet more space in the
same historic neighborhood.
BURGER/CLAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43 P.M. Passed 4 -0.
TUCKER/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -87 -043 WITH THE ADDITION OF
CONDITION 9. Passed 3 -1, Commissioner Clay opposed.
16. DR -87 -064 Terborg, 12334 Crayside Ln., request for design approval of plans to
construct a new 5,093 sq. ft. two -story home in the NHR zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
-------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of August 12, 1987.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Chairwoman Harris asked that Exhibit "A ", 8., read, "Landscaping for screening along the
north and west elevations next to the structure to help soften this elevation shall be installed
prior to final occupancy."
Commissioner Clay questioned the calculation of square footage; Planner Caldwell responded
that the only exceptional circumstance was the 210 square foot covered porch.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:47 P.M.
Mr. John Terborg, Applicant, stated that he intended to landscape to the rear of the property; he
had no objection to the amended Condition 8.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 P.M.
Passed 4 -0.
BURGERICLAY MOVED TO APPROVE DR -87 -064 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
CONDITION 8 AS AMENDED. Passed 4.0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
17. GPA -87 -1 City of Saratoga, Consideration of revised Safety Element of the General
Plan. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Director Hsia presented the Memorandum of August 5, 1987.
*- WIN= - 1 -/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
AUGUST 12, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
City Attorney Toppel presented the Safety Element: Revised language for Pages 20 -21 and
noted the following changes in Fire Hazards:
4.1 (Imp) to read, "Implement through continuation of existing subdivision, zoning and
building regulations as contained in the City Code."
4.2 (Imp) to read, "Implement through continuation of existing subdivision, zoning and
building regulations as contained in the City Code."
4.3 (Imp) to read, "Implement by continuation of existing provision in the building
regulations allowing voluntary installation."
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M.
Mr. William Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, Saratoga, was pleased to see reference to the Specific
Plan for the Northwest Hillside in the Safety Element; however, he felt that the summary was
not sufficiently complete. He emphasized that the Specific Plan was designed for safety and
that slope density was an important element in the Plan. He questioned when the Specific Plan
would be implemented.
Planner Young cited the discussion of General Plan, Specific Plans and suggested the addition
of a sentence to emphasize the creation and integradon of the slope density formula.
The City Attorney reviewed the application of the Specific Plan, noting the exception of certain
subdivisions which were allowed a higher density than the Specific Plan allowed as part of
litigation settlements. He added that the slope density formula now applied to all hillside
zoning districts and suggested the addition of a sentence to read, "Subsequent to the adoption
of the slope density formula, the same standard was later applied to the balance of the hillside
areas and the HCRD zone."
BURGER/CLAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:12 P.M. Passed 4 -0.
Chairwoman Harris felt that the Commissions concerns had been adequately addressed in the
draft presented.
TUCKERBURGER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GPA -87 -1 AS
AMENDED. Passed 4 -0.
son
18. V -87 -014 Slavin /Cicero, 14345 Paul Ave., request for a variance to allow an
LL -87 -002 existing home to maintain a 10 ft, front yard setback where 25 ft. is
required in order to accommodate a lot line adjustment to construct a new
residence on one of the lots. Continued from July 8, 1987.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of August 12, 1987.
Planner Caldwell reviewed lot line adjustments in response to Commissioner Clay's question.
Chairwoman Harris noted her consideration of the Staff Report and cited the Commission's
efforts to prevent non- confon-ning lots, especially substandard lots. She noted that the existing
house was to be remodeled; such would be an opportunity to bring these lots into conformity.
Commissioner Burger noted her difficulty in making the required Findings to allow a reduction
in front setback; she concurred that Staffs arguments opposing this request were well stated.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:18 P.M.
Ms. Cymbent, Westfall Engineers, referring to Staff Report, Issues a., commented that since
a structure existed on the two lots and both owners agreed on upgrading the portion of the
existing structure which was in better shape (the portion which extended over the property
line), requiring removal of this section would be tantamount to requiring the removal of the
whole house. She felt that such would be a hardship for the owners. Extraordinary physical
circumstances existed since the house straddled the property line, which was very unusual.
She felt that the necessary Findings could be made and noted the setback variances already
allowed on Paul Ave.
/f 13 3 -3
REuaVEt7
I
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT JUL z j -198/
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CiTY MANAGER
14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Sc)0 2_0
Telephone: (408) 867 -9001
25 July 1987
Mr. Don Peterson, Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Dear Mayor Petersen:
AS the City of Saratoga is developing the Saratoga Village Plan and
reviewing the Safety element for the City, a plan should be established
whereby existing village buildings are evaluated in accord with,the age'
of the structure,. the tsuiIdtng and fire Codes that were used at-the -time
the structures were completed', the structural soundness and the present
roofing composition.
For obvious reasons; the Saratoga Fire Protection District strongly urges
consideration of the below recommenaati,ons:
1. Because of congestion, it is strongly recommended- "that the
C- Commercial Lopes (C- N,CC,CV) and the R -M Zones be classified-
as requiring a class "A" or Class "B" root' coveing in accora -with
the Building Code.
2. It is strongly.urged that suppress -ion systems (Fire Sprinklers,) or
detection systems (Smoke and Heat.) be made mandatory with.in'a reasonable
period of time. -as established by the City of Saratoga. It is recommended
that all systems be monitored by the.Saratoga Fire District-Remote
Central;AStation.
3. Existing Sprinkler and Fire uetection Systems should.be considered for
pracement in the computerized monitoring mode wit►i signals reporting '
to the Saratoga Ffre.District Kemote:tentral Station.
As part of the City of Saratoga Safety Element Study, the Saratoga .Fire District
would-be interested in joining with representatives from Central Fire District
in reviewing with the City the possibility of expanding the hazardous fire area.
Should you have any questions related to the above please do not nesitate.to
contact me.
Sincer
. � cc te-f
Ernest 0.� Krau e, Chief
Saratoga Fire Deparrtment
cc; Harry Peacock, City Manager
Hal loppel, City Attorney