HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-1988 City Council Staff ReportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: 2 -10 -88
ORIGINATING DEPT.: ENGINEERING CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: F -INAL MAP APPROVAL OF TRACT 7889, Gypsy Hill
Sobey Road & Chester Avenue, J. Lohr Properties (23 Lots)
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution No- 159.5 -02 approving Final Map of Tract 7889.
Report Summary:
1. Tract 788.9 is ready for Final Map Approval.
2. All requirements for city and other agencies have been completed.
3. All bonds and fees have been submitted to City of Saratoga.
M
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1595 -02.
2, Report to Planning Commission.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
2/17: App. 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1595 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 7889
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 7889
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 map 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 rejecte•:?
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code bf 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
-I-
77
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Chap. 14, Municipal Code
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 a.s 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
__7
f
MAYOR
}
1 `
REPORT TO PLANoN
t Sac Q v
.l
pT@1rZS1�,ffiM
COMMISSION
`tip o * *Revised: 2/26/86
L �Q 0y'`'a *Revised: 2/20/86
Rev.iaed: 1/3/86
APf11: 397 -04 -01 & 02 0 Date: 12/4/85
.ommission Meetino: 12/11/85
OPT ice'
%�P
APPLICATION NO. & L CATION: SD -1S95; Southwest Corner of Sobey Rd.
and Chester Ave.
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Murray Dey et. al. dba Gyasy Hill Farm
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 2.3 lot subdivision.
* OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Genera} Plan Amendment; Final Subdivision
Approval, Design Review Approval and Building Permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. An EI'R has been prepared and certified by the
Planning Commission on January 8, 1986.
ZONING: R- 1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family
Resident.ial - Very Low
Density
EXISTING LAND USE_: Vacant; an abandoned single family residence, a barn, a
water storage tank and a farm tack shed are located on the site.
SURROUNOING LAND USES: Odd Fellows is located to the west:
residences are located to the north, south and east.
PARCEL SIZE: 27.85 acres
CAI ' o °
single family
NATURAL FEATURES & VEG'ETATION: Sob.ay Creek runs.through the narrow portion
of the site. Oak Savannah area and riparian vegetation are concentrated
along the creek corridor and the valley areas of the site. Native grasses
and a remnant orchard cover the hillside areas.
l.OL_'iU€:9 : Range from 40,000 so.. f t . to 6S,000 so.. ft. ( . 92 acre to 1.5
acres) .
* P -QJ-E-C-T CONSIDERATIcONS: A revised tentative map (Exhibit B -2)' was
submitted 2 /19/86 indicating the proposed trail location along the street's.
Report to Plannina.Commission 12/2/85
SO- 1595,, Dey, Sobey and Chester P'aQe 2
QIRCULATION /TRAFFIC: Currently, Chester Avenue does not have a public
through connection to Sobey Road. The eastern portion of Chester Avenue
near Sobev Road is an interim private connection which is used by residents
in the area. The project includes a realignment of Chester Avenue.
Chester Avenue will be re.locate,d about 150 to 200 ft. south of the interim
connection beginning about 720 ft, west of Sobey Road. Three of the proposed
lots would be located north of the rea.li.Qnment. The private portion of
Chester will remain to provide access to the residences off of SinoinQ Hill
Lane. Lots 21, 22 and 23 of the proposed subdivision will be bounded by
streets on the north and south. A policy of the subdivision ordinance is
to not allow double frontage lots.. The tentative map shows an existing 20'
easement on the northern boundary_ of Lots 22 & 23. Lot 21 does not have a
similar easement or right to use the exi,stinQ connection. Access for lots
21, 22 and 23 is shown to be from the public portion of Chester Avenue-
The proposed subdivision will have two (2) cul -de -sacs off of
Chester Avenue, one public and one private.
The subdivision ordinance currently reads that a cul -de -sac shall not
* exceed 500 ft. from its intersection with the centerline of a non cu.l -de-
s;ac street to the center of the turnaround unless an exception is oranted
by the advisory aoens_y. The advisory agency may aop-rove a cul -de -sac
length in excess of 500 ft. if there is no other feasible method of
develoPina_ the property for the use for which it is zoned. A recent
* revssron of the anbdserai -ori ords.nance ±r to attow a 500 fi- }ono cdt -de-
sac.- A policy of the Circulation Element of the General Plan (CI.2.2)
states that "...every or developing oublic or private cul -de -sac
greater than than 500 ft. in lenath, and every new and develooinQ
residential area in the City with more than 15 residential lots on a cul-de-
sac should have a primary and an emergency access." The proPo,sed private
cul -de -sac will serve 4 lots and is less than 500 ft. in length. The public
cul -de -sac which will provide access to the lono southern portion of the
site will serve 11 sites and is about 1,500 ft. in length.. The tentative
map shows a 50 ft. dedication at the end of the cul -de -sac to the property
line for a future.throuah road. The road would run through the Odd Fellows
property. No construction is proposed at this time nor is the land t- hrouoh
the Odd Fellows being offered. In essence no secondary access is being
provided from the 1500 ft. cul -de -sac. Furthermore, the road would
probably cross rather steep terrain on the Odd fellows property given the
Point where the road begins in the proposed subdivision. Staff is
concerned with the feasibility of the "proposed throuQh.road ". The oroiect
engineer has sUbMitted a preliminary plan for an emergency access
connecting the two cul -de- sacs., As currently shown, the access would run
from the end of the private cul -de -sac through Lot 18 and 13 and connect
with the public cul -de -sac near the turnaround in the public cul -de -sac.
The remaining southern portion of the public cul -de -sac is about 800 ft.
and would still require an excea,tion to the Subdivision Ordinance. The
preliminary emergency access road would reduce the lenolh of the cul -de -sac
not hay.inQ emergency access. However, the emergencv access raod would
cross over some fairly steep area and would increase the Qrad.inQ and
require the construction of retaining walls. Another a- lternative which has
not been fully pursued would be an emergency access road through one of the
parcels to the east of the subdivision and connectioQ to Sobey Road. The
r-
Report to Planning Commission
SO- 1595, Dey, Sobey & Chester
c
12/3/85
r Pape 3
property to the east of Lot 7 has a minimum access road with access to
Sobey Road, Emergency access at the turnaround end of the public cul -de-
sac would alleviate the problem with the length of the cul -de -sac and lack
of emergency /secondary access.
has a minimum access road with access to Sobey, Road. Emergency, access at
the turnaround end of the public cul -de -sac would allevi.ate' the problem
with the length of the cul -de -sac and lack of emergency, /s.econdary access.
An alternative internal circulation pattern could reduce the length of
the main cul -de -sac but because of the irregular shape of the site would
probably not achieve compliance with the SOO ft. length. A clustered
development (planned community) plan could achieve conformity with the
maximum cul -de -sac length. However the site would need to be rezoned to
proceed with a. Planned Community cluster development. This alternative is
analyzed in the Draft €.IR.
The General Plan requires a cumulative traffic study for any subdivision
of 5 or more lots. The study has been done as part of the required
Environmental Impact Report. The Draft EIR states that the orol;ect itself
would have an insignificant effect on intersection service levels. In
1990,, the northern Sobey /'Quito Road intersection level is estimated to b.e
at levels C/D (defined in the EIR),, indicative of averaQ.e to long, traffic
delays at the intersection,. (p 3.2 -4). The revisions to the map have not
caused a change in the traffic pattern and calculations.
* OPIER -_U PACE: An amendment to t
The Land Use designation at the
Ave, has' been amended from Open
Residential - Very Low Density.
the dedication of easements to
the Sobey Road frontage and ar
boundary.
he General Plan has recently
southwest corner of Sobey Rd.
Space - Outdoor Recreation to
The Maintenance Department
Provide unimproved eo;uestrian
easement to connect Sobey to
Deen approved.
and Chester
SinQ,le Family
is rep.uirina
tra.il.s along
the westerly
An open space. buffer ad.acent to the Sobey Creek riparian corridor is
indicated on the revised mao in response to comments.re'ceived from the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDF'G). The CDFG has approved the
3S ft. buffer outside the riparian corridor (rather than the requested 50
ft.). Open space areas will be located on Lots 1 through G_, 11:: and 12.
The .public cul -de -sac will cross through the open apace area and over Sobev
Creek. A clear span bridge will be used rather than culverting the creek.
The open 5'pace area is to remain free of structures and only native
landscaping.should be planted in the buffer zone.
D.E_S GN Q._QB DERA_T.;l_ONS_:, The public cul -de -sac does not comply with the
maximum length in the Subdivision Ordinance or the General Plan policy
concerning. emergency access (see discu,asion in Circulation secti,on). A
Report to Planning :Commission 12/3/85
SD- 1595,• Devi. Sobev and Chester Pace 4
Fire Deoartment turnaround is proposed within the maior cu,l -de -sac. A
condition of Central Fire is that a secondary access be provided.
The public cul -de -sac will Gros over S-obey Creek using_ a clear span
bridge. The California Deoartment of Fish and Game (CDFG) reviewed the
Draft EIR. They have commented that the riparian veae.tation is of a high
value to a wide variety of wildlife species and that the vegetation should
remain undisturbed. Thev have stated that a buffer area should be
established 50 ft. wide beyond the outer edge of the riparian habitat.
CDFG has iurisdiction over any activities that will substantially divert or
alter a stream. Worl: in the streambed cannot be initiated until a
streambed alteration agreement has been executed. CDFG has approved the
revised map -which has a 35 ft. buffer beyond the outer edge of the riparian
corridor.
The roads will reouire the removal of 11 ordi.nance size trees;, the mai.ority
of which are in the creek area. As proposed,. house pads on 'several of the
sites,. in particular Lots 11.16,. 18 and 19,• will also reouire removal of 6
ordinance size trees. The revisions to the map have reduced the overall .
number of trees to be removed because of the realignment of the mai:or cul-
de -sac and the reduction in width of the minor cul -de -sac (from oublic to
private). Several ordinance size trees will be close to the wall and will
reouire the construction of walls to protect the trees. Staff has added a
condition that the trees and method of protection be reviewed by t-he City
Horticulturist prior to Final Mao Approval.
The proposed layout is creating.four double frontage lots:. Lots 17;. 21;. 2.2
& 23. The layout is creating. 2 irregular l.ota,. Lots 21 and 18.. Pad
locations have been shown on lots that have a 10% or more slope.
The existino_, residences to the east are predominantly one story structures.
The site is at a higher elevation than the adi.acent properties. Several of
the residences have existing, poo -ls in the rear yards. Potential privacy
impacts exist on the future residences on Lots 6 and 7 to the existing
residences. The pad elevation of the residence to the east of Lot 6 is
about 365 ft. while the pad of the future residence is indicated to be at
the 390 ft. elevation,, about 25 ft. above the existing. residence. The p'ad
elevation of the "residence to the east of Lot 7 is about 378 ft.. while the
pad elevation of the portion of the future residence on Lot '7 closest to
the existino•residence is indicated to be at 386 ft. elevation," about 8 ft..
above the existing. residence. Staff recommends that the residences on Lots
6 and 7 be restricted to one story to minimize potential privacy impacts.
The western portion of the site is highly vi -sible from Sobey Road. The
future residences on the northwestern lots will be visible. A high•po.int
of the site, or knoll. is located in Lot 18. The majority of the proposed
house pad is shown to be located on the knoll. The oroi.ect engineer has
indicated that the slope underneath the.footprint will be"14% with a 12%
slope on the driveway. Location of the house oad on the lower portions of
the site may create a steeper slope underneath the footprint. However.. as
shown,. the residence with a finish floor at the 426 to 431 ft. elevation
will rise above the knoll (430 ft, eleva•ti -on). If the residence were to be
Report to Plannino.Commission 12/3/85
SDR- 15.95,, Dev.. Sobev and Chester Paoe 5
30 ft. in height;. the highest point could be at about 480 ft. elevation.
The revised map indicates a one.story structure on the site. The overall
visual impact could be reduced with a one story structure and the use of
proper grading, technio.ues. Another alternative would be to limit the
height of the structure to 21 ft. for example and allow either a one or two
story structure. Because of the slopes on the lots in the northwestern
portion of the site and the visibility of that portion,. Staff recommends
that stepped pads be required on Lots 12,_ 13,. 1G 17,, 16;, 19 and 20.
(The eno.ineer has shown split 'level houses on Lots 12. 13. and
17). The stepped pads should not be a 1 or 2 ft. difference but rather
greater,, for example 4 to 5 ft, in order to fit the residences to the
slooes rather than oradino, the sites to fit the structures. The visibility
of the future residences will also be determined by the colors and,
materials of the structures as well as t-he landscaping. insta.iled.
GEOLOGY: The City Geologist has reviewed the tentative Map and the Draft
EIR. The City Geologist indicates that the site is not constrained by anv
unusual geologic or soil conditions that cannot be miti.oated by appropriate
geotechnical design and proper Oradino: practices. The City Geoloo.ist is
recommending that a drainage plan to prevent or mitigate the flooding
potential be submitted for review and aoproval by the City Engineer prior to
subdivision aooroval. Staff is includi,no a condition that the aoolicant
comply with the City Geologist's letter dated October 22. 1985 durino the
develooment of the site.
PROJECT STATUS: The oroiect does not combly with all the objectives o -f the
General Plan., or all repui'rements of the Subddvi.sion Ordinance
of the City, of Saratooa. The General Plan states that if a cul -de -sac is
oreater than 500 ft._. then primary and secondary access should be provided.
The mai.or 1.500 ft. cul -de -sac exceeds the 500 ft. maximum
allowed in the.Subdivision Ordinance.. In addition - - a minimum access road
is being. used to provide access to 4 of the lots. Section 14- 35.010 of the
Subdivision Ordinance orants the Plannino,Commission the power to authorize
conditional exceptions to any of the desi.on or improvement requirement-5 of
the Subdivision Ordinance provided one of the.f'o.11owino, findings is made by
the Commission:
There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property.
or
2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enioyment of
substantial property rights.
AND in either case that the orantino. of the exception will not be
materially detrimental to the oublic health., safety or welfare or
ini.urious to other property in the oroi.ect vicinity.
The housino, 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.
l
Report to Planning Commission 12/3/85
SD -1595, Oey, Sobey & Chester Page 6
An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Planning Commission a's
adequate on 1/8/86. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the County
of Santa Clara Recorder's Office if t °he project is approved.
Staff recommends denial of the tentative map for SD -1595, Exh. B -2 filed
2/19/86. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the subdivision an
exception must be made for the cul -de -sac length and the use of a minimum
access road and it must be determined that the project is in compliance
with the objectives of the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff recommends the following conditions if the subdivision is approved:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Tract flap" to City for checking and recordation (Pay
required checking & recordation fees).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication " to provide for a 25 ft.
half- street on Chester Ave. and Street "A" and a 30 ft, half -
street on Sobey Road.
D. Submit "Irre.vocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as
required.
E. Improve Chester Ave., Street "A" and Sobey Road to City Standards
including the following,
1. Designed Structural Section 18 ft. between cenerline and
flowline for Chester Ave. & Street "A ".
2.. Designed Structural Section 20 ft.. between centerline and
fl.owline for Sobey Road.
3. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter W-24).
4. Underground existing overhead utilities -.
Report to Planning Commission 12/3/85
SD -1595, Dey, Sobey & Chester Page 7
F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "'Master Draina9e
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff t.o 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 inlet.s, outlets, channels, etc.
G. Construct private road IS ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2-
1/2" asphalt concrete on 6 i.n. aggregate base for total length.
Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface
shall be 15 ft.
c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be
designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
d) Storm runoff shall'be controlled through the
use of culverts and roadside ditches.
H. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius on private road.
I. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
J. Construct "'Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the City Engi.neer.
K. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
L Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow..
M. Pro °tective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
N. Obtain Encrochment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
0. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street I,mprovemen.ts
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Private Road Construction
P. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
Report to Planning Commission 12/3/85
SD -1555, Dey, Sobey & Chester Page 8
Q. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
R. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - D °IVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICE
A. Geotechnicai 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 is -sued.
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 ft. or higher or with a surcharge.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or-be
removed.
S. Detailed erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Sanitation Dist. No. 4.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. The approximately 1500 —feet long cul -de -sac should be provided
with a secondary access.
B. As proposed, the subdivision will require the installation of 5
fire hydrants. The fire hydrants shall be tested and accepted by
the Central Fire Protection District prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Report to Planning Commission 12/3/85
SD -1595, De.y, Sobey & Chester Page 9
C. Provide 15 feet of vertical clearance over all portions of the
roads or driveways.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
R. 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
adequ t.e bond shall be posted with said district to assure
completion of sewers as planned.
B. DOme5tiC water to be provided by San Jose Water Works..
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall submit plans showing the location and intended
use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and
certification prior to Final Map approval.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
** A. The developer shall dedicate easements to provide unimproved
equestrian trails along the frontage of Sobey Road, along the
entire western length of the tract boundary and an easement to
connect Sobey Road to the westerly boundary or as approved by the
Parks & Recreation Commission.
B. The developer shall pay in lieu fees rather than dedicate the
land at the northeast corner of the site.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DIVISION
A. The applicant shall comply with the Cit -y Geologist's .letter dated
October 22, 1985 during the development of the site.
B. All residences shall comply w,ith the required setbacks for the
zoning district..
C. The applicant shall comply with any requirements of the
California Department of Fish and Game.
D. Prior to Final Map Approval, submit CC &R's for City review and
approval which include the following
1. Residences on lots 6, 7 and 18 shall be one story and
shall not exceed 21 ft.
Report to Planning Commission 12/3/85
SD -1595, Dey, Sobey & Chester Page 10
2. Residences on Lots 12, 13, 16 through 2.0 inclusive shall
use stepped pads. The steps shall be 4 to 5 ft. differ -
ences.
3. These CC&R's can.no't be amended without prior City
approval in writing and are enforceable by the City.
4. All individual lot. owners shall be required to maintain
all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way.
S. No structures are permitted within the open space ease-
ment on Lots 1 through 6, 11 and 12. Only native
species shall be planted in the open space easement.
F. A secondary or emergency access shall be provided for and improved
for the 1500 ft. cul -de -sac. The improvement and the emergency
access gate shall be reviewed an'd approved by Staff prior to
Fina-1 Clap Approval.
G. No single retaining wall shall be more than 5 ft. in exposed face
height.
H. All grading shall be contoured so as to form smooth transitions
between natural and created slopes.
I. The developer shall, subject to Staff review and approval, com-
ply with the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "D ".
J. Developer shall comply with applicable City ordinances, i.e.
Design- Reivew prior to issuance of a building permit for the
future residences.
K. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the
potential for solar accessibility. Th'e developer shall provide,
to the extent feasible,. f:or, future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
L. Access for Lots 2.1, 22 and 23 shall be from the realigned portion
of Chester Ave.
M. The riparian vegetation within the open space easement on Lots
1 through 6 and Lots 11 and 12 shall b,e preserved as shown on
Exhibit B -1, by the recordation of an open space easement prior
to Final Map Approval. An Open Space Easement shall be sub-
mitted for review and approval of the City Attorney prior to
recordation.
N. Applicant shall submit a tree preservation and protection plan
showing how existing trees to be preserved will be maintained .
and protected for review and approval by Staff and the City
Report to Planning Commission 12/3/85
SD- 1595, Dey, Sobey & Che,ster Page 11
tree specialist prior to Final Map Approval. Applicant shall
pay fees to cover cost of City tree specialist's review of such
plans.
0. Street trees required by the Subdiv °is,ion Ordinance shall be
planted lot by lot prior to final of the
dwelling on the lot.
P. An amended tentative map shall, be submitted to the City showing
the proposed emergency or secondary access prior to final map.
The revised map shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department prior to Final Map Approval.
APPROVED:
Lucille Hise
Planner
LH /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 1/22/86
EXHIBIT "0' - MTTTrATT'nN mFASLjREq
i implement appropriate mi t inqt. i nn mea-5ures from Sect ion 3,2 (Traiff ir.
-3.,4 Maual Qu,ality), 3.5 (Geology), 73.6 (Hvdrology), 3--8 (Noi.-;.;-), and 3.9
Air Q)-A,3 jwhir-h are de-signed to reduce, th�q..impac-:f. of, the.. propoi-5ed.
t-,h.e.
2. Traffic
by a, 5A.o.p. sign, on. Chester Avenue..
3.. The propqse.d.. dedic,at.iqn, for a-fljture. conneqti,on. to.. Criap. Avenue.. 9,houl.d.
b,e. preserved.:
4. The develop.er shaLl. prqv.ide. f.iv.e. f.i.re. hydran.t.:,q, t,o mee,t- t,he. Gen.t.ral. Fire,
Prolt.e.c.t,io.n. D.iatric,t- C.FPD.). requireiien.t-s., an.d ad.equat.em fire, flows o.n. 5.ite of.
1 '00-0, gallong- per minut.e. f.or, t,.w.o. ho.ur5, a.s. requireA. by Ci.t.y. Ordinance-, Si.t.e.
pja'p,s, in,cluding fire. p.r.--o.t.e.c.tAo--n, shall b,e, ias,p.e,c-ted by CFPD prior
to, Final Approval-
5.,. The, devel.oper sha.1.1, promi.de. any. in.frazA,rucAure. Lmpro.vemen,t.-s, require,d, t.o.
serve th.e. p.roje,cA., in.c.lud,ing WatAr, 5,e.W.er and. 9,t,o.rm*. drain.
6 Pro jq•ct. .5,treet.5. should. be. of. h'i.gh. qua,l.i.f.y co.n5,t.rucAJ,o,n, wit.h. i,ncrea,5.e.d.
struc.t.ura.1, s.eLC.tio.nLS, in. arder t.o, min.im.ize, m.aLin,t.e.na.nc.e.
7., Oe,51,on, re5ident.ia-1 prQperUea t.o. b.lend. w.itA t,he. na.t.lara.l. t-erra.i.n. by.
using. t,e,rrac:.e,d, arch.it.e.c,t.ure, and. gradAng. t.e.c.htique.s_ uhp-re, feas•ib,le,, and,
appropri.a,t.e. co.lor5. an.d. maleria.15. t,o. 51mullat.e. t.h,e. natural pa.t1erqs...
8- Re.ve.ge.t.a.i.p_ t.he. deme,lop,ae,at. s.it.e, w.it.h. n.a.,Uive. ve.geA4at.io.n. imme.dia,t " e ly t:o
r#--du.qe, v.iews of. +.hF--. de.ve.l.opme:n.t on. r7e.5:t.ri.c.+- eroS"Lo..n, prob.lem.s., a n.d.
replace. Lest, v age, t-aAA an�.. I,m.me.d.ia-t.e.ly reO.lL;-=kn.t, C.)Lt, and, fil.1 .5.1 o,p.e 5 11! i +, h
rj,.Uye. vege.ta.t.ion. t.o. pre.v.e-n.t s.ol.l. ero.aio.n-
9... Go.n.t.our require.d. grad:ing t.o. b.len,d, lw.ith, the. na.t.ura,l, t,appgrap.hy.,
10.. Sei.smi,c. deai.gn, requiremen.t.s. o.f the. currani, Uni.form, Buil.di.ng, C.o.d.e.,
,5.h.o,u.1 d. b,e: 5.a.t,i sf i e,d
I Utij.i.U.es. should- be. deslgne.d. t.o. pr.o.vide. sjk.f f icle.n..t. f Lex ibl I i t.y t.o.
Uit:h.s.t,an.d. t.h.e gro.un.d. m.o.Uan. in.duc.ad. during an. e.A.rt.hq,ua,k.,e,.
12 Foupda.UO.n. 5.up,p.o.r+, s.hauld. b.e. de:5.ig.n.e,d. t.0, re,51.51 +.ha. e.ff.ec.t-q. o.f ground,
5,ftak-Ang,.
13.. A,11 -5�,rjucut,ra.1 f.i.1.1 should- be. keya.d. in.t.o: s1ab-le. na.fura.1 ground,..
1.4., D.e.taile.d, re.ault.s. o.f on. aite. g.e.ot.e.c.h.n,ic,a.l an.d. 5.0,il,15, e.rigiaeer,,i.ng
i nv.e-s.t.igaAJ.on..5,, Lnc.ludlng. any. s.ub.5.urfla.ce. t.a.51ing.., should. be. pro.vid.e.d. t.o. a.
s1ruc.Wra I e.n.g.ine.er w.ho. ah.o.u.ld. d.e,.5,ig,n. foo.-Ung-5_ fo.jjn.da,t.io.n,5, a.n.d. o,n, 5 ' it 'e
dr:ai,nage. t.o. mi,t.i.ga.t.e. t.he, p.pA.e-nji,a.1 s1ab.ilit.y prob.lem.s. o.f t,he. dem.e.lo.p.me.nA,
'9A t,e C.o.n,s.iderat.io.n. 9,h.ajuld. b.e. give.n, t.o. ap.praqri.at.e. pJac.e,m.e.nt, Of Wuild,ings,
in., t.o. -51o.p.e.s. a:n,d. p.o.t,e.n.t,ia.11y uns.tza.b.le. ao.ils.,.
IS,.. De sJgn. o.f. cut. and. f i I I 5.1-opas. ahal I camp.ly iw.it-h. Gity g r ad.i n g.
ar d.i na n.c.e.s... (3.rad.ing. shall b.e. d.an.e. in aamp.lian.c.e. w1t.h. Gity ard,inanc.P-5..
1.6- Cut. and. fill .5.loaez. shall b.e. no. ateep:er than- 3.:1, (hor-izo.nial t:.o.
vertical ). ar f lat,f.e.r , un.le.sa at;e.ep.er s• o.p.a.,5. are, da.t.arm,in.a.d. s.uit:a.b,le. by. a.
,-ng:i.ne!--r and. are. apprava.d. by the. Git.y..
17.. In, prapoae.d. b.uild-inq anal. paveme.nt, areas., th.e. 9.o.il surfac.e., expaq,ad by.
demo -JjJ.on, subex.cama.t.i.o.n. and. remaval af. exJ51i.ng. s1ruc.ture.,5. and. +..r. ears.
shauld. be. 5.c.arifie.d, f.d. a depl,h af i,n.c.he.-5_ aandit.ianed. wit,h. wa ' f.er (Or
a.1.1Qj,j.ed, t,o. dry) ta praduc.a. a. .5.o,-i,l wat.er can.t.ehi af ab.out. t-mo. ptrcen i abay.a..
the. op-f.imum. va,11je, anal: thean' C.O.Mrp'aCAe :d. t.o. at. leasl 9.0. p.eraeat. re.lajiv.e.
COMPLa.r-t.ian. baae.d. up.o.n. 65.TM. Test. 0.1,55.7-78..
1,8... Overal.1 grading, ah,auld. be. kap:t, t:o, a m.in.im.um, p.arr+
'j r
—LIjarly i.n. -5.t-eep.,
a r ea.—s.,. High .5.t.eep.ly cut. alop.ea. and, aide. Kill filla ahauld. b.e: avaide.d-
1.9- If part, c,ut_ part. fill hou5,ep.ad;s. are. 1-LiALizze.d., foun.da.t.ian. de.s.iga-5, of
struc.t.ures. shauld. allow. for diffe.re.n.t.ial ae.t.,Ueme.ni.
20- A.11 fill plac.,---m,e.n,+. 5hauld. b.e, inaqe,c.t.e.d. by a qua,lifie,d. sail-5. engi..n?er.
2,1 H-ou..-se,s. shaul.d. be. cans.t.ruc.t.e.d. in. t,h.e. mas.t. -51ab,le. port.ian.s. oz,f, each. lo1_
and. s1ab.le. are.a,s, aho.uld. b.e. left. as. op.en.
2.2.., If . ret,ai,ning. sA.rur-tura.s. are. latilizad. in, projeal. de.s.ign., dra.1na.g.e.
-f
sho.1-4.1d. b.e. provided, +.o. re.lieme. w.at.er p.re.asure, an.d, w.e.ig,h.t, from, ac.cuau,la.t.ing,
beh.i.nd. the s1rur"tures-
2 * 3. O.a.5,i.gn. a.. s.t-orm. dra.inage, -5.ys.".m. co.n.forming., t.o. t,he. ex.taat.
Uith overall na.t.ural d.raLina-g!--. p.at.t.erna af. the. 5.it.e- SA.orf.wat.er from, a.
1:arge. Area. sha-11. not.. bf--. allojueA t.o. co.nf--.---.n1ra1e. a.t, one. dra.i.nage. paini and.
flo.w. down. ca hill.s,lop.,e.,
24--` Con.5.trur.A. drainage-w.-ays. in. re.si,denhal areas. to. con.t.rol ru.no.ff f rom
r.aaft.op-a and. road.w.a.ys. and, t.o• preme.n.t. exrze.a.a w.a.f.er from. anterin.g. -s.teap,
.5 p
215.. A, conrcre.te. headwall should. be. qoaat�ruc.t.ed. a.j. t.he. aniranc-e. t-o. the. 4.8,
inrah. lin.e c.onveyinq S.obay, Greak under Ro,b.ey. Raa.d..,,
25,., P.roy.i,de. necessary surfare. and. subs.urfac.e. drai,nage. sy.s.t.,ems. t'o'
ad,equa.t.e.ly handle. s1orm. runoff uithi.n. the- project, SJ.te,.,
27., De.5.i.gn. 1,andscap.ed. areas. *o.f, the. proj.eic.A. to- akb.s.orb. run.o.ff from.
r o.o f .5. anal. . wa1 -
2.8- Regu.larl.y, clean. and. ma.in.t,a.in. Oje. on. 5.ite. .5.+.Orm. drainage. ayst.em. t.o.
an.aure, pro.pp-r fun.at.io.aing-.
2,9,.. Appropri.ef.e. das:i.ga and. cop,-s.t.ruc.t.io.n. t.achniques, must. be. uz..ed, t.o. amo.i.d.
adverse, impac.t.s. t.o. hame.a prop.c.5.e.d. in, the. perc:hed, grouad.wat.er area. of t.he.
-511e..
2
30.. An erosion control plan should be prepared a.nd. implem.e.n.te.d, in
coordination. with the City and appropriate regulatory ag.e.ncies...
31. Grading for building.sit..e pads., roads., and drainage s.h.ould. be- kep.t. t.o.
a minimum.
32. The construction operat,.ions should. be. evalu.at.ed. and. inspected .
p.eriod.ic.ally by the soils engineer.
3.3.. Earthwork operations. should be. performed. during. t..he. dry wea.t.her.
season, May to October, or at. the City's. discretion,..,
34. Graded pads should. not_ be al.l.owe.d. to. remain. exposed and. u.nde.ve.lo.p.e.d.
during the rainy season.. All e.xpoaed soils s.h.o.uld be mulched and planted
with vegetation before the. start, o.f w.int.er sea.sona.l rains...
35.. Stormwater should not be. allo.wed.to flow directly down. unprotected
slopes. Interceptor ditches and benches should. be ut.ilized.during. rainy
season construction to prevent,. gullying...
36. Cu.t and fill slopes., where.pos.sib.le., should be. hydro.see.de.d.wit.h.native.
plant. mix requiring minimal irrigation. and fertilizing...
37. Catch basins should be used to retain sediment. w.it,hin the site area
during construction period.
38. Natural vegetation shou.I.d be ret..ained.w.henever pos.s.ib.le_
39. All development should be. lan.dsc.aped, to, the extent possible, w,ith
vegetation requiring minimum, irrigat.i.o.n or ap.p.li.c.at..io.n. 2f f.ert.ilizers. and
pesticides.
40. To the maximum. extent f.easi.b.le., all mature, trees on. the 'sit.e.should be
retained.
41. If nature. trees must. unavo.idabl.y be. removed. due. t_o project.
implementation, two trees of the. same or similar species should be
replanted and cultiva. t. ed .els.ew.here. on. the. site. for each, tree removed..
42. Earthm.oving eq.uip.men.t and grading s.h.ould be restricted to. construction
areas to prevent, disturbance. of rema.in.i.ng.veget.at,.io.n..
43. Project landscaping should include native trees, such as oaks,
sycamore, and willow., along. with shrub:s.and ground cover t.hat. have. wildlife
food and cover value.
44. Disturbed exposed sections. of Sobey Creek. should. be. immedia.t..ely
reveget.at.ed with native and naturalized trees, shrubs, and grasses to be
approved by the California Department. of Fish and. Game...
45. All construction vehicles and. equipment should be properly mu.ffled..
46. Construction act...ivi.t.i.es should be res.t.ric.t.e.d. to t.he. weekday hours. of
7:30 a.m, and 6:.00 ptm.. to minimize disturbance to local residents._
3
47,
Thoroughly. oroughly clean. trla.ck.e:d. out. maleria.15. nf--ar c.o.nSA.ruclio.n. aite. a z. ce sS.
PP. i n ts-
'
4.3... Sp.ray w.a.ter or apply du-5.t, pallialive.s. to. mi.n.imize. dl—,.!�l antraInment, by
the. ;actian. of the. w.iad,
4.9, Wet and/.or, caver wIt.h., a. tarp. all du.m.p tru-c..k.s. h.aji-ling earth. 5-o. that.
uj.in.d, action. is. le.-5:5, able. to. tl.aw. aoil materia-15 out af th.e. trw-k- and. o.n;t.o.
the. rQadLjya—.
50... Pave. or. .5,eal ip. d.islurb,ed. areas, a.s. saan. a.-5. pa-5:&ible., to. radur—e. dlk51
d!urinq c.o.n..5Alru..r.+ion. arzt.iv.i,ty...
51— E.xercls:e care. during. ra,fueli.ng af canstructio.n. vehicles, an.d. athar
eaqui•pmel to. reduc.e— emap.oralive, hydracarb.o.n.
52... In. +..he. ' emanA. thal archae.o.lo.g.ical re.s.ource.a are. encaunlere.d. during
aub,.s.urfac.a. co.n.s.t.ruclio.n., land. alteratio.n. w.ork. in, t.h!--. gan.eral vici.n.ify. of
the, , find. should. be. halt.e.d. and. a. qulaified. a-rcha.e.o.l.o.g.iat. g.h.ou'l.d. be.
conau I tad... Rropml emaluation.a should, Le, marde, re.gard.in.g. tht. fi.n.d., and a.
c o u r a ie. * o.f. act,ton. ac.ceplable t.o. all cancerned. parties. -hauld. then. Le.
ad.ap.t.ad.
Local Native. ftmaric.an. argan.izalian.s, should. he. aan.-5,ulte.d i,f human,
rema-.i,ns are. enr..ounlere.d...
A
' w
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 2 -5 -88 (2- 17 -88)
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT • FINAL MAP APPROVAL SDR 1290
MT. EDEN ROAD, LAUREL L. HULSE
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution No. 1290 -02 attached.
Approval of Final Map.
S 3- > >
AGENDA ITEM tkD
CITY MGR. APPROVAL,
Report Summary:
1. This project is located in north - western hillside area and was approved
February 17, 1977.
2. SDR 1290 is ready for Final Map Approval.
3. All requirements and other departments have been completed.
4. Portion of improvements have been completed and cash bond of $6,000
has been paid and remaining $4,000 will be provided by First American
Title Guaranty Company on the closing of escrow of Mr. Hulse on February
20, 1988, for remaining improvements for SDR 1290.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1290 -02.
2. Staff Report.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
2/17: App. 5 -0
4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CI :TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF 1290 -02
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 1.005 Acre and 0.989 Acre Parcels shown as Parcel A and B
on the Final Parcel Map prepared by Kirkeby & Associates, Inc. and ,
submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two
(2.) individual building sites.
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:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
' ^ CITY OF SARATOGA `` eb=.ry 17, 1977
* as revised September 12, 1979
EXHIBIT "A"
STAFF REPORT
SDR -1290 Lauren L. Hulse, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 Lo
Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan and all
f requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga
r
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Sant
Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project if
approved under this application. Said determination dated: December 20, 197
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1290 (Exhib
"A" filed December 14, 1976) 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 Pare
Map, payment.of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as estab-
lished by Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative approval, submissi
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 wi
any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall
comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Construct standard driveway approach 16 feet wide at property line,
flared to 24 feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and
screening or better on 6 -inch base rock.
* B. Dedicate and improve Mt. Eden Road to provide for a 25 -foot standard
half- street with 13 feet between center line and face of curb.
C. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by
the Director of Public Works including but not limited to culvert
crossing of Mt. Eden Road. The existing culverts on Mt. Eden are to
be extended as necessary for street and pathway improvement. If the
existing culverts are determined to be undersized they shall be
replaced for the entire width of roadway.
* D. Move utilities (pipes, etc.) as may be required. Construct erosion
control devices in natural water courses as approved by the Director
of Public Works.
E. Engineered improvement plans required for street, access road and
storm sewer construction.
F. Bond and inspection fee as determined from engineered plans to be
posted and paid.
* III.. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
* A. A final geotechnical report for the subdivision shall be submitted
prior to final map approval.
* B. Soils foundation reports required for each lot. Soils engineer shal
review all proposed on -site work and structures for siting, grading,
drainage, foundation structures and erosion control. Any geotechnic.
corrective measures for lots shall be addressed. Letter from soils
engineer certifying he has done this review and the plans are consis-
tent with the geotechnical report is required prior to issuance of
any grading or building permits.
j
STAFF REPORT 1 2/17/77
SDR -1290 L. Hulse Page 2
* C. Detailed on -site improvement plans required. Plan shall include:
* 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills, slopes, cross- sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)..
* 2.. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall location, etc.,
Subsurface drainage shall be considered). Private.storm drain
easements may be required prior to final map approval.
* 3. Retaining structures (designed by licensed designer).
i
* 4. Erosion control measures.
* D. Soils engineer shall inspect and approve all excavation and grading
operations. A written report of that is to be submitted to the City
prior to final inspection.
* E. No grading shall be undertaken after September 30 and before May 1.
Excavations shall be winterized prior to November 1.
* F. All graded slopes shall be treated to prevent erosion prior to rainy
months.
* G. All grading is to be slopes and contoured to match existing terrain.
Cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 except as specifi-
cally approved by City.
* H. Structures shall include security and fire detection equipment as
specified.by City.
I. Existing above and below ground structures shall be made to conform t
code or removed.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS'- SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to
issuance of building permit remove combustive vegetation as specifiec
Fire - retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall
be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fix
Code, Appendix E).
B. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders
using double seal coat O & S or better on 6" Agg. Base from public
street or access road to proposed dwellings. Slope of driveway shall
not exceed 12k% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 12'% and,15% shall be surfaced
using 2Y' of A.C. on 6" of A.B.
2. Driveways having slopes between.15'% and 17'�% shall be surfaced
using 4" of P.C.G. concrete rough surfaced on 4" Agg. Base and
shall not exceed 50 feet in length. Driveways with greater
slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
C. Turn- around's. Construct a turn- around at the proposed dwelling site
having a 32' inside radius. Other approved type turn- around must mee
requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building
plans.
D. Curves. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 fee
E. Water System. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site
required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains
and fire hydrants. Fire hydrants to be a maximum of 500 ft. from
buildings.
F. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable
of delivering 1,000 GPM for 2 hours,. This is based upon the Insuranc
Services Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintai:
a Grade Five (5) rating.
STAFF REPORT
SDR -1290 L. Hulse
(_'2/17/77
Page 3
G. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site, remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal is to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and
connected by developer to existing sewer mains. Prior to final
approval, adequate bond shall be posted with the Cupertino Sanitary
District to insure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Annexation of entire property required in accordance with letter
dated December 21, 1976.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Dedicate additional right of way for flood control purposes from
existing right of way to northerly boundary of property, in accordanc
with letter dated February 4, 1977.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PARKS AND RECREATION
* A. Dedicate and improve fifteen (15) ft. wide easement for equestrian trail
purposes adjacent to Mt. Eden Road between street paving and propert;
line, for entire property frontage. Said easement will be entirely
within and superimposed over the street right of way.
* VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
* A. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required
prior to issuance of permits. This includes:
* 1. Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in height.
* 2. Landscaping for graded areas, with slopes of 3:1 or flatter and
exceeding 20 ft. in height (toe to top) or with slopes steeper
than 3:1 and exceeding 10 ft. in height (toe to top).
* 3. Treatment of pedestrian /equestrian easement.
* B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Land Development Committee Approval.
* C. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully
support landscaping.
* D. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face heigt
(existing not included).
* E. Applicant shall comply with the following Mitigation Measures:
* 1. Require that the keeping of horses be restricted to lots which
have one acre of level land (less than 5% slope) and that
paddock areas not be traversed by water courses.
* 2. Limit construction to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
* 3. Require the subdividers to contribute land and /or money in
proportion to the size of each subdivision towards the expense o
providing a new fire station.
* 4. In order to reduce erosion and consequent siltation of the creek
all grading should be done during the May - September dry period.
Revegetation of the site should be initiated as soon as possible
following grading on any portion of the site but in no case shou
unvegetated graded areas be left exposed to the winter rains. T
steeper surfaces should be hydromulched, and all revegetation
should be watered regularly. A landscape architect should be
retained to plan and supervise all revegetation. An inspection
the site by the landscape architect should be made at periodic
intervals up to one year following grading to determine of the
revegetation is successful and to report to the City on same. Th.
=!ZW_' .
I STAFF REPORT
SDR -1290 L. Hulse
Page 4
developer should be required to post a bond with the City to
ensure that the above recommendations are carried out. A detailec
plan for this should be completed prior to beginning construction
* 5. Erosion control measures should be provided along the creek
channels where active scour of the channel and banks is occurring
* 6. Halt all construction activity within a radius of 35 feet if
grading reveals prehistoric artifacts, burned rocks., or human
interments; and within 17 feet if grading reveals any historic
resources such as bottles, trash piles, filled basements. A
qualified archaeologist should be retained to evaluate any such
find and recommend any needed mitigation.
* 7. As a condition to approval require the developer to join any such
district if it should be found to be necessary.
* 8. Require the developers to participate on a pro -rata basis in the
capital cost of required major traffic, flood control or fire
improvements (including Pierce Road improvements, a new fire
station, drainage improvements for Calabazas Creek,, water and
sewer improvements).
* 9. Require subdividers to contribute a proportional share of the
cost of making the recommended improvements at the Pierce Road/
Route 85 intersection.
* IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Kat y Ker' s, Assistant Planner
LDC Agenda: 2/17/77
LDC Agenda; 9/9/20/79
j rY•.
1
1
LOCAT ICN M A P
SbR tz90
MT EDEN &T
V }
O
Y
o y��saY
0
0
J
L
A O �
C G O
A4 �
• A 0
e
0
0
J
O
J
N T A 0 6 l_ N.
G
t.
`� L
l0 3c '�o
SARATO��GA '"ITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. o AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 17, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Changes in Cable Television Regulations
Recommended Motion: Move to repeal Sections 4 and 6 of Ordinance 38.79.
Adopt Sections 4- 25.070, 4- 25.105, and 14- 30.085, and amend Section 14-
30.100(a) of the Municipal Code.
Report Summary: Certain changes outlined below are being recommended in the
Municipal Code concerning the City's franchise with Hearst Cablevision of
California. One change would increase the franchise from 3% to 5% of gross
revenues to raise funding in support of local origination /public access
activities. The other change would lower density standard, thereby increasing
the number of homes Hearst would be required to serve without additional
charge in Saratoga.
Fiscal Impacts: Additional annual revenue to the City of approximately
$25,000 per year to be used in support of local origination /public access
calbe television programming.
Attachments: 1. Staff report by Community Services Director
2. Language for proposed Municipal Code changes
Nbtion and Vote:
Y4 _ 3/z .
c
v4�
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2/17/88
COUNCIL MEETING: 2/17/88
SUBJECT: Changes in Cable Television Franchise
Introduction
Certain changes outlined below are being recommended in the Municipal Code
concerning the City's franchise with Hearst Cablevision of California. One
change would increase the franchise from 3% to 5% of gross revenues to raise
funding in support of local origination /public access activities. The other
change would lower density standard, thereby increasing the number of homes
Hearst would be required to serve without additional charge in Saratoga.
Analysis
The changes recommended in the City's cable television franchise are outlined
below:
Code Section
4 -25 -.070
4- 25.105(a)
4- 25.105(b)
Change
Increase annual franchise
fee from 3% to 5% of gross
revenues.
New section.
Changes density standard
from 60 homes Der mile
to 50 homes per mile;
New section to Code;
replaces Section 6 of
Ord. 38.79 adopted in 1977.
Purpose of Change
Generate between $20,000 and
$25,000 in additional revenue
to support local origination/
Dublic access activities of the
Saratoga Cable Television Commu-
nity Access Foundation.
Defines terms used elsewhere
in ordinance.
At the request of the City,
Hearst has agreed to lower its
density standard allowing for
more homes to receive CATV ser-
vice without additional charge.
4- 25.105(c) New section which requires Addresses a problem involving
Hearst to serve new develop- new developments not being
ments that will meet density adequately wired for CATV service
standards once occupied. during the construction phase of
the development.
Report to Council
Subject: Changes in Cable Television Franchise
4- 25.105(d) New section requiring Hearst
to serve isolated homes not
meeting density if located
within 150' of existing cable
plant.
Page 2
2/3/88
Under existing franchise, isolated
homes could be charged additionally
for CATV service even though they
were located immediately adjacent
to existing cable plant. This
change would allow for such homes
to be served without additional
charge if they are within 150' of
the existing cable plant, even though
they technically do not meet the
density standard.
4- 25.105(e) New section identifying This Code addition would treat
procedure for serving isola- isolated individual homes the same
ted homes more than 150' away as neighborhoods which did not meet
from existing cable plant. density standards in terms of
determining additional costs.
4- 25.105(f) New section identifying
procedures for servicing
homes which do not meet
density standards.
4- 25.105(g) New section identifying
reimbursement procedures.
14- 30.085 New section requiring
developers to initially
finance the installation
of CATV system in develop-
ment if development would
meet density standard once
occupied.
This Code addition identifies the
procedures Hearst must follow to
respond to requests for service in
areas not meeting the density
standards including the right of
the would -be subscriber to receive
a free cost estimate. This section
also establishes procedures for
reimbursing the subscriber for such
costs should their area meet density
standards due to new development
in the future.
This Code addition establishes the
basis for calculating reimbursements
for Sections 4- 25.105(e) and
4- 25.105(f) above.
Addresses a problem involving new
areas being developed which meet
density standards when occupied,
but which were not adequately de-
signed for CATV service.
a
Report to Council
Subject: Changes in Cable Television Franchise
Page 3
2/3/88
14- 30.100(a) Amends existing section This amendment establishes the
outlining procedures for Drocedures developers are to follow
developers to follow in to carry out the intent of Section
providing CATV service to 14- 30.085 identified above.
their developments.
Ord. 38.79, Repeals this Section of
Section 4 the old ordinance requiring
a franchise fee of 3 %.
Ord. 38.79, Repeals this Section of
Section 6 the existing ordinance
which established the
density standard at 60
homes per mile.
Cnncltminn
The addition of Municipal Code Sec-
tion 4- 25.070 identified above
establishes the new franchise fee at
5% of annual gross revenues, there-
by replacing this particular
section of the existing ordinance.
The addition of Municipal Code Sec-
tion 4- 25.105(b) establishes the
new density standard at 50 homes per
mile, thereby replacing this particu-
lar section of the existing ordinance.
Approval of the recommended changes would raise additional revenue in support
of local television programs and expand to a minor degree the number of homes
Hearst would be required to serve in Saratoga. Hearst has voluntarily agreed
to support both of the changes being recommended by the staff.
.. • ENO :
Todd W. Argo
Co®munity Services Director
jm
FEB 16 1988
Dr. Joanne Cornbleet
12105 Saraglen Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
February 15, 1988
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitdale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear City Council:
I would like to register a complaint regarding Hearst Cablevision service in
Saratoga. Saratoga is the only city serviced by Hearst which does not
receive the Lifetime channel. This seems ironic, because there are likely
more health professions in Saratoga than other Hearst service areas who
would be interested in viewing Lifetime.
Saratoga certainly seems to have as many, if not more, channel spaces than
Los Gatos, Santa Clara, and Milpitas, all of which receive the Lifetime
channel. However, if space is a problem, then it seems appropriate that
Saratoga itself choose which channels should be on its network. Perhaps
residents would prefer to receive Lifetime in place of one of the current
offerings, such as The Travel Channel, Home Shopping Network, or CBN.
Also noted is a reserved channel, Channel 31, which is not currently in use.
I would appreciate the City Council questioning Hearst Cable as to the
availability of Lifetime, and, if necessary, letting the citizens of Saratoga
make a choice of channel selections if space is limiting.
Sincerely yours,
Joanne Cornbleet, M.D.
cc: Hearst Cablevision
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: / _________AGENDA ITEM 1
MEETING DATE :_EgbrUAgv__j74_1288 .............. CITY MGR APPROVALZ��L
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:�,� _Parks_ &_Recreaon Commission ��,��
SUBJECT: EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT - TRACT 6628, LOT #20
Re�MM2ndAd -= , s
Appro-,t: Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation that the
equestrian trail proposed to go through Lot #20, Tract 6628, not
be constructed.
ReDOrt ummary
Vim g nia Fanelli of Fanelli Consulting, Inc., attended the
January 4, 1988 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to
request abandonment of the equestrian trail easement. After
discussion and review of topographical maps presented, the
Commission unanimously agreed to recommend that the requested
equestrian trail improvements should not be made, but that the
easement be retained so as not to preclude possible future
improvements.
A &,Lacmnts
Memo from Parks and Recreation Commission
Letter from Fanelli Consulting, Inc. to Parks and Recreation
Commission
Letter from Fanelli Consulting, Inc. to City Council
�• •! • -
2/17: App, 5 -0.
0919W o2 O&M °
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: January 27, 1988
FROM: Secretary, Parks and Recreation Commission
SUBJECT: Equestrian Easement - Tract 6628, Lot #20
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Virginia Fanelli, representing Fanelli Consulting, Inc. for the owners
of Lot #20, Tract 6628, appeared before the Parks and Recreation
Commission at their meeting on January 4, 1988, to request abandonment
of the equestrian trail easement through Lot #20. She explained that
the physical terrain would not allow for improvement of a safe equestrian
trail without potential geological damage.
After discussing the problem with Ginny and review of the topographical
maps presented, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously agreed
to recommend that the requested equestrian trail improvements should
not be made, but that the easement be retained so as not to preclude
possible future improvements.
Parks & Recreation Commission
cc: Planning Commission
Fanelli Consulting, Inc.
Land Planning/ Property Management
1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 • San Jose, CA 95129 • (408) 996 -8188
February 2, 1988
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear_ Mayor and Councilmembers:
The Parks and Recreation Commission recently
reviewed our request to abandon the equestrian trail
on Lot #20, Tract 6628, per the attached letter.
In addition to the information in the letter, we
submitted an engineer's map showing that this
trail was laid out on grades which went from 3 to 1
slope to 1 to 1 slope. To construct this trail,
every four foot wide section would require a 4 foot
high retaining wall.
The Commission determined that construction
of the trail would be difficult and very costly, and
most importantly, the city did not have funds to
maintain this trail if constructed. Since no other
section of this trail has been installed, it was
decided that it would not be prudent to request that
this small portion be graded and improved.
The decision by the Commission was to maintain
the trail easement, but not to required grading and
construction of it. My clients are in agreement with
this decision and ask for your approval of this vote.
Very truly yours,
..Gt
LL:L�c. -t
Virenia L. Fanelli
attachment:
Fanelli .Consulting, Inc.
Land Planning/ Property Management
1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 • San Jose, CA 95129 • (408) 996 -8188
October 20, 1.987
Parks and Recreation Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale AVe.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert McCormick, owners
of Lot #20, Tract 6628, I am submitting this request for
abandonment of the equestiran trail easement on.their
property. This easement was originally created for use
as a sanitary sewer easement-and an equestrian trail -
when the subdivision was approved.
The reasons for this request are as follows:
1. This easement runs along a very steep slope and
into a ravine as it passes through Lots 18', 19 & 2.0. It
is highly questionable if a trail on this steep grade and
ravine is safe for equestrian use.
2. Grading for a trail along this slope line will
cause erosion which will not only affect Lot #20., but
also those homes built directly below this lot. Because
of this problem, the Sanitation District agreed to abandon
this easement and install their facilities in a less problem
area.
While Mr. and Mrs. McCormick's primary concern is
about the safety of this trail and the grading which must
take place on their property, there are other issues which
you may wish to consider in your review of this request.
During the development of the subdivision, the city
determined that Toll Gate Road from the southerly property
Line of Lot #6 to the end should be a .private road, owned
and maintained by the property owners. A gate is to be
installed across the road at Lot #6 which may interrupt
use of the trail.' The upper portion of the trail crosses
Toll Gate Road, and will now be crossing private rather than
public property. No easement exists for that section of
the trail.
page 2
McCormick
Lastly, since no horses are allowed to be housed in
this subdivision known as Quail Ridge, it seems .inappropriate
to require a public trail through these lots when the owners
themselves cannot stable horses. A similar prohibition on
horses may also exist in the adjoining subdivision, Saratoga
Heights.
For the above stated reasons, abandonment of the trail
easement on Lot #20 is requested. We thank you for your
consideration of this request and would be happy to meet
with you at anytime to discuss this issue.
Very truly.yours,
Virginia Laden Fanelli
cc: Mr. and Mrs. R. McCormick
0.00,42'
R:
viol o,,:,
(D
C53 f Ln di
b, 0,
Nl*
9
C
ET
4. 'ED
1.010 A C c-,
- 24,
2
10rA L "'u
K fob cq
-v V4
0. 1G.,
CP-
A
0
0
z
rb
CP-
OVX 10 � t P t
f I
cc R 1407
CK)
.0
'ui W ra I
3r
00 09 lip 3
d
zr.--
rj 30� �ti�tia -� u, o' �6�j Q i 9s����c yo i3
Q
101
P f
'
Y Y2VC T
:
(.R) I �
, T ✓
h.
Ac.
F
b7-
LO
F11
CC.
R:8
Qs,
7q
244,19,
R.
02.
;6- /2-77 '14 6.33
oll
4 7c .70TAL R:135' t3.rJ5 30100�
0'.
7 SIM
120
2.534tAr LO co C� I 3.058 yc �'• \ v, a. �`�� L9
7�
OF SA►TAM SEWBZ�TRAIL sell
EA5EMBKTJ5' IDE.
X1.3'49 35`:
.7p
OVAO
340.00' A4,
S,0040'25"E 1250.05'
"f
(S(NORTH 128B.ml 2
Y— --A-
I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 17, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Blaney Plaza Banner'Program
Public Notice: An agenda and the proposed policy was sent to all
groups that utilized this program in 1987.
Recommended Motion: Amend the Rules and Regulations for Hanging
of Banners in Blaney Plaza effective February 18, 1988, . to include
a $35 installation per banner fee. "Groups with applications on
file at the Fire Station for the upcoming year will not be assessed
the new fee. Also, the proposed rules will exempt the City of
Saratoga from the fee requirement and the limitation of time per -
year.
Report Summary: The Saratoga Fire District is requesting the
implementation of a $35 in-stal,lation per banner -fee. Currently
there is no charge for this service. -In the past few years there
has been an increase in the number of groups.utilizing this program
and there is a banner hanging in Blaney Plaza continuously. In
1987 there were 25 community group banners scheduled and each was
allowed not more than two weeks. The Fire District would like to
recover their cost for administering the schedule and the manpower
to hang each banner.
Fiscal Impacts: Revenue for the Saratoga Fire'District will be
approximately $875 per year.
Attachments:, 1).Saratoga Fire District Proposal.
2) Current Rules and Regulations for Hanging Banners
in Blaney Plaza*
3) Proposed:.Rules and Regulations for Hanging Banners
in Blaney Plaza
Motion and Vote:
i
i
2/17: APP. 5 -0.
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
Telephone: (408) 867 -9001
December 19, 1988
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga CA 95070
Dear City Council,
Enclosed is a proposal for your consideration regarding the
Saratoga Blaney Plaza Banner Program. Currently this program has
been highly successful in it's design for local community based
advertisement. For the past five (5) years the Saratoga Fire
District has had the responsibility to admministrate and provide
manpower for the Blaney Plaza Banner Program. Over the past five
(5) years the Saratoga Fire District has found it necessary to
implement some minor changes concerning the management of the
Banner Program, ie; scheduling, "Rules and Regulations" update
and inner - department staffing. The Fire District as
administrators of the Blaney Plaza Banner Program has again found
it necessary to amend the current Banner Program.
Our proposal address an ammendment to the currrent
regulations governing the Blaney Plaza Banner Program to include
a thirty five dollar ($35) installation fee per banner hung. Over
the past five years the Saratoga Fire District has been obligated
in assuming the manpower and scheduling responsibilities required
by this banner program as a form of civic duty. Initially there
were some 10 banners available for display in 1983 on a very "low
key" scale of scheduling. However for the year, 1987, there were
25 scheduled banners for hanging. This schedule for the most part
ties -up the Plaza for hanging banners nearly year round,
(considering 14 days use per banner). Presently the demand on the
Plaza use has exceeded the total number of avaliable calendar
days. Consequently, groups and organizations are being turned
away due to conflicts in scheduling.
The current "Rules and Regulations" allow a group/
organization the opportunity to schedule a banner for hanging 12
months in advance of the requested date on a "first come first
serve basis ". This situation in affect has put applicants at the
fire departments front door awaiting business hours to begin in
order to jockey for scheduling position for the upcoming years
schedule. At this time there are 22 banners whose group/
organizations have taken advantage of the 12 month advance
scheduling for the current year, 1988.
Page 2 (Banners)
On the average, over the past 4 years, there have been
roughly 20 scheduled banners for hanging in the Blaney Plaza. In,
1986, the totals showed that there were 25 banners (the current
norm) hung. These statistics show that with approximately 25
banners hung a year this will equate to roughly 50 weeks of
continued community use in the Plaza.
The financial augmentation in a fee for service is based in
light of the fact that the Saratoga Fire District has had to
absorb these marked increases in administrative and manpower
responsibilities due to the current demand for the Plaza use.
The Saratoga Fire District has plans to utilize the thirty five
dollar ($35) installation fees into the departments Training
and Public Education Divisions.
To conclude, the Saratoga Fire District would like the
Saratoga City Council to review this proposal in hopes of
endorsement or alternative recommendations to this proposal
concerning the Blaney Plaza Banner Program. Thank you for your
consideration of this matter.
Sincerely;
Er nie Rrau1e
Fir Ch of
on Ve a
Prog m Director
CITY OF SARATOGA
Rules and Regulations for Hanging
of Banners in Blaney Plaza
(.Adopted by the Saratoga City Council 6/1/83 and Revised 12/18/85)
1. Reservations for hanging a banner at Blaney Plaza must be made in person at the
Saratoga Fire District Office. All reservations will be handled on a first come,
first served basis.
2. The Reservation Form must be completed at the time the reservation is made at the
Saratoga Fire District Station, 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga,'CA. Phone:
867 -9001. The Reservation Form will be forwarded by District Personnel to the City
for approval of the request.
3. Reservations may not be made more than twelve (12) months in advance of the date
a)
requested.
(4) feet by at least twenty -five (25) feet long.
If
4.
Non - profit organizations advertising
Saratoga -based community
events, or organizations.
b)
advertising Saratoga -based
non - profit events may hang banners
in Blaney Plaza. Groups
c)
may be asked to show proof
of non - profit status.
5.
Groups will be allowed use
of the Plaza for the banner no more
than two (2) times
each twelve month period.
feet of heavy (between 1/4 inch - 1/2 inch) line
or rope.
6.
A banner may be hung a minimum
of 10 days to a maximum of 14
days per event.
7.
Banners will be reviewed by
Saratoga Fire District personnel
to assure banners meet
the following standards:
a)
Banners must be four
(4) feet by at least twenty -five (25) feet long.
If
properly prepared, banners
up to forty -five (45) feet in length may be
allowed.
b)
Banners must be made
from a heavy- duty, awning -type material.
c)
One -half inch inside
diameter metal grommets are to be placed at all
four corners of the
banner. Each of the four corner grommets should
have
attached fifty (50)
feet of heavy (between 1/4 inch - 1/2 inch) line
or rope.
d)
One -half inch inside
diameter metal grommets must be placed at least
every
thirty -two (32) inches
along the top edge of the banner.
e), Half moon air holes must be cut into the banner every five feet of length in
order to avoid tearing or ripping from the wind. Depending on type and weight of
banner fabric, it is recommended the half moon cuts be sewn to avoid tearing or
ripping.
B. All banners must be hung by Saratoga Fire District personnel. Banners must be sub-
mitted to the Fire District Office at least one full week (seven days) in advance of
scheduled usage date.
9. This policy has been approved and will be administered by the City of Saratoga. The
Saratoga Fire District will be responsible for the task of scheduling and hanging
the banner.
10. Changes to the.above rules and regulations must be approved by the City of Saratoga.
11. Banners must be claimed within ten (10)days from the date of their removal. Those not
claimed may be disposed of at the discretion of the Saratoga Fire District.
12. Neither the City of Saratoga nor the Saratoga Fire District assumes responsibility of
liability for banners, nor the theft, damage or injury that may result from the
placement of banners at Blaney Plaza.
I
PROPOSED
CITY OF SARATOGA
Rules and Regulations for Hanging
of Banners in Blaney Plaza
1, All reservations for the use of Blaney Plaza for the purpose of hanging
a banner will be handled (in person) on a first come, first served
basis.-
2. The Reservation Form
made at the Saratoga
Saratoga, CA. Phone:
by District Personne
3. Reservations may riot
the date requested.
must be completed at the time the reservation is
.Fire District Station, .14350 Saratoga. Avenue, -
867 -0991. The reservation form may be forwarded
1 to the City for approval of the request.
be made more than twelve (12) months in advance of
4. . Non- profit organizations advertising Saratoga- based community. events,
or organization advertising Saratoga -based rion- profit events- may hang
banners in Blaney Plaza, Groups may be asked to show proof of non-
profit' status .
5 Groups will be allowed use of the Plaza for their banner no more than
two (2) times each twelve month period.
6. A banner may be hung a maximum of•14 clays per usage.
7. Banners will be reviewed by Saratoga Fire Department personnel to
assure banners meet the following standards:
a) Banners must be four (4) feet by at least twenty -five (25) feet
long.. If properly prepared, banners up to forty -five (45) feet in
length may be allowed.
b) Banners ruins -t be made from a heavy -duty canvas or awning type
material.
c) One half inch inside diameter metal grommets are to be, placed at
all four corners of the banner. Each of the four- corner grommets
should have attached fifty (50) feet of heavy (between 1/4 inch -
1/2 inch) line or rope.
d) One half inch inside diameter metal grommets must be placed at least
every thirty -two (32) inches along the top edge of the banner.
e) Half moon air holes must be cut into the banner every five feet of
length in order to avoid tearing or ripping from the wind.
Depending on type and weight of banner fabric, it is recommended
the half moon cuts be sewn to avoid tearing or ripping.
8. All banners will be hung by Saratoga Fire Department personnel.
Banners must-be submitted to the Fire Department Office at least one
full week (seven days) in advance of scheduled usage date,
1
5. This policy has been approved and will be administered by the City of
Saratoga. The Saratoga Fire Department will be responsible 1
.� �� i.b e for the task
of scheduling and hanging the banner.
10. Changes to the above rules and regulations must be approved by the City
of Saratoga.
11. Banners must be claimed wit.h.irc ten ( 10) days from the elate of their
removal. Those not claimed may be disposed of at the discretion of the
Saratoga. Fire Department.
12. Neither the City of Sar 'atoga nor t'he Saratoga Fire Department assume;
responsibility or liability for banners, nor for theft, damage or
injury that may result from the placement of banners at Blarney Plaza.
13. Group; will be charged a $:35 installation per banner fee.- All checks
are to be made payable to the Saratoga Fire District and paid at time
of application.
14. The City of Saratog -a will be exempt from the "fee requirement and the
limitation of time per year.
2