Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. SQj Dept. Hd. DATE: Sept. 1, 1983 (Sept. 7, 1983) DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary The City received bids on August 31, 1983 for the overlay of certain city streets. Five bids were received. The lowest bid was Raisch Construction Company of San Jose with a bid of $204,162.56. The Engineer's estimate for the work was 221,025.00. Recommendation Award the contract for overlay of certain city streets project to Raisch Construction Company of San Jose for the bid amount of $204,162.56. Fiscal Impacts This project was approved in the FY 1983 -84 Capital Improvement Budget utilizing gas tax funds. Exhibits /Attachrmnts 1. Bid Summary Council Action 9/7: Mallory /Clevenger rroved to award to Raisch in an-cunt of $204,162.56. - Passed 4 -0. DATE: 8/31/ '_,198 3 TIME: 2: 00 P.M. . City of -Saratoga Community Development Department -BID SUMMARY- Sheet of PROJECT Overlay Certain City Streets 7F prn� Amount I McCarthy & Spies an Unitn'it Prioe Amount to Description P Quantity it lit Amount nit Prire Amount Etice Amount 1 Overlay 1� A.C. 4_L335 ton 32.5 140f887.00 36.8 159,614.70 2 Install Fabric Mat 21,189 S.Y. 1.0 21,189.00 0.92 19,493.88 3 A.R. 4000 Asphalt 6,357 gall 1.00 6,357.00 2.02 12,841.14 4 Repair Failure Section 19,054 S.F. 2.0 38,108.00 2.04 38,870.16 5 Paint 4" Double yellow 480 L.F. 2.0 960.00 0.75 360.00 _6 Paint Ravement Marking L.S. L.S. 1200 0 1,200.00 850 850.00 7 Paint yellow cross walk 1 EA 200 200.00 80.0 80.00 8 Paint 4" Single Yellow 72 L.F. 2.00 144.00 0.35 25.20 9 10 Double ellow "D" markers 382 EA 4.:.50 1,719.0 4.0 1,528.00 Wedge Cut 3,261 L.F. 1.50 3,261.00 1.1E 3,847.98 11 Raise Manhole 35 EA 200 7,000.00 150 5,250.00 TOTAL 221,025.00 242,761.06 City of - Saratoga Community Development Department DATE: 8/31/ '_,198 3 -BID SUM 1V'� A R 1 TIME= 2: oo P.M. She et-of _ PROJECT Overlay Certain City Streets Engineer's Est. Prict Amount_ 32.5 140 887.00 Piazza Const Wattis Const. Raisch Const UnitZi'lt jCP Amount 1.0 134,385.00 Sweeney & Sons to Description P Quantity it 11t 33.76 Amount Unit Amount g�e Amount 1 Overlay 1� A.C. 4 335 ton 146,349.60 32.50 140,887.50 34.9 151,291.50 2 Install Fabric Mat 21,189 S.Y. 1.0 21,189.00 0.60 12,713.40 0.55 11,653.95 .80 _16,95 -1.20 0.64 13,560.96 3 A.R. 4000 Asphalt 6,357 gall 1.00 6,357.00 1.00 6,357.00 1.53 9,726.21 .00 6,357.00 1.44 9,154.08 4 Rip it Failure Section 19,054 S.F. 2.0 38,108.00 1.50 28,581.00 2.15 40,966.10 .84 135,059.36 1.50 28,581.00 5 Paint 4" Double yellow 480 L.F. 2.0 960.00 1.00 480.00 1.05 504.00 1.00 480.00 1.05 504.00 _6 Paint Ravement Marking L.S. L.S. 1200 0 1,200.00 goo 900.00 900 900.00 785 785.00 900 900.00 7 Paint yellow cross walk 1 EA 200 200.00 200. 200.00 210. 210.00 70. 70.00 210 210.00 8 Paint 4" Single Yellow 72 L.F. 2.00 144.00 0.50 36.00 0.5 39.60 0.50 36.00 0.53 38.16 Double yellow "D" markers 382 EA 4::.50 1,719.0 3.00 1,146.00 3.1 1,203.30 4.00 1,528.00 3.15 1,203.30 10 119 Wedge Cut 3,261 L.F. 1.50 3,261.00 1.10 3,587.10 1..1 3,652.32 1.00 3,261.00 .88 6'.;'130.68 11 Raise Manhole 35 EA 200 7,000.00 210 7,350.00 125. 4,375.00 1500 5,250.00 221 7,735.00 TOTAL 221,025.00 207,700.10 214,117.98 PO4,162.56 18,105.30 -�s vi��t ed�� Saratoga, CA September 29, 1983 Randy M. Hess ADDLESON, HESS AND CHRISTENSEN 2 N. 2nd Street Suite 1340 San Jose, CA 95113 SUBJECT: Grading Requirements around Ralph Renna wall. COT 41983 This letter is in response to your letter of 9/20/83 offering to deliver and grade dirt along the R. Renna fence. We gave permission to R. Renna to have his truck and tractor enter the property at 15091 Sobey Rd. to deliver and grade dirt to meet the City of Saratoga Planning Commission requirements. Please accomplish this as soon as possible so that we can plan any further drainage work, and receive necessary grading permits before the winter rains occur. Please call me if any questions remain that could delay completing this work. Thank you. very truly yours, Eugei�e C. Francis Rosemary Hexem Francis 15091 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 354 -7345 cc: R. Shook Saratoga Planning Commission /'Saratoga City Council Mayor Dave Moyles CITY OF SARATOGA / Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. .��L�j Dept. Hd. DATE: AugUst'26, 1983 (Sept: 7, 1983) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr SUBJECT: C -202, GPA 83 -2 -A (Including GPA 83 -1 -C) Zoning Map and General Plan Vendments to create consistency between the Zoning and General Plan Maps Issue Summary 1. The Zoning and General Plan Maps are currently in conflict and must be made consistent to comply with State Law. 2. Staff has,�attached..a• chart and' maps - indicating .where .there are conflicts between =the General Plan and Zoning Maps and both Staff and Commission recommendations on how these conflicts can be eliminated. 3. In most cases the City Council has the option of considering a General Plan amendment or a rezoning of a property depending on what seems appropriate for that particular property. 4. The Napkin Ring General Plan Amendment (GPA 83 -1 -C) has been combined and consolidated with the other General Plan Amendments. Recommendation 1. Open the public hearing and take testimony. 2. Prior to action on the rezonings (C -202) or General Plan amendments (GPA 83 -2 -A) the Council should adopt the negative declarations associated with those projects. 3. In the case of the General Plan amendments the Council need only adopt a resolution approving the amendments for there to go into effect. 4. In the case of the rezonings the Council will have to have a first reading and then a second reading of the ordinance formally amending the zoning map. The rezoning will go into effect 30 days later. 5. The Council must make findings before the rezonings can be approved. 6. Staff and Commission recommendations are summarized on the chart. Fiscal Inpacts Unknown but probably. not significant. Very little retail commercial land will be available and residential densities on some vacant or underdeveloped lands will be decreased if the recommendations of the Planning Commission are adopted. Thus-9, potential property tax and sales tax revenues will be reduced. ;ibits Exhibit, A-- `Summary'Chart of Zoning and General Plan amendments Exhibit B - C -202: Staff Reports dated 7/19/83, 6/21/83. Exhibit C - Ordinance Amending Boning Map Exhibit D - Planning Commission Resolution No. C- 202 -1. Exhibit E - Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/29/83, 7/27/83, 8/10/83 Exhibit -F - GPA 83 -2 -A: Staff Report dated 8/3/83, 7/18/83 _Exhibit G �,:�`.Planning Commission :Resolution No. GPA 83 -2 -A and maps Exhibit H - ,:Negative Declaration for C -202 and GPA 83 -2 -A. Exhibit I -*GPA 83 -1 -C: Staff Reports dated 7/20/83, 6/23/83 Exhibit J - Resolution No. GPA 83 -2 -B Exhibit K - Correspondence associated with GPA 83 -1 -C, GPA 83 -2 -A, and C -202 Action 9/7: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to adopt the Negative Declarations. Passed 4 -0. Fanelli /Clevenger moved to approve certain General Plan Amendments. Passed 4 -0. Fanelli /Clevenger moved to amend and introduce the ordinance amending the Zoning Map.Passed 4 9/21: Clevencjer,/Moyles moved to adopt Resolution 2094. Passed 4 -0 (Callon abstaining). Fanelli/Movles moved to read and adopt Ordinance NS- 3- ZC -88. Passed 4 -0 (Callon abstaining). 0 —A 19(moz @Eq 0&%Z REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/19/83 Commission Meeting: 7/27/83 SUBJECT: C -202, Amendments to the Zoning Map for Conformance with the General Plan The Planning Commission considered this item at its June 29, 1983 public hearing. That public hearing was continued to this meeting for final action by the Planning Commission. At the meeting of June 29th the Commission reached consensus that the following re- zonings, as proposed by staff, be recommended to the City Council: 1,3,4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, 19 ,20,26,27,29,30,31a,32,36,37,39 The Commission also decided that the following rezonings could or should instead be considered as General Plan amendements (see GP 83 -2 -A also on this agenda) : 2,5,9,10,13,14,15,16,17 ,22,23,24,25,28,31,33,34,35,40 It should be noted that the Commission can still vote to rezone these sites since the public hearing was continued. For the remaining rezonings (8, 21, 38) the Commission either changed staff's recommendation or wanted further information regarding the proposed rezonings. These rezonings are discussed below. #8 This site is designated multi - family residential on the General Plan and is adjacent to a portion of the Vineyards condominium development zoned R -M -3000. Staff recommended that this .62 acre parcel also be zoned R -M -3000 consistent with the Vineyards but the Commission felt this was too dense and recommended instead that the site be rezoned from A to R -M -5000. #21 This site is the Hincks Estate off of Bohlman Road in the south- western area of the City. This item was continued because the owner of the property (Mr. Beck of Saratoga Development Associates) indicated he had not received public notice regarding the proposed rezoning and wanted to have an opportunity to submit evidence in opposition to the proposal. Report to the Plann � Commission 7/19/83 C -202, Amendments to the Zoning Map Page 2 Staff recommends the rezoning for the following reasons: 1. On September 2, 1981 the City Council amended the General Plan designation of the site (except for approximately 1+ acres to be used by Hakone Park) from Proposed Park to Slope Conservation. The .GPCAC had recommended this change to the City Council and asked the Council to consider applying NHR standards to the site. It appears that this site is fairly steep, and it is part of the Congress Springs Geologic Study Area, which means it may be sub- " ject to significant geologic constraints. 2. The General Plan designation approved in 1981 was reaffirmed by the City Council in 1983. Also at that time the term Slope Con- servation was changed to Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family in the General Plan. Both terms are consistent with NHR and HC -RD zoning districts which utilize the same slope density formula. Considering these factors staff still.recommends that the site be rezoned from R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD. #38 This site is the-City owned property at the southeast corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale.Road. The City Council had changed the General Plan designation of the site from Proposed Park (Open Space - Outdoor Recreation) to P -D Mixed Use. The Planning Commission wanted further information on why the City Council made that decision before making its own decision on the rezoning from R -1- .12,500 to C -N. It is staff's recollection that the Council desired more flexible types of uses on this site in an effort to generate more revenue for the City. This might be accomplished by the sale or lease of the property. Further, the City does not have sufficient funds to maintain a park on this site and considering the traffic and noise impacts from adjacent streets, it does not appear that the site is appropriate for park use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission proceed with the proposed re- zonings by adopting the attached resolution recommending the zoning changes. APPROVED ,yylgiy(- P�7u --- Michael Flores Assistant Planner MF /bjc P.0 Agenda 7/27/83 1AVE 1111M ..REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION _. - ...__.._ ....... _...DATE:_. 6/21/83.. Commission Meeting: 6/29/83. SUBJECT' C -202, Amendments to Zoning Map for Conformance with the:- - General Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- State law under Government Code Section 65860 requires a city's zoning map to be brought into conformance with the General Plan within a reasonable time after the adoption or amendment of that plan. Staff has identified 40 corrections that would be needed to make the zoning map consistent with the General Plan. _,In some cases the zoning of a­'property may make more sense than its General Plan designat'ibn-due-to -a mapping error or for some other pertinent reason. The Planning Commission does have the option to recommend to the City Council that,t.he.General -Plan be amended instead. These suggested .......... amendments would be forwarded to the Council -when the General Plan is next scheduled to be amended.- It should be noted that the General Plan can only b.e_,- amen_ded three times a year and it has been amended once _ already. -- It--is staff's intention that the rezonings be forwarded to the City Council as quickly as- possible so as to have a corrected zoning map which is-used daily by staff and citizens. -- Therefore, only one public hearing on June 29th is scheduled at which time the'Planning Commission should take action on the proposed rezonings. The proposed rezonings are broken down into 4 categories to expedite Commission review. The first category deals with recent. (1981 -1983) _changes to the General Plan where zoning changes.must be made to implement City Council decisions. The second category deals with zoning changes that might be due to mapping errors in the 1974 Gen- eral Plan. In these cases it .might make more sense to amend the General Plan to reflect existing development rather than change zoning. The third category is discretionary in that the..use.of the- .subject property could be reasonably developed under its General Plan or zoning designation. The fourth category deals with rezonings that make sense in terms of implementing the General Plan and /or where development is consistent with the General Plan. It should be noted that these parcels in the fourth category were not reviewed during the recent revision to the General Plan. Report to the Planning Commission 6/21/83 83 Amendments to Zoning Map Page 2 Breakdown of Rezonings by Category At its meeting of June 14, 1983 the Planning Commission reviewed the 40 proposed rezonings and distributed them as follows: Category # 1 - Zoning changes that must be made to implement City Council decisions: 2,3,6,20,21, and 38. Category # 2 - Zoning changes where amending the General Plan might make more sense: 9,10,13 ,14,15,16,17,22,24,28,33,34,35 and 40. Category # 3 - Zoning changes that may be discretionary: 18,23,25, 26 and 27. Category # 4 - Zoning changes needed to implement the General Plan: 1,4,5,7,8,11,12,19,29,30,31 Gone lot only),32,36,37 and 39. The Planning Commission indicated that a public hearing should not be conducted on those rezonings listed in Category # 2 since it was the Commission's. intent to amend the General Plan designations of these parcels. A separate public hearing will be conducted for these parcels at a later date. This intent should be announced to the meeting audience prior to the opening of the public hearing. The Commission asked staff to breakdown the remaining rezonings into groups to facilitate the public hearing process. Staff would re commend that the rezonings be split up in the following three groups: Group # 1 - Rezonings 1 -8, 11 and 12 Group #.2 - 18 -21, 23, 25 -27 Group # 3 - 29 -32, 36 -39 It should be noted that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider a General Plan amendment for the parcel affected by Re- zoning # 25. This General Plan Amendment (GPA 83 -1 -C) is also on the agenda tonight and the Commission may want to hear public testimony in a combined public hearing. Staff recommends that the public hearing be closed after all public testimony has been given at this, meeting. The Commission should then discuss the proposed rezonings and vote on them. Staff will then pre- pare a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the re- zonings approved by the Commission. This resolution would be brought back for Commission review at its next meeting. Staff Analysis and Recommendation Staff has prepared a chart which summarizes the basic information for each of the 40 proposed rezonings. The Commission should refer to this chart when reading this section of the Staff Report. This section consists of the analysis and reasoning behind the staff re- commendations listed in the chart for each of the proposed rezonings except for those that should be considered General Plan amendments as determined by the Commission. The numbers below refer to the numbers in the chart. Report to the Planning C' C Commission 6/21/83 Amendments to Zoning Map Page 3 #1. From R -1- 10,000 to P -A - Parcel Size: 11,519 sq. ft. This property is located in a commerical area (surrounded by property in San,-Jose) and is designated for P -A use in the General Plan. It is located adjacent to the Lawrence Expressway. These factors combined indicated that a residential.zoning is inappropriate.. Therefore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #2. .From C -N to R -M -500.0 P -C - Parcel Size: 22,500 sq. ft. The City Council decided that this site should be designated for multi - family residential use and..rezoned R -M -5000 PC.to give the City suffi- cient,-control over any proposed development. This was decided during the recent General Plan revision process by the City Council, which also decided that the service station is not an appropriate long term use of the site. Therefore, staff recommends the, proposed rezoning. #3. From R -1- 10,000 to R -M -5000 PC - Parcel Sizes: 15,750 sq. ft., 2.52 AC This proposed rezoning affects the Teresi property which had a previous approval for senior citizen condominiums. The Council determined that multi - family residential use and-R -M -5000 PC zoning would be appropriate for the site after considerable discussion during the General Plan public hearings. Therefore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #4: ,,From A to.R -1- 12,500 - Parcel Size: - 33,538 sq. ft. The General Plan designates this site for Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) use. Agricultural zoning does not allow the implementation of this density of use.' Further, the parcel is non- conforming in terms of the size standards required in the A district and is surrounded by Medium Density'Residential and P -A uses. There- fore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #5. From R- 1- 10,000 to C -N - Parcel Size: 21,657 sq. ft. This site contains the Challenger Pre- School and is adjacent to commercial uses on two sides, multi- family residential to the west, and E1 Quito Park to the north. It is designated for Retail Commercial use on the General Plan. It should be noted that schools are not permitted or conditional uses in the C -N district but such a use could be added to the C -N dis- trict under Section 14.1 of the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends the proposed rezoning since it implements the General Plan and a residential property wedged in between commercial uses is inappropriate. #6. From C -N to P -A - Parcel Size: 10,253 AC The residents of Planning Area F indicated their.desire not to have retail commercial uses on the 10.25 acre parcel known as the Abrams property. This was incorporated into the Area Plan. To implement this plan the site must be rezoned to P -A thus allowing office and residential use but not retail commercial use. This rezoning does not allow research and development facilities on the site. The text of Article 6 (P -A district) in the zoning ordinance would have to be Report to the Planning Commission 6/21/83 C -202, Amendments to Zoning Map Page 4 amended before this could occur. Thus, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #7. "Frbm R -1- 10,000 to M - Combined Parcel Sizes: 1.45 AC There are about 4 small parcels -in the middle of the Paul Masson property zoned R- 1- 10,000. Two of the properties are owned by Paul Masson and one by San Jose Water Works. All four parcels are designated for Light Industry - -as well as the surrounding Paul.Masson property. It is inappropriate to have a residential parcel wedged between industrial parcels....Therefore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #8: From A ^to R -M -3000 = Parcel"`Size: :62 AC The General Plan designation for this site is Multi - Family Residential which can not be implemented with agricultural zoning. The proposed R -M -3000 zoning is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Vineyards development.- The parcel is non - conforming in terms of the site area required in the A district. Staff recommends this proposed rezoning. #11. From R -1- 10,000 to C -N - Parcel Size: .34 AC This parcel is owned by_the State and is bracketed by a small shopping center to the north and S.P.R.R. to the south. Considering these circumstances and the General Plan designation_ of Retail Commercial, staff- recommends the proposed rezoning. #12. From A to R -1- 15,000 - Parcel Size: 1.05 AC The General Plan designates this site for Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -15) use. Agricultural zoning does not implement this use and the parcel is non - conforming in terms of Agricultural zoning requirements. The parcel is surrounded by Medium Density Residential use. Therefore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. (Further subdivision of this property could occur). #18. From R -1- 40,000 PC to R- 1- 40,000 - Parcel Sizes: 1.3 AC, 38,282 sq. 38,488 sq..ft.- and .38,411 sq. ft. This rezoning is not related to General Plan consistency but to whether the P -C (Planning Community) designation is appropriate for these four lots. One of the property owners affected suggested the rezoning since she does not feel that the PC restrictions which affected other PC developments in the area apply to these four lots. The reason for this is that these restrictions were not recorded as C. C. & R.'s as they were with other final subdivisions for PC projects. One of the purposes of the PC district was to provide for common green de- development and open space. One of the conditions from the 1972 R- 1- 40,000PC (file C -157) zoning of the site was: "4) Design Review approval of all new homes, proposed setbacks, perimeter and interior fencing, common green and private landscape areas, and all other requirements of Section 13.3 -1 of NS -3 Saratoga Zoning Ordinance." Report to the Planning Commission 6/21/83 C -202, Amendments to Zoning Map Page 5 If the proposed rezoning went through this condition would no longer apply and the City would not have as great a control over fencing or landscaping in the area. This control would be necessary if common green areas were to be preserved. However, the common green area that was part of this subdivision was absorbed as part of one of the lots. Without -this common green area the PC zoning seems inappropriate, thus, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #19. - From.A to R -1- 40,000 - Parcel Size: 4.0 AC The General Plan designation -for this site is Residential Very Low Density Single Family which can not be implemented with an agricultural zoning. The proposed R -1- 40,000 zoning is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding developed properties. The parcel is non - conforming in terms of the site area required in the A district. Considering these factors, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #20. From R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD - Parcel Sizes: 3.36 AC. and 19.09 AC During the last General Plan review, both the Planning Commission and the City Council agreed that this site should be designated as Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family. The HC -RD zoning district is com- patible with this designation, therefore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #21. From R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD - Parcel Sizes: 2.013 AC and 14.09 AC This is the same situation as #20 above, except that the decision had been made by the City Council in 1981 and reaffirmed in 1983. #23. From C -V to-Multi-Family 'Residential - Parcel Size: 1.226 AC The General Plan designation for this site is Multi - Family Residential and the Area J.— Guidelines for Area Development state: "16. Portions of the Village south and west of Fifth Street on Big-Basin Way should be of a density no greater than other condominium projects in the Village area and should include high quality condominiums and apartments along with small bomm cial shops. Existing Commerical developments should i e al owed to remain. This guideline appears to encourage multi - family uses in the west end of the Village while allowing existing commercial uses to remain. The R -M -4000 zoning allows a density compatible with adjacent multi - family development to the west and south of the subject property. Considering these factors and the fact that this parcel is away from the commercial center of the Village, staff would recommend the proposed rezoning. #25. From CC to R -1- 10,000 - Parcel Size: 11,300 sq. ft. (Please see the Staff Report for GPA 83 -1 -C also on this agenda.) Report to the Planning Commission 6/21/83 C -202, Amendments to Zoning Map Page 6 #26. From R -M -3000 to R -1- 10,000 - Parcel Size: 32,172 sq. ft. The_General Plan designation for this property is Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) which the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district is consistent with, The site contains a church parking lot and several small dwellings. The proposed rezoning-would-not affect the church use of the property but would probably make the existing dwelling units non - conforming. The site is bounded by single family (R -1- 10,000) use to the east and south, commercial to the west and multi- family residential to the north across from Saratoga Avenue. Considering,,, the _s,ingle- family,nature;;of_ex sting,.res dential development in the area, staff would recommend the proposed rezoning. #27. From C -C to P -A - Parcel Size: "14,166 sq. ft. The General Plan designation for this site is Commercial- Professional Administrative with which the proposed P -A zoning is consistent. The existing building'is occupied primarily by office uses and is adjacent to P -A uses to the west and multi- family residential to the north and east. Currently this is the only parcel on the northern side of Sara- toga Avenue zoned C -C and is located outside the commercial core of the Village. The_P -A zoning is compatible with the existing use of the site and other surrounding uses: Considering these factors, staff would recommend the proposed rezoning. #29. From R- 1- 40,000 to R -1- 12,500 - Parcel Sizes: 16,412 sq. ft. and 14,980 sq. ft. The General Plan designates these sites as Residential-Medium Density Single Family (M- 12,5). The appropriate zoning to "implement this de- signation is R- 1- 12,500. Existing lot sizes do not conform to R -1- 40,000 standards but would conform to R -1= 12,500 standards. The proposed rezoning recongnizes this and the existing development of the lots. Therefore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #30. From R -1- 40,000 to R- 1- 12,500 - Parcel Sizes: .51 AC, 12,700 sq. ft., 30,000 sq. ft., 25,080 sq. ft., 26,424 sq. ft., 20,085 sq. ft., 14,192 sq.ft. 14,434 sq. ft., 12,500 sq. ft., 12,500 sq. ft., 12,778 sq. ft., 12,778 sq.ft. and 14,100 sq. ft. The General Plan designates this area as Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M- '12,5). The appropriate zoning for this designation is R -1- 12,500. Also, the R- 1- 12,500 district is the major-medium density residential zoning adjacent to this area. None of these existing parcels conform with R -1- 40,000 site standards but they do conform to R -1- 12,500 standards. Considering these factors and the fact that the proposed rezoning is compatible with existing development, staff recommends the proposed re- zoning. #31. From R- 1- 40,000 to R- 1- 15,000 - Parcel Sizes: 13,950 sq. ft. and 40,950 sq. ft. Report to the Planning Commission 6/21/83 C -202, Amendments to Zoning Map Page 7 The General Plan designation for these parcels is Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -15). The appropriate zoning for this design- ation is R -1- 15,000. The Planning Commission determined that the smaller parcel (APN 503- 20 -31- Boyce) should be rezoned but the larger parcel should undergo a General Plan amendment because of its size. Both of these changes reflect the exi -sting development of both sites. Staff recommends the proposed rezoning of the smaller site. #32- -From R -1- 40,000 to,R -1- 12,500 — _Parcel Sizes:. 24,000 sq. ft., 13,121 sq. ft. and 13,340 sq. ft. The General Plan designation, for... these - sites - Is . Residential-- Medium - Density Single Family (M -12,5) The - appropriate zoning for this designation is R -1- 12,500. These sites do not conform to their existing zoning but would conform to the size requirements of the R -1- 12,500. district.. The proposed rezoning reflects existing development. There- fore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #36. From R- 1- 20,000 to R- 1- 40,000 - Parcel Size: .72 AC The General Plan designation for this site is Residential -Very Low Density Single Family. The appropriate zoning for this designation is R -1- 40,000. The proposed rezoning would not allow further subdivision of the property and would make the existing site non - conforming. How- ever, this is the only R -1- 20,000 zoning in the area other than another "island" of R -1- 20,000 further to the east. There is no Residential - Low Density Single Family designated parcels in that area. Even though the site would be non - conforming, the existing residential use of the site could continue. Therefore, staff.recommends the proposed rezoning. #37. From R- 1- 20,000 to R- 1- 40,000 - Parcel Sizes: 9,936 sq. ft., 22,907 sq. ft. and 21,780 sq. ft. The General Plan designation for these sites is Residential -Very Low Density Single Family. The appropriate zoning for this designation is R -1- 40,000. The proposed rezoning would make the existing lots non- conforming but the existing residential uses would be allowed to remain. This situation is similar to that described in Rezoning #36 in that these lots are an "island" of R -1- 20,000 unrelated to any similar den- sity. Therefore, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #38. From R- 1- 10,000 to C -N - Parcel Size: 2.75 AC The General Plan designation for this site is Commercial - P -D (Planned Development) Mixed which was established during the recent General Plan revision by the City Council. This designation would allow both commer- cial and residential use. The proposed C -N zoning is consistent with the commercial zoning immediately to the south of this City owned par- cel. The C -N district may have to be modified to allow residential use on parcels that are smaller than currently allowed. Staff recommends the proposed rezoning. #39. From A to R -1- 12,500 - Parcel Sizes: 2.62 AC and 20,00 sq. ft.± Report to the Planning Commission C -202, Amendments to Zoning Map 6/21/83 Page 8 The General Plan designation for these sites is Residential Medium Density Single Family (M- 12,5).. The appropriate zoning for this de- signation is-R-1-12,500. Agricultural zoning does not implement this use and the parcels are non - conforming in terms of minimum lot size requirements of the A District. The parcels are surrounded by R- 1- 12,500 zoning. Considering these factors, staff recommends the proposed rezoning. FINDINGS• 1. The proposed rezonings are necessary to ensure consistently with the - Zoning, -Map-- and -the-- City's adopted General- Plan. -- - 2. The proposed rezonings are required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said Ordinance. 3. The proposed rezonings will.not have a significant impact on the environment. SUMMARY The primary purpose of the proposed rezonings is to bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the General Plan as required by State Law. This will prevent errors and confusion when staff, citizens, Commission and Council members use the Zoning -Map in determining how a property may be used or developed. Another purpose_- has:_been- to-;elitinate _as many non - conforming sites as possible and recognize the City's existing pattern'of .development. If the Planning Commission decides that staff's recommendations are inappropriate the Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan to designate the desired use. A new set of public hearings will be needed for the proposed General Plan amendments. In any case, the recommendations of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for its earliest possible consideration. . %� Michael Flores Assistant Planner MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 6/29/83 :r�-xN,g1'C G Exhibit "C" C-202 ORDINANCE NO. NS -3 -ZC- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: BRINGING THE ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Sectional District Map No. C -202 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within - adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within - adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 2: This Ordinance reclassifies certain property as shown on the attached sectional map as follows: #1 APN: 386 -10 -49 Rezone from R -1- 10,000 to P -A #2 APN: 386 -14 -3 Rezone from C -N to R -M -5000 PC #3 APN: 386-14-23,24 Rezone from R-1-10,000 to R -M -5000 PC #4 APN: 391 -61 -22 Rezone from A to R -1- 12,500 #6 APN: 391 -14 -22 Rezone from C -N to P -A #7 APN: 391 -13- 9,12,15,16 Rezone from R-1-10,000 to M #8 APN: 391 -6 -8 Rezone from A to RM -5000 #11 APN: 391 -21 -18 Rezone from A to R- 1- 15,000 #12 APN: 391 -11 -221 Rezone from A to R -1- 15,000 #18 APN: 397 -16- 128,129,130,131 Rezone from R -1- 40,000 PC to R -1- 40,000 #19 APN: 397 -17 -9 Rezone from A to R -1- 40,000 #20 APN: 517 -13 -17,20 Rezone from R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD #21 APN: 517 - 13,14,15 Rezone_.from R -1740,0.0.0. to HC -RD #'26 APN: 397- 22 -23. Rezone from R -M -3000 to R-1-10,000 N: 397- 31-8- .._ Rezone from C -C to_ P -A #29 APN: 503 -29- 44,45,69 (portion) Rezone from R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 12,500 #30 APN: 503 -20 -24 -and 503 -50- 12,13 ,14,15,16,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 Rezone from R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 12,500 #31a APN: 503 -20 -31 Rezone from R -1- 40,000 to R- 1- 15,000 #32 APN: 503 -20- 45,46,47 Rezone from R- `1`- 40,'00'0- to -R --1- 12,500 #36 APN:. 503 -18 -65 Rezone from R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000 #37 APN: 503 -18- 92,99,100 Rezone from R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000 #38 APN: 391 -3 -272 Rezone from R -1- 12,500 to C -N #39 APN: 391 -4 -44 and 386 -44 -40 Rezone from A to R -1- 12,500 This ordinance shall become operative on and after thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1983, by the following votes. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR .: • Mt: ■■ did jv.' E 2 '.fZaNI" cis : 3�, 37 50.0-SONAL D IS?R1cr MAP j .... ..... . /Y I 16\ I it L4EY AP ' I #37 From R-1-20,000 tc \\ R- 1- 40,000 �:z v #36 From R- 1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000 Q �1 ( -1 2C"Dpp AIL L NCR i V ,l® '_4 ao �- C y - -,r I . 1 1 r C x � mT D RESOLUTION NO. C -202 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO BRING THE ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, the Commission held Public Hearings on said proposed amend- ments, which Public Hearings were held on June 29, 1983 and July 27, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendments as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission State of California, this 27th day of July, 1983, by the following roll call vote: AYES Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None airman of the Planning ommission ATTEST: I•I / C. REPORT OF FINDINGS C -202 Exhibit "B" FINDINGS: 1. The proposed rezonings the'Zonirig'Map"and the 2. The proposed rezonings the Zoning Ordinance a 3. The proposed rezonings environment. are necessary to ensure consistency with City's adopted Generale Plan. - are required to achieve the objectives of s prescribed in Section 1.1 of saiC Ordinance. will not have a significant impact on the ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None : PUBLYC HEARINGS 1. C -202/ Consideration of Amendment to the Zoning Map to Conform to the General Plan Chairman Schaefer reported that these have been divided into four categories. She explained that the items in Category 2 will not be addressed tonight because it has been determined that a change in the General Plan might be more appropriate. She commented that if there is one item that someone feels very strongly should not be a General Plan amendment and should be a rezoning, the Commission will take input on that tonight. She stated that the items in that category are Items k9, #10, #13, 814, #15, #16, #17, #22, "24, #28, #33, #34, #35 and #40. She explained that the balance are divided into groups. It was noted that #25 is listed as a separate hearing on the agenda tonight. She noted the correspondence that has been received on the various items. The public hearing was opened and discussion held as follows: Group N1 - Rezonings N1 -8, 911 and #12 Staff described the recommended rezonings under this group. Commissioner Crowther expressed a major concern that there are a tremendous number of changes and asked where the overall impact had been evaluated. Staff noted that these particular impacts were evaluated in terms of traffic and popula- tion growth in the General Plan EIR. Chairman Schaefer added that each of these items were reviewed at the study session by the Commission two weeks ago and input was taken. It was clarified that Items #9 and #10 had been deter- mined to be more appropriately reviewed as General Plan amendments. Lou Carpiac addressed the Commission, indicating that he represents Desert Petroleum, who owns the Gasco Service Station on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall, Item #2. He expressed their opposition to the change in the General Plan designation on this property, stating that their objections are necessitated because of legal considerations. He added that the reason they are concerned with the change in the zoning is that there is some ambi- quity and vagueness in the City ordinance dealing with the elimination of nonconforming uses and structures. He explained the history of the site and the operation. Mr. Carpiac indicated that he has discussed with Mr. Paul Smith and Staff a mechanism under which they could request a conditional use permit after they become nonconforming in a residential area, even though they were a permitted use when they went into place and were made a conditional use in 1964. He explained that their concern is that conditions might be attached to the use permit which would make it impossible to operate or place such con- ditions dealing with length of time that they can continue to operate the service station. lie asked the Commission to consider and perhaps make a recommendation to the City Council that there is a valid purpose served by the station and it can be left either PD mixed use in the General Plan or some designation that would allow them to continue doing business. The City Attorney stated that he would he happy to review the situation with Mr. Carpiac, since he had not been initially involved. He commented that, in view of the substantial investment in the property, he certainly would not make an interpretation of the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance concerning nonconforming uses as requiring immediate removal; it does take economic - 1 - CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 29, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Special Meeting --- ---- - - - - -- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None : PUBLYC HEARINGS 1. C -202/ Consideration of Amendment to the Zoning Map to Conform to the General Plan Chairman Schaefer reported that these have been divided into four categories. She explained that the items in Category 2 will not be addressed tonight because it has been determined that a change in the General Plan might be more appropriate. She commented that if there is one item that someone feels very strongly should not be a General Plan amendment and should be a rezoning, the Commission will take input on that tonight. She stated that the items in that category are Items k9, #10, #13, 814, #15, #16, #17, #22, "24, #28, #33, #34, #35 and #40. She explained that the balance are divided into groups. It was noted that #25 is listed as a separate hearing on the agenda tonight. She noted the correspondence that has been received on the various items. The public hearing was opened and discussion held as follows: Group N1 - Rezonings N1 -8, 911 and #12 Staff described the recommended rezonings under this group. Commissioner Crowther expressed a major concern that there are a tremendous number of changes and asked where the overall impact had been evaluated. Staff noted that these particular impacts were evaluated in terms of traffic and popula- tion growth in the General Plan EIR. Chairman Schaefer added that each of these items were reviewed at the study session by the Commission two weeks ago and input was taken. It was clarified that Items #9 and #10 had been deter- mined to be more appropriately reviewed as General Plan amendments. Lou Carpiac addressed the Commission, indicating that he represents Desert Petroleum, who owns the Gasco Service Station on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall, Item #2. He expressed their opposition to the change in the General Plan designation on this property, stating that their objections are necessitated because of legal considerations. He added that the reason they are concerned with the change in the zoning is that there is some ambi- quity and vagueness in the City ordinance dealing with the elimination of nonconforming uses and structures. He explained the history of the site and the operation. Mr. Carpiac indicated that he has discussed with Mr. Paul Smith and Staff a mechanism under which they could request a conditional use permit after they become nonconforming in a residential area, even though they were a permitted use when they went into place and were made a conditional use in 1964. He explained that their concern is that conditions might be attached to the use permit which would make it impossible to operate or place such con- ditions dealing with length of time that they can continue to operate the service station. lie asked the Commission to consider and perhaps make a recommendation to the City Council that there is a valid purpose served by the station and it can be left either PD mixed use in the General Plan or some designation that would allow them to continue doing business. The City Attorney stated that he would he happy to review the situation with Mr. Carpiac, since he had not been initially involved. He commented that, in view of the substantial investment in the property, he certainly would not make an interpretation of the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance concerning nonconforming uses as requiring immediate removal; it does take economic - 1 - M . t I'ugc ' P1.:rnning Meeting Minutes Group ;fl (cont.l investment and the degroo to which there are physical improvements into account. Ile indicated that if the Commission determines that it is des ir:r)10 as a planning nutter to have a service station on this particular site, they can always make that recommendation to the City Council. Ilowevcr, that recom- mendation would havo to ho Cor an amendment to the General Plan because there was - ..discussion at_ length at. the time this site was considered during the General flan review and the decision was made to designate it residential Ile. added that bringing the zoning into conformity would render the present use a nonconforming use and the owner would have to take some affirmative action by way of an application for a use permit. Discussion rol lowed on an amor.itization period. Mr. Carpiac noted that the Zoning Ordinance speaks ol: the number of years to cease the use from the date it was constructed, not From the date it becomes nonconforming. Commissioner Crolcthor stated that he is all. in .favor of getting rid of service stations but he feels that there has to be some logical and reasonable basis for doing so. There was a consensus that the gas station be allowed to stay on this site. Commissioner Siegfried stated that lie feels there is a logical wav for changing the zoning in the sense that there has been strong expression from the neighborhood and in view of the surrounding property, and the Commis- sion fuels that this is a parcel that should be residential. lior. ever, he stated that lie agroed with the owner's counsel that lie sees no reason, since they are there and as long as they don't change the use, that there should he any specific period in which they have to get out. Commissioner Nellis agreed but stated that, i.f it is legal and would not create any legal jeopardy to the (:itv, he would hope that a time limit could be considered. Commissi.onor Illava suggested that some guidelines should be set up for revi- sion to the ordinance, with input from the owner's counsel, before the con- ditional use permit procedure is started. The City Attorney clarified that the Commji sion can take a look at the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance and consider chanting the sections dealingwith nonconforming use. Fie added that they can oither eliminate the time or consider a time but change the date From which that time hegi.ns to run. lie added that the State law requires that the zoning be brought into conformity with the General Plan within a rcason:ihle time. Ivith respect to this particular site, an issue has been brought to the Commission's attention and they may want to make some change in the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the financial circumstances of the applicant, as well as the desires of te neighbors. If some additional time h is needed to do that, he has no problem justifying a delay in creating the conformity. Terry Griswold, President of P1 Quito Homeowners Association, indicated that the rosi.donts had previously asked that this site he zoned residential because they Feared that the Teresi property would be zoned commercial and that the whole parcel had to be rezoned one and the same. She stated that they have no objection to the gas station itself. She added that when they come for- ward for a conditional use permit the residents at that time would like to ask for some further conditions as to the time and possibly some clean -up work. it was clarified that the gas station is not under a conditional use permit at this time. Louise Cooper, Legislative Chairman of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, st;Ited that they have spent some time studying the parcels being considered as to how the proposals are in conjunction with the housing goal. She indicated that the housing goal most applicable to this particular situa- tion is senior citizen housing. She commented that the action of the City Council on Itele :3 does provide that opportunity and they endorse the posi- tion that has been taken on riS and s:10- Silo encouraged the Commission to consider ' +S (Challenger) as RNI- 3,000 also. !\ resident on Sousa Larne asked to speak on f11.0 in Category 2. lie stated that he would like to keep it residential. Staff described this site and indicated that this item was to he heard on July 27th as a General Plan Amend- ment. Item; ;2, ;5, 'S and i,`12 o-:ore removed for discussion. Commissioner Illava moved to recommend approval of Ttems N1, it3, P4, !'ti, � 7, and with Staff recommendations in the Staff- Report dated .June 21, pages 3 and -1, making the findings on Page Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, Ichi.ch w;I; carried unanimously 7 -0. - 2 - Planning CoC_':ssion Pale 3 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 i ` Group #1 (cont.) On Item #2 there was a consensus to get further input from Staff before vot- ing. Discussion followed on Item #5. Commissioner Hlava stated that she was un- comfortable with making Challenger Pre - School retail commercial. She indicated that she did not feel that the previous zoning of R -1- 10,000 was appropriate and she would be willing to make it RM- 3,000, but there would have to be a General Plan change. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she would like to see this site P -A. Commissioner Nellis commented that there are already office buildings on one side and across the street the Abrams property is being considered to be rezoned P -A, and residential would be allowed in a P -A zone. There was a consensus to change it to P -A. It was determined that this item will go into Category 2 at the July 27th meeting, with the recommendation that it become P -A. Regarding Item #8, Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels that 5,000 sq. ft. would be more appropriate than 3,000, because she feels that buildings in the future will probably be for people of all ages and 3,000 is a very small area. Discussion followed and there was a consensus to change this to 5,000. Commissioner Hlava moved, seconded by Commissioner Nellis, to recommend that this site be rezoned from A to RM- 5,000, instead of RM- 3,000. The motion was carried unanimously 7 -0. Discussion followed on #12. Staff clarified that the adjacent properties on three sides are R -1- 15,000 and the on the fourth side it is zoned R -1- 10,000. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve 012, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Group #2 - Rezonings 918 through #21, #23, #25 -27 Staff reported that Item 925 will be postponed until later in the evening since it also deals with a General Plan amendment. Staff explained the balance of the proposed rezonings in this group. Ann Fitzsimmons stated that she owns two properties on Big Basin Nav and one is Item #23. She indicated that she would like to keep this zoned C -V and is opposed to Multi- Family Residential zoning. She commented that she would like to develop both pieces commercially. Discussion.followed on the zoning and uses. Ms. Fitzsimmons added that if #23 were rezoned it would be splitting her property and she considers them as one. Don Eagleston, President of the Village Association, discussed the uses in the area. He indicated that he was concerned with the advancement of the Village and he feels that the future of the Village would be in jeopardy if this were rezoned condominiums for that small lot at the end of the area. He indicated that there would be a problem building down below because of the slope of the road. He asked that this site be allowed to develop commercially so there would be a foot traffic flow from the Village down along that area. George Magnett, 14651 Big Basin Nay, stated that he owns the property next to the Fitzsimmons property and inquired about what was being recommended in that area. The recommended rezoning was explained to Mr. Magnett. He commented that he feels that building could be done on the lower section of that n_arcel and he would prefer it to remain C -V. Louise Cooper commented that their committee was pleased with the idea that #23 might well be considered for what could be alternate housing for senior citizens. She expressed opposition to 126 (Federated Church) being changed to R- 1- 10,000. Mr. Eagleston pointed out that he did not want people to think that keeping #23 C -V would restrict senior citizen housing, because with a use permit there could still be senior citizen housing or condominiums on that site. Cliff Beck addressed Item 921 and requested that it be withdrawn from the process tonight. lie stated that he had received no notification of Staff's concerns and recommendation and he would like time to review that. He indicated that this rezoning is not consistent with Resolution 1031, which the City Council approved on his property. Staff: explained that the Council changed the designation on this site to Slope Conservation, which normally would have entailed a rezoning from R -1- 40,000 to IICRD; however, this was never followed up. In the 1983 General Plan review the Council confirmed this and Staff has Planning Conuniss ion Page 4 Meeting it es 6 /29/83 - F Group ;12 (cont.) not%, recommended HCRD zoning, which is consistent with the Hillside Conserva- tion designation on the General Plan. 'rhey explained that they had mailed a notice to Mr. Beck; however, apparently the address on the APN listing is t incorrect and it was returned. Staff indicated that Mr. Beck had been informed i of this hearing. Staff further explained the recommended zoning. Mr. Beck pointed out that in 1974 this site was designated as a Park. it was noted that the City decided that it was inappropriate for this to be a park and did request that about one acre be set aside for a parking lot for Hakone and the rest was designated Slope Conservation, which is the same as Hillside Con- servation in today's General Plan. Mr. Beck described the property, stating that it was relatively flat. Fie indicated that he feels that the proposed action is much too hard and severe and he would like to contest it further. It was determined that this item be continued to July 27, 1983, to allow Mr. Beck to review the material. f i Gr,e,g•,�ox :,. _owner, of,r,.?Q, s- ugges.te.d. that the. Planning Commiss -ion be a. little _ more lenient in planning in-terms of land use and not be so restrictive. lie stated that he feels they should consider the benefit that would be gained i out of a reasonable development as far as improvements are concerned. Tile Bohlman area was discussed, and Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the magnitude of the problem in the Bohiman Road area is beyond anything that could be done by raising the density. r. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend approval of Items Y18, #19, Y20 and #27, per the Staff Report dated June 21, 1983, pages 4, 5 and 6, making the findings on page S. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Discussion followed on #23. Commissioner Crowther commented that this could i - "go either 'way - W.ith -the wording of -the -General Plan. He stated that it _)would seem that there should be a Village Plan worked out before the Commission i makes a final decision on this item. Commissioner Siegfried agreed. lie stated that lie really does not see this site as a commercial site and was inclined to go along with the RM- 4,000, but both uses are possible and he does not think it is :inconsistent with what is there thus far. He added that lie would be inclined to .leave it as is until the Village Plan is considered. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed, adding that she would not like to see this property split into different zonings. i i Commissioner lilava stated that during the General Plan process it appeared t from the residents of the downtown area that there was a great desire to I delineate an end to the commercial area downtown, and there was a great desire to have a condominium buffer zone between the residential area and the actual commercial uses. That was the reason the General Plan was changed and that is the reason this recommendation was made. Now it seems that that is not totally being considered, or those people are not here testifying now, so the Commis- sion is only looking at one side of it. She suggested that the recommended rezoning be done and at the-time the Village Plan is considered the Commis - sion.can review the situation again. In the meantime the General Plan and zoning will be consistent and it will be consistent with what was said during the General Plan review. Commissioner Siegfried commented that lie is not sure that the General Plan is inconsistent, since guideline 16 leaves all kinds of options. There was a consensus to leave the zoning as is and consider it with the Village Plan. Staff explained that, since the General Plan designation is multi - family residential, it does not allow any commercial. use. They asked, to avoid con- fusion it an application comes in, to resolve the They as soon as possi- ble. Chairman Schaefer commented that a timeframe is needed on this matter. Conunis,;ioncr Siegfried suggested, if that is the case, that it be further considered on Jule 27, 1983 to change the General Plan to C - \J, but that it be F addres eel in the Ilan for the Village as to what uses the Planning Commission feels are consistent. It was directed that this he continued to July 27th, at which time it may he considered as a General Plan amendment or the rezoning will he reconsidered. r Commissioner Sicgfried recommended approval . of a26, per the Staff Report. i Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Grotto '.i - Items 1:29-._)2_ 36-39 Staff explained the rczonin!;s. !138 was removed [-or discussion. k - 4 - u^ Planninf—tites emission Page 5 Meeting 6/29/83 Group N3 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend approval of items #29 -32, 36, 37, and 39, per the Staff Report, making the findings. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Discussion followed on 1138. Staff clarified that it had been stated that exist- ing residential sites designated in the General Plan should not be expanded or increased or no new zoning added; however, it was in conjunction with this action by the City Council. Commissioner Crowther stated that if the shopping center were extended all the way to Cox, he feels it would be a very bad situa- tion from the traffic standpoint and also would create an eyesore on that corner of Cox and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. He added that he feels that P -A would be a much better designation. He moved to recommend that #38 be changed from R -1- 10,000 to P -A and request that the General Plan be changed to be con- sistent with that zoning. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner Nellis commented that he would like the benefit of the Council's thinking when they agreed to move this to-PD mixed use before the Commission changes it. Commissioners Crowther and McGoldrick withdrew their motion and second, and it was directed that this item be continued to July 27, 1983. Staff was requested to supply input from the City Council on this item as to how they arrived at their decision of commercial. GPA- 83 -1 -C - 14498 Oak Place, Consider Amending the General Plan Desig- nation of the subject property from Residential - Medium Den- sity Single Family (M -10) to Retail Commercial Chairman Schaefer explained the background of the site. She cited available options and noted letters and comments received on this matter. The City Attorney clarified that under the present Zoning Ordinance for the commercial classification, restaurants are now a permitted use. The City Council, by way of a separate vote, made a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to require that any restaurant use in a commercial zone be designated as a conditional use and would require a use permit. He pointed out that before the issue of the Napkin Ring ever arose there was consideration by Staff of making this change; it was a topic under discussion and it was something that was fully intended to be recommended to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He added that if it is the Commission's decision that the General Plan be amended to change the designation from residential to commercial, and then if the Commis- sion further decides that the Napkin Ring would then be a permitted use, draw- ing distinction between catering as opposed to restaurant, a further step woul,' have to be taken if the Commission desires to prohibit restaurants as a permitted use,to process through an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to place all resturants as conditional uses if they are in commercial zones. Commissioner Crowther stated that he is not so concerned about the Napkin Ring remaining but would be concerned if the commercial use was intensified on the site. He asked if there is some way to zone it C -C and have it restricted to the present intensity of use. The City Attorney stated that, in connection with the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, restaurant would have to be defined if it is going to be classified as a conditional use. Depending on how the Napkin Ring wishes to operate, they might very well fall within the classifi- cation of restaurant. They would then have to apply for a use permit if the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is made, and that would be the vehicle through which the use could be regulated, i.e. the intensity of use, parking requirements, etc. Discussion followed on options and process. The City Attorney explained that the Napkin Ring's business license, at the vote of the City Council, was restored conditioned upon amendment of the General Plan. It was noted that consideration of this amendment is scheduled to be on the July 27th agenda. The City Attorney indicated that the Planning Commission has the prerogative to define a catered use as catering or the sale of sandwiches for consumption off the premises and define that as a permitted use in a commercial zone, and then make a distinction between that type of operation and a restaurant where there are tables, etc. Commissioner Nellis suggested considering the option of leaving it residential R- 1- 10,000 to be consistent with the General Plan and the applicant could still - 5 - "Sk Planning( mmission r Page 6 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 \ GPA- 83 -1 -C (cont.) continue to operate with a conditional use permit process. He indicated that his concern is that if this site is commercial then there will be no control over it. The public hearing was opened at 10:15 p.m. Betty Maas, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, addressed the hazardous traffic. She indicated that she opposes commercial and would like to see it P -A. She noted that on the petition submitted in favor of the Napkin Ring 900 of the signatures live -1 -4 miles away. Norm Matteoni, Attorney representing the Napkin Ring, asked for clarification as to what was being considered tonight. Staff commented that both options were being considered, either rezoning or a General Plan amendment. Mr. Matteoni indicated that his clients are not interested in any other zoning othe.r:than commercial. _Ee.gave the.background of the zoning and operation on the site. He added that they view the Napkin Ring as a legal commercial .use and finding out after the fact of appropriate permits from the City that the General Plan is not consistent with that zone. He indicated that his clients are also willing to stipulate; because they are not interested in any delay of the appropriate designation, that they will not seek nor have any tenant seek a restaurant use on the property until the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance can be addressed if the Commission desires to make restaurants a conditional use permit use. Commissioner Hlava asked if there is a way to proceed with this matter and not unduly hold it up if the applicant will voluntarily say they will not pursue a restaurant use. The City Attorney explained that they could prepare an agreement to be executed by the land owner, binding upon their successors and assigns, which would be a contractual arrangement between them and the City. Tom Greenlead, 20315 Orchard Road, spoke in favor of commercial zoning. He commented that this site has always been a commercial use and there has been no problem with traffic. He added that it is bringing revenue to the City. A resident of Oak Place expressed concerns regarding traffic, the hazardous access and parking. The parking requirements were discussed. He also expressed concern about the off -sale liquor license. The City Attorney explained that the license was issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and is under their jurisdiction. Linda Protiva, Oak Place, stated that she would prefer to see this stay resi- dential, but feels that a compromise could be that it be zoned commercial with a conditional use permit required. She cited traffic and parking as major problems. She indicated that these problems already exist from the Federated Church and a second operation on this site would make the situation very difficult. Dr. Hugh Larchbo, 14475 Oak Place, expressed concern regarding access and traffic. He urged the Commission to make an effort to maintain a quality residential area within the vicinity of the Village. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney explained that the application for a business license des- cribed the nature of the business as catering and it was issued for such. The definition of catering was discussed, along with options and process. Commissioner Nellis asked if the City could get an agreement with the appli- cant to agree to come in for a conditional use permit for any use on that site. Mr. Matteoni commented that he would have problems with contractually agreeing to a use permit procedure if the City does not have an ordinance to cover it. He added that lie feels that the City has parking requirements and site approval conditions that are in the ordinance that any other use would have to comply with, as well as the existing use. He indicated that they would abide by those and would agree to await the decision of the restaurant use if that is going to be a use permit procedure, and not entertain any such additional use such as that. Commissioner Crowther commented that, although the City has a way of con- trolling the restaurant, there are other potential uses for the site which - 6 - 4$k CJ. fission Pa ,c 7 ' Planning ., Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 GPA- 83 -1 -C (cont.) could create severe problems. He added that lie feels the only wav that the City can really get control is to rezone it to R -1- 10,000 and have the Napkin Ring continue under a conditional use permit. Further discussion was held on the use for the balance of the 750 sq. ft. in the building. Mr. Matteoni stated that lie would have to confer remaining with his clients to see if they would be willing to hold the space in abeyance while the ordinance was being amended. The parking requirements were further discussed. Commissioner Hlava commented that this is a site that should clearly be com- mercial. She indicated that it seems to be very poor planning to try to force some artificial General Plan designation on it, regardless of what the Napkin Ring is doing. She agreed that there are some traffic problems and narking limitations on -.the site. She added that if the applicant is willing to say that unt -il —the,; procedures..for- .restaurants,.are defined they will not have a restaurant on that site, then the parking regulations should be sufficient to control the intensity of use there so they could perhaps rent out the other part of their business. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels that if there are deaths at that corner due to the intensity of commercial use, in a long term planning sense the City should try to, over the next 30 years, revert it back to residential. He added that he does not think it is clear, in view of the hazard at that corner, that it should be commercial. Mr. DeBenodctti, owner of the property, explained the size of the building and discussed the parking spaces existing and the possibility of creating more parking spaces around the hack of the building. He indicated that they did not intend to use the property as a restaurant. Commissioner Siegfried stated that lie thinks this is a commercial site and he does not see that the Commission can realistically think that it can be resi- dential. He commented that there is some commercial..use. that lie would not like to see there; on the other hand catering is not included in the P -A zoning. He moved to recommend that it be commercial, with the City entering into a contract with the applicant so that the issue of a restaurant there will be put in a moratorium until the City has some ability to control via a conditional use permit. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Chairman Schaefer commented that she thinks this area should be P -A with a use permit for the Napkin Ring to remain, since she thinks it is an asset. She indicated that she may vote against the motion because she does feel there some commercial uses that might not be appropriate there. are = -•• The vote was taken and the motion failed 4 -3, with Commissioners Nellls, Crowther Bolger and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Nellis stated that he would be agreeable to a change of the General Plan to commercial, provided that there is some mechanism that the City can execute to control whatever use goes in on that site through a con -. ditional use permit process. Chairman Schaefer commented that she would be in agreement with that but she does not think there is a way to do that Staff noted that if it were changed to P -A the ordinance would have to be amended to allow catering. Commissioner Crowther stated that he thinks it is clear that the applicant is to have a conditional use permit whether it is commercial or residential, going so he does not see why having it designated residential is a hazard to him, that the City i.s willing to go along with the long term conditional provided use permit that rcguiates what goes on the site. Commissioner Schaefer stated that having it residential is one way of con- trolling it; however, it does not seem to make too much sense to have it resi- dcntial whon you look at the piece of property. She added that she feels that P -A is a compromise. There was a consensus to recommend an amendemont to tiie GoneraL Plan designation to P -A. '['he City Attorney explained that there is nothi.ng in the P -A riglit now' that could authorize this kind of -1 use and that portion of the Zoning Ordinance would 11;1Ve to he amended. Ile stated that two amendments would be needed: ('L) cumcndmclit of the General Plan classification from Residential to P -A and (2) (1mCndlmCllt of the loning Ordinance to allow catering. Staff Voted that Planning Commission �� Page '8 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 it will also be noticed for rezoning to P -A. The City Attorney added that there probably will be no reason for the contract because restaurant use is not a permitted or conditional use in that district. Therefore, the use would necessarily depend upon amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and they would simply be continuing to operate under the restoration of the business license by the City Council while this process is being worked out. Commissioner Nellis moved to recommend changing the General Plan designation on this site to P -A. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting. She pointed out that what the Commission is allowing is permitted uses without a conditional use permit, and some of those uses generate more traffic, require much more parking, and have more impact than the kind of use for which you could require conditional use permits under the commercial designation. It was clarified that this item will be renoticed on July 27th, and at that time it is the intention of the Commission to change the zoning and the .General Plan to P -A „ and the Napkin.-Ring would be allowed to remain.there indefinitely. The 10 -day appeal period was noted. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bolger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. RSS:cd Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary L= C i L_ The following changes were made to the minutes of July 13, 1983: On page 2, the first sentence of the second paragraph should read "Commissioner Nellis stated that the intent of the wordage is not to prohibit or restrict employees from mentally thinking but to prohibit prototypes for production models from being constructed." On page 7, the first sentence in the fourth paragraph should read "Commissioner Nellis commented that he still has a concern that the applicant's aggregate roof material may not match the existing shingle roof- ing material now on the shopping center." Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading of the minutes of July 13., 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present at the meeting. CONTINUED MISCELLANEOUS 1. A -807 - Calderone, 12651 Saratoga, Reconsideration of Conditioning for One - Year Extension of Design Review ADDroval Chairman Schaefer explained that the applicant has asked for reconsideration of the conditioning for a landscape plan relative to his request for a one -year extension. Discussion followed on the trees that have been removed. Mr. Calderone explained that he is only responsible for Lot A and discussed the bond and six -month time limit condition placed on landscaping. It was the con - sensus-that the conditioning will stand as approved with the one -year extension. It was noted that the extension is for Lot A only. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. SDR -1443 - Vernon Cole (Reed), Quito Road, Request for One -Year Extension 3. Dave Liggett, 18656 Vessing Court, Request for Site Modification Approval for a cabana and Dool Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 7 -0. LIC`HEARINGS C -202 — Consideration of Amendment to the Zoning Map to Conform to the General Plan 6. GPA- 83 -2 -A - Consider Amending the General Plan designation of various par- cels These two matters were discussed simultaneously. The public hearing was opened at.7:50 p.m. Karyn DcBoer, 13495 Sousa Lane, addressed #10, stating that almost all of the property in that area now is commercial. She described the properties and stated that the area should either be improved or should be commercial. Staff clarified that Ms. DeBoer's parcel is now designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan and is not part of this General Plan amendment. They also clarified that this amendment is not dealing with the Costa property. There - 1 - T� ( \ % CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 27, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Bolger arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of July 13, 1983: On page 2, the first sentence of the second paragraph should read "Commissioner Nellis stated that the intent of the wordage is not to prohibit or restrict employees from mentally thinking but to prohibit prototypes for production models from being constructed." On page 7, the first sentence in the fourth paragraph should read "Commissioner Nellis commented that he still has a concern that the applicant's aggregate roof material may not match the existing shingle roof- ing material now on the shopping center." Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading of the minutes of July 13., 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present at the meeting. CONTINUED MISCELLANEOUS 1. A -807 - Calderone, 12651 Saratoga, Reconsideration of Conditioning for One - Year Extension of Design Review ADDroval Chairman Schaefer explained that the applicant has asked for reconsideration of the conditioning for a landscape plan relative to his request for a one -year extension. Discussion followed on the trees that have been removed. Mr. Calderone explained that he is only responsible for Lot A and discussed the bond and six -month time limit condition placed on landscaping. It was the con - sensus-that the conditioning will stand as approved with the one -year extension. It was noted that the extension is for Lot A only. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. SDR -1443 - Vernon Cole (Reed), Quito Road, Request for One -Year Extension 3. Dave Liggett, 18656 Vessing Court, Request for Site Modification Approval for a cabana and Dool Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 7 -0. LIC`HEARINGS C -202 — Consideration of Amendment to the Zoning Map to Conform to the General Plan 6. GPA- 83 -2 -A - Consider Amending the General Plan designation of various par- cels These two matters were discussed simultaneously. The public hearing was opened at.7:50 p.m. Karyn DcBoer, 13495 Sousa Lane, addressed #10, stating that almost all of the property in that area now is commercial. She described the properties and stated that the area should either be improved or should be commercial. Staff clarified that Ms. DeBoer's parcel is now designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan and is not part of this General Plan amendment. They also clarified that this amendment is not dealing with the Costa property. There - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 7/27/83 C -202 and GPA- 83 -2 -A (cont.) was a consensus to continue 1110 to a study session on August 2, 1983. The correspondence received on this matter was noted. Mr. Carpiac, attorney for GASCO, addressed #2. The various options were dis- cussed by Staff. The City Attorney explained that the City is working on an amendment to the Nonconforming Ordinance that will hopefully alleviate some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Carpiac at the previous meeting. The current ordinance and the proposed amendment were discussed. Mr. Carpiac gave the history of the site and operation. Don Eagleston spoke on behalf of the Saratoga Village Association regarding #23 (Fitzsimmons property). He reiterated that they strongly recommend that the Commission not adhere to the General Plan in this situation. He added that the property in question is now surrounded by condominiums and there is a sub- stantial buffer zone in that area. Dr. Ann Fitzsimmons stated that she plans to treat both pieces of her property as commercial and rezoning one would split them. Alan Ashby spoke on #24 (Oak Street). He stated that he owns a lot on Oak Street and is concerned about what will happen to the low income housing that has been in existence for many years in that area if it is rezoned. It was clarified that if the rezoning is approved the use that is now there can remain. Louise Cooper, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of Saratoga Area Senior Citizens Council, commended the Commission for recommending that the zoning be changed to P -A on #5 (Challenger). . Gary Flack, Russell Lane, inquired about 1133 and Staff explained the proposed change. Cliff Beck inquired about #21 and #42 (Hincks), relative to the criteria used in -the rezoning.- Staff explained the purpose of the change. Mr. Beck des- cribed his property and questioned the rezoning, stating that he did not feel that the topography of the property has been considered. Commissioner.Schaefer suggested possibly continuing #21'to a study session. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger commented that they agree with the Staff Report on this item and would be in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Beck added that he felt that the City has to be liberal to some extent when working in the hillside area because of the substantial road improvement costs. Gerald Pole spoke on behalf of Mr. Beck and offered to submit pictures of the subject property. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing on C -202 and GPA- 83 -2 -A. The motion was carried unanimously. It was clarified -that 939 is undeveloped and that R- 1- 12,500 zoning is consis- tent with the surrounding area. Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend approval to the City Council of Items #1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31a, 32, 36; 37 and 39, making the findings attached to the C -202 Staff Report dated July 19, 1983. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend approval of H8 (Willamette Univ.) from A to RM- S,000. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to discuss #21 (Hincks) at a study session. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which failed 4 -3, with Commissioners Nellis, Crowther, Bolger and Hlava dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend approval of 1121 per the C-202 Staff Report. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -3, with Commissioners Siegfried, Schaefer and McGoldrick dissenting. Discussion followed on H38 (City -owned property). The City Attorney commented that this particular property is now under specific study by the City Council in terms of possible disposition. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he would favor the General Plan amendment and he feels that making it C -N would create too much commercial along that side of the street. Commissioner Hlava stated that she understood that the General Plan has already been changed to a IUD mixed use and she does not feel the R- 1- 12,500 zoning is very appropriate, - 2 - Un Planning Commission r r Page 3 Meeting Minutes 7/27/83 (\ C C- 202-and CPA- 83 -2 -A (cont.) especially in that location, when the General Plan is PD mixed use. Staff noted that since it is PD mixed use it has to have some kind of commercial zoning to allow commercial uses and they suggested C -N because the rest of the commercial zoning in that area is C -N. Commissioner Siegfried moved'to -recommend approval of the_tezoning on,938.to C- N.''He' commented that he feels the C -N zoning allows a mixture of commercial —� and residential and pointed out that there is no PD mixed use zoning. Commis- sioner Hlava seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner.Siegfried.moved to recommend approval of #5, 9, 17, 22, 28 and 31b, per the' Staff' Report for GPA- 83 -2 -A: Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which yeas carried unanimously 7 -0. —; Regarding Items #13, 14, 15, 16, and 40 along Allendale, it was clarified that the General Plan amendments are to preserve what is currently there. Commis - sion.er�Siegfried moved_to recommend approval of these items per the Staff Report. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Staff clarified that the recommended change on Items #34 and 35 is to be con- sistent with existing development. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend approval of Y34 and 35 of GPA- 83 -2 -A, per page 4 of the Staff Report. Commis- sioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Discussion followed on #2 (GASCO). The options and timeframe were discussed. Staff commented that if this is designated Retail Commercial it can maintain its C -N zoning as long as the City Council agrees to make that amendment. They explained that under the current nonconforming ordinance, if this site were rezoned to RM -5,000 PC and this particular use was allowed with a con - ditiional use permit, there could be a time limit placed on it. If the non- conforming ordinance is changed that might change that particular limit. The City Attorney indicated that i.f the General Plan is changed to Retail Commer- cial it will legitimate the use; the applicant would still need a use permit but he would not be nonconforming. There was a consensus that this should be residential with some reasonable long _ timeframi. Commissioner Nellis moved to recommend rezoning #2 to RM -5,000 PC, with the timeframe dealt with at the time of the use permit. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. She stated that she would not vote for it with an unknown timeframe. Discussion followed on #23 (Fitzsimmons). Commissioner Siegfried commented that he feels it should be left C -V, which would retain all of the options, allowing for the possibility that, since the owner owns both pieces of proper- ty,, there might be some joint use of the property which would make this multi- family. Commissioner Schaefer suggested the option of P -A, stating that that would allow to have uses that perhaps are not as intense on parking in that area. She added that she has some concern about traffic and the curve. Com- missioner Hlava stated that she feels it should be multi - family, partly because of the General Plan hearings and the strong feeling that was expressed there, and she also does not feel that on this curve and in this location it is appropriate for either P -A or Retail Commercial. Commissioner Bolger agreed. Commissioner Nellis commented that he feels it should be left C -V. He commented that all of the adjacent parcels are zoned C -V now and he feels the General Plan should be amended for Retail Commercial with the C -V zoning. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend amending the General Plan to Commer- cial Retail, keeping the zoning C -V. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which failed 4.-3, with Commissioners Hlava,.Bolger and..Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend changing #23 from C -V zoning to RM- 5,000. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which failed 4 -3, with Commissioners Siegfried, Schaefer, Nellis and McGoldrick dissenting. Commis- sioner Schaefer stated that she felt it should be P -A. There was a consensus to send all of the recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend approval of #24 (Oak St.), per the Staff Report, page 3, for GPA- 83 -2 -A. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Staff explained the recommended change on #33. Commissioner Crowther moved to - 3 .e. =1 Z —� Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 7/27/83 i` C -202 and GPA- 83 -2 -A (cont.) recommend approval #33, per the Staff Report dated July 18, 1983 for GPA- 83 -2 -A. Commissioner Illava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Staff explained the changes on #41 (Lauer) and 1142 (Hincks). Commissioner Crowther commented that since all of the Lauer property within the City is steep and has geologic problems, he did not understand the adjustment of the lot lines. fie indicated that he felt the more appropriate action would be to make the entire parcel NHR. Staff commented that the subdivision was approved under R -1- 40,000 standards and to make it NHR would change those standards for the subdivision. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels maybe that should be done, not necessarily for just this property but other property through that area that is quite steep and should be NHR. Staff indicated that the Commission could study the whole area and determine if the General Plan designation for these parcels should be changed. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to remain consistent with what has already been approved. He moved to recommend approval of #41 (Lauer), per the Staff Report for GPA- 83 -2 -A. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend approval of #42, per the Staff Report for GPA- 83 -2 -.A. He stated that he had voted against the previous items regarding the Hincks Estate, but since they passed he feels the Commission should be consistent. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-{) ---�` GPA- 83 -1 -C - 1.4498 Oak Place (Napkin Ring), Consider Amending the General ."Plan designation of the subject property from Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Commercial - Professional Administrative The public hearing was opened at 9:43 p.m. Dr. Hugh Lorshbough described the area, stating that the neighborhood was essentiall-,- residential and should be residential with a conditional use permit and amortization schedule for the Napkin Ring. Mr. DeVille, property owner next door, spoke against P -A. He stated that he feels there had been disregard for the neighbors and cited the increase in traf- fic. Betty Maas, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, expressed concern regarding the traffic. She stated that this should be residential with the provision that the Napkin Ring can continue at very low key. Linda Protiva, Oak Place, urged to keep this residential with a use permit. She cited safety factors and traffic. She commented that a neighborhood associ- ation has been formed and they are unanimously against the P -A zoning. !Form Matteoni, representing the owners of the property, stating that they still stand on their previous points and would like this to be commercial. Discus- sion followed on the previous use, General Plan designation and zoning. Chairman Schaefer stated that she had suggested P -A as a compromise which would allow the Napkin Ring to remain. She noted that she feels that since the previous meeting there has been an increase in traffic and signage. She ques- tioned the current operation and stated that she feels there may be more pro- blems that need to be addressed. Mr. Matteoni commented that there has been no increase in signage or operation. He noted the controls of the City. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels this should be residential as pre- sently designated with the appropriate use permit. Commissioner Siegfried commented that his original vote was for commercial. Ile stated that he would vote for P -.A because the uses up to this time have been P -A uses and it would allow catering to be brought in as a conditional use. He added that he does not see it as a viable residential property. Commissioner Nellis moved to recommend that the General Plan designation be changed to P -A. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried - 4 - r Planning Commission Page 5 r Meeting Minutes 7/27/83 r' 4 -3, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Hlava dissenting. Chairman Schaefer commented that the full intention of the recommendation is that there would be tight controls and noted that catering does not involve eating on the premises. It was clarified that the motion did not include adding catering to the P -A zone, but it is the intent to have Staff go forward and add catering as a conditional use to the P -A zone. The City Attorney indicated that this would be a separate amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 7. C- 2,03_, -, T. Lauer, Consideration to rezone a portion of a 7+ acre parcel (APN 517- 22 -30) at 15840 Peach Hill Road from R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD consistent with .the General Plan and previous subdivision approval and pre -zone certain parcels (APN 517- 23 -20, 21) HC -RD that will be annexed to the City Staff explained the application. The public hearing was opened at 10:17 p.m. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the pubiic.hearing. Commissioner Siegfried, seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.. Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend approval of C -203, per the Staff Report dated July 19, 1983, making the findings listed therein. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. 8. SDR -1540 - Floyd Gaines, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval, Design A -879 - Review Approval, and Variance Approval to construct six (6) V -616 - townhouses which maintain a front yard setback of 19 ft. where 25 ft. is required and a rear yard setback of 20 ft. where 2S ft. is required and an 11 ft. retaining wall in the RM -3,000 zoning district at the northerly corner of the Fourth Street Stairway '_and Oak Street ... __ . Staff described the project, noting that they were recommending denial because C of the inconsistency with the General Plan. Issues of concern were noted: (1) screening of the wall and placement of structure above it, (2) access, (3.).setbacks, (4) appearance of retaining wall, (5) walkway and balconies, (6) on -site parking, (7) size of units, and (8) turnaround. The public hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m. Sergio Ramierez, project leader, gave a presentation on the proposal, discussing the wall, and landscaping. Pat Jenkins, Twin Oaks Condominiums, Oak Street, explained the difficulty in getting across Big Basin Way or turning left from 4th Street. She asked if it would be possible to have no parking in that area. She added that she felt this project would be an improvement over what is existing. Staff noted that there had been a proposal by Staff to the City Council sometime ago to eliminate park- ing on one side of the street and it was rejected. Joel Fitzpatrick, Twin Oaks Condominiums, stated that he was in total support of the Staff Report. He cited the lack of screening on the structure and its size. The setback in front was discussed. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he was anxious to clean up the slum but felt that this proposal was not adequate. He added that the setbacks should not be shortened and an adequate planting area in back is needed. The civil engineer for the project stated that they would be agreeable to no parking on 4th Street. He discussed the setbacks and turnaround. He commented that the Fire Chief had stated that the elimination of a fire truck turnaround would be alleviated by installing sprinkled garages. The size of the structure and proper screening were discussed. There was a con- sensus that there was concern regarding the screening of the wall, the three - story structure and setbacks. The possibility of moving the building was dis- cussed. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on August 2, 1983 and the regular meeting of August 10, 1983, in order to discuss the options. 9. A -890 - John Poutre, 14360 Elva Ave., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second -story addition to an existing one - story, single family dwelling in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee, describing the proposal. He - S - tr CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION i MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 10, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION { Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes Commissioner Nellis moved to waive the reading of the minutes of July 27, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. J. Lukes, 18900 Cyril Place, Request for Lot Line Adjustment Commissioner Nellis moved to approve the item above listed on the Consent Cal- endar. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. BUILDING SITES /SUBDIVISIONS 2a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1541 - Carson Heil 2b. SDR -1541 - Carson Heil, 14781 Farwell, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 lot, and Site Modification Approval for addition on over 10% slope Staff reported that the applicant has not provided input that could be trans- mitted to the Sanitary District for their consideration of alternatives, as requested at the last Committee -of- the - Whole. They indicated that it would be appropriate to continue this matter. Because of the timeframe, Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny SDR -1541, subject to receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. It was directed that this matter be con- tinued to August 24, 1983. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. GPA- 83 -2 -A - Consider Amending the General Plan designation of various parcels Staff explained that this matter has had much review and Item #10 was discuss- ed at the last study session. Discussion was held on Item #25 (Napkin Ring), and it was determined that there would be a separate resolution, GPA- 83 -2 -B to cover this item. Commissioner Nellis moved to adopt Resolution GPA- 83 -2 -A, recommending approval to the City Council of all items in the Staff Report dated 8 -3 -83 except Item #25, making the necessary findings. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner Nellis described Resolution GPA- 83 -2 -B as the item referenced as Item #25 (Napkin Ring) in the Staff Report dated 8 -3 -83 and moved to recommend approval of that item to the City Council, making the necessary findings. Com- missioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -3, with Commis- sioners Bolger, Crowther and Hlava dissenting. - 1 - !lam \ 0 .f. SAR �9LlFUg��� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/3/83 Commission Meeting: 8/10/83 SUBJECT: GPA 83 -2 -A, General Plan Amendments The Commission continued this public hearing from its meeting of July 27, 1983 primarily to clarify item #10 (Seven lots on the southside of Sousa Lane) to several concerned residents that live on Sousa Lane. It was indicated that the Commission was going to recommend that the General Plan Land Use designation of these lots be changed from Retail Commercial to Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) consistent with the existing use and zoning of these lots. Also, the Commission decided that the General Plan Amendments as described in items 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 ,17,22,24,28,31b,33,34,35,40,41 and 42 of the Staff Report dated 7/19/83 (attached) should be recommended for approval to the City Council. The Commission was not able to agree on an appropriate designation for item 23 so no specific recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. How- ever, the minutes will reflect Commission discussion on these items. Item 25 (The Napkin Ring) was decided separately under GPA 83 -1 -C with the recommendation that the site be designated Commercial - Professional Administrative rather than Retail Commercial or its current designation of Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) . RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution General Plan amendments listed 1983 Staff Report, to the City APPROVED MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 8/10/83 recommending approval of the proposed above, and described in the July 19, Council. Tlichael Flores Assistant Planner GPA 83 -2 -A �l EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendments will maintain the character of the neighborhoods affected and will have no adverse impact . on the surrounding areas. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendments will not adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. r I , - - MMMIA . REPORT TO -PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/18/83 Commission Meeting: 7/27/83 SUBJECT: GPA 83 -2 —A, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS During the Planning Commission's review of the mass rezonings for General Plan consistency (C -202) the Commission decided that some of the proposed rezonings were inappropriate. It was determined that these parcels should have their General Plan land use designa- tions amended instead to reflect existing development or what the Commission believed to be appropriate for the area. These amend- ments will eventually be considered by the City Council. In most cases the General.Plan amendments would be consistent with the existing zoning of the properties and thus the General Plan amendment would be the only action necessary for these parcels. However, some parcels will have to be rezoned if the General Plan amendments are adopted by the City Council. These rezonings would be reviewed by the Commission at a later date. Staff Analysis and Recommendation Staff has revised its summary chart of the parcels or areas to be changed (either rezoning or General Plan amendment). The Commission should refer to this chart when reviewing this section. The following numbers below refer to the numbers in the chart. (See C -202) #2 From Multi - Family Residential to Retail Commercial -- Parcel Size: 22,500 square feet. At its meeting of June 29, 1983 the Commission heard testimony from the attorney representing Desert Petroleum expressing opposition to the General Plan amendment which had changed the designation of the property to Multi - Family Residential. He also discussed the vagueness of the City's non - conforming ordinance and how it would affect the existing service station on the site. The Commission decided that they would consider this item further at its meeting of July 27, 1983. It has been advertised as a General Plan amend- C Report to the Planning Commission C 7/18/83 GPA 83 -2 -A Page 2 ments to give the Commission the opportunity to change its land use designation. It should be noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that this site and the adjacent Teresi Property be designated Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10). The City Council determined that Multi- Family Residential was a -more appropriate.. designation for both-properties #5 From Retail Commercial to Commercial- Professional Administrative -- Parcel Size: 21,657 square feet The Commission felt that P -A would be a more appropriate land use de- signation for this parcel partially to limit more intensive traffic problems created by existing commercial uses in the area and con- sidering the fact that there is an adjacent P -A site to the west The site will also have to be rezoned P -A. P -A zoning will allow the existing Challenger Pre - School to continue operating without making it a non - conforming use. It should be noted that the P -A district allows multi - family residential use. #9 From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) to Open Space - Managed Resource Production -- Parcel Size: 4.27 acres This site is owned by the State and appears to be associated with the West Valley Corridor as part of that right -of -way. Considering these factors the Commission determined that residential zoning, as discussed at its study session of June 14, 1983, would be inappro- priate. If this amendment is adopted the site will be able to main- tain its current "A" zoning. #10 From Retail Commercial to Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) -- Parcel Sizes: 12,362 square feet, 19,015 square feet, 11,390 square feet, 13,063 square feet, 10,824 square feet, 1,373 square feet, 11,637 square feet This site consists of seven developed single- family residential lots. This amendment will allow this use to continue and maintain its R -1- 10,000 zoning. It was also determined that this area could be inappropriate for commercial use considering the nature of Souza Lane. #13 From Residential -Low Density Single Family to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Sizes: 1.08 AC, .97 AC, and 41,668 square feet. The proposed General Plan amendment would be consistent with the existing development of these lots and their existing zoning of R -1- 40,000. Hoever, it is staff's opinion that this amendment is inconsistent with the pattern of development envisisoned in the General Plan Map. i #14 From Residential - Medium Density Sin!:11P Family (M -10) to Residential Very Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Size: 1.067 AC Same situation as #13 above Report to the Planning Commission Page 3 GPA 83 -2 -A #15 From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Residential -Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Size: 1.009 AC Same situation as #13 and #14 above except that the site is zoned R -1- 20,000 and the proposed amendment is consistent with that zoning. #16 From Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Size 40,549 sq Same situation as #13 and #14 above. #17 From Residential- Medium Density-Single Family (M -10) to Residential - Very Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Sizes: 2.39 AC, 4,800 square feet, .757 AC, 1.72 AC, 9,920 square feet, 12,712 square feet, and 45,590 square feet Same situation as #13, #14, and #16 above. #22 From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -15) to Residential - .Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Sizes: 29,614 square feet, 20,900 square feet, 23,847 square feet, 24,390 square feet, 21,700 square feet, 28,000 square feet, 12,610 square feet, 22,962 square feet, 20,500 square feet, 1.19 AC and 36,000 square feet The.proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the existing development and zoning (R -1- 20,000) of 6 of the 11 lots above. The remaining 5 lots are zoned R -1- 40,000- but their lo-t- sizes would be consistent with R-1- 20,000 zoning. Only one lot could be further subdivided in this area. #23 From Multi - Family Residential to Retail Commercial -- Parcel Size: 1. 226 AC During the public hearing_for -C -202 the owner of this property expressed her desire to maintain the commercial zoning of this property. She indicated she wished to develop this parcel and the adjacent parcel, also in her ownership, with commercial uses. This site was advertised as a General Plan amendment to give the Commission the opportunity to consider the merits of this request. This was one of the parcels staff identified as going either way since it is adjacent to commercial and multi - family uses. #24 From Multi- Family Residential to Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) -- Parcel Sizes: 11,400 square feet, 32,028 square feet, 20,000 square feet, 19,050 square feet, 10,000 square feet, 7,850 square feet, 8,125 square feet, 6,250 square feet, 6,250 square feet and 1,875 square foot (portion) Both staff and Commission agreed that single- family use was more appropriate for this area of the Village. The Area J guidelines for Area Development also indicates that Oak Street should be the boundary between commercial or multi - family uses and single family uses. This amendment is consistent with the existing R -1- 10,000 zoning and devop- ment of these parcels. #25 From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Commercial - Professional Administrative -- Parcel Size: 11,300 square feet+ Report to the Plannr.; Commission GPA 83 -2 -A See Staff Report for GPA 83 -1 -C also on this agenda. 7/18/83 Page 4 #28 From Residential -Very Low Density Single Family to Residen.tial- Medium.Density Single Family (M -10) -- Parcel- Sizes: 11,500 square feet, 9,200 square feet, 9,200 square feet and 12,500 square feet The proposed amendment would be consistent with the existing develop- ment and R -1- 10,.000 zoning of the sites. #31b _From Residential - Medium Densit Residential -Very .Low Density S _.40..,.950 _square .feet,,-., Single Family (M -15) to qle Family -- Parcel Size: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the existing develop- ment and R -1- 40,000 zoning of the site. #33 From Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) to Residential -Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Sizes: .459 AC, .471 AC, .477 AC, .496 AC, .491 AC, .502 AC, .575 AC, .537 AC, .474 AC, .575 AC, .48 AC, .515 AC, .488 AC.467 AC, .488 AC, .62 AC, .56 AC and .528 AC The proposed amendment.is consistent with the existing development and R -1- 20,000 zoning of 17 of the 19 lots. The remaining two lots. would have to.be rezoned from.R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 20,000. #34 From Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family to Residential - Very Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Sizes: 12,000 square feet, 1.17 AC, 1.21 AC, 1.83 AC, 1.05 AC, 1.12 AC, 1.25 AC, 42,128 square feet, 411859 square feet, 49,620 square feet, 43,420 square feet, 42,440 square feet, 40,277 square feet, 43,678 square feet, ..40,394 square feet, and 40,603 square feet The.proposed amendment is consistent with the existing development and R-1- 40,000 zoning of these parcels. Further, these sites are outside the Measure A /Specific Plan Area. #35 From Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family to Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -15) -- Parcel Sized: 14,800 square feet, 15,000 square feet, 15,045 square feet, 15,000 square feet, 15,000 square feet, 17,800 square feet, 15,319 square feet, 15,600 square feet, and 41,891 square feet The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing development and R- 1- 15,000 zoning of these parcels. Further, these sites are outside the Measure A /Specific Plan Area. #40 From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family -- Parcel Sizes: 34,045 square feet, 12,579 square feet, 1.0 AC, and 1.05 AC The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing development and R-1-40,000 zoning of these parcels. The Commission may want to con- sider whether R -1- 12,500 zoning would be appropriate for the smallest of these lots. If that were the case the Medium Density designation of that site should remain unchanged. Report to the Plann( 3 Commission C 7/18/83 GPA 83 -2 -A page 5 #41 From Residential-Very Low Density Single Family to Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family and Designate certain lots in the County as Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family .Parcel Sizes : - - -15 , 0 41- Square feet +, - 2.96 AC and 1.92 AC The proposed General Plan amendment was initiated by the owner of the property, Tom Lauer and is related to the tentative subdivision (SDR -1509) recently granted approval by the Commission. Apparently a house is located on the City /County boundary between APN 517 -22 -30 and 517- 23 -21. To avoid demolishing this unit the lot line between these parcels must be adjusted. No new building site beyond.that-- approved by.the Commission under SDR -1509 would be created. To achieve -th- is• -l-ot --fine adjustment the County lot the house is par- tially on must be annexed to the City as per condition VIII. F. of SDR - 1509. The applicant has submitted an application to -LAFCO to annex the County lots (517 -23- 20,21) to the City. Since the County lots are to be designated Residential - Hillside Conservation-Single-Family (pre -zoned HC-RD j by City policy, that portion of the City lot (517- 22 -30) must also be designated Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family to maintain consistency and avoid a split zoning situation. That is the purpose of this General Plan amendment. The next step would be to rezone that portion of the City lot from R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD. The applicant has filed zoning change C -203 for that purpose. That rezoning will also be heard on this agenda. The General - Plan.- amendment - must -be approved prior to approving the - rezoning. Once the steps of annexation, General Plan amendment, and rezoning are completed the applicant can then apply to the City for a lot line adjustment to preserve the existing house. Thus, this proposal is primarily a "clean -up" proposal and not a major modification to the General Plan. #42 From Open Space- Outdoor Recreation (formerly Proposed Park) to Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family -- Parcel Size: .59 AC +. Staff is proposing this General Plan amendment as a correction to the map. The parcel is owned by the same partnership that owns the ad- jacent Hincks Estate to the east. The Hincks Estate was changed from Proposed Park to Slope Conservation in 1981 by the City Council. However, this adjacent parcel was not part of that action. In the interest of maintaining consistency throughout the parcels owned by Saratoga Development Associates which are likely to be combined in conjunction with a possible subdivision proposal, staff recommends the proposed General Plan amendment. This narrow parcel (about 37' wide and over 700 feet in length) would then have to be rezoned from R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD if this amendment is adopted. Report to the Plann(' j Commission 7/18/83 GPA 83 -2 -A Page 6 SUMMARY .This report follows up previous discussions by the Planning Commission on the issue of the mass rezonings for conistency with the General Plan. These proposed amendments in most cases would maintain con- sistency between the General Plan and existing development and zoning of the parcels affected. In other cases the Commission will have to make somewhat harder decisions on what development would be appro- priate for the following sites: #2, #23, #25, #41, and #42. Staff would suggest that the Commission break up the public hearings into two sections by Geographic area: Group #1 - Items: #2'; 1 #5; #9, #10, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #40 Group #2 - Items: #22,.#23, #24, #25, #28, #31, #33, #34, #35, #41, #42 APPROVED 416",f Michael Flores Assistant Planner MF /bjc P. C. Agenda 7/27/83 RESOLUTION NO. GPA 83 -2 -A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR VARIOUS PARCELS OF LAND THROUGH- OUT THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, on its own initiative, determined that certain General Plan Land Use designations should be changed to reflect the existing use of certain parcels or uses more appropriate to the location and surroundings of these parcels; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held public hearings on July 27, 1983 and August 10, 1983 and reviewed the pro- posed amendments to the Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration and the findings (attached as Exhibit "A "�; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the Land Use Element as listed below and as shown on Exhibit "B" based on the ability to make the findings as stated in Exhibit "A ": #5 Location: Northside of Cox Avenue (Challenger Pre - School) Change: From Retail Commercial to Commercial - Professional Administrative APN: 386-14-14 #9 Location: Southwest of Saratoga Avenue and its intersection with S.P.R.R. (State owned properties). Change: From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M-12,5) to Open Space- Managed Resource Production APN: 391-7-13,14,15 #10 Location: Seven Residential Lots on the southside of Souza Lane Change: From Retail Commercial to Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) APN: 391 -21- 14,15,24,25,26,27,28 #13 Location: Three lots on the north side of Allendale Avenue and west of Harleigh Drive Change: From Residential -Low Density Single Family to Residential - Very Low Density Single Family APN: 391 -34- 64,66,79 #14 Location: 18945 Allendale Avenue Change: From Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family APN: 391-37-3 #15 Location: 18883 Allendale Avenue Change: From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Residential -Low Density Single Family APN: 391 -37 -2 #16 Location: 18853 Allendale Avenue Change: From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) to Residential- Vety'Low Density Single Family .- - .:.391- •37 - -1 a�.__ �_.... � .. ..� •� _ - .. - � _ . :.. . #17.__L6catid : Seven lots on the south side of Allendale Avenue west of Loquat Court. Change: From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family APN: 397 -2- 2,3,5,6,82,86,87 #22 Location: Ten Lots on the southwest side of Lomita Avenue across from Aloha and Vickery Avenues. - Change: From Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -15) to Residential -Low Density Single Family APN: 517 -12- 20,21,22,26,27,28,29 (portion), 30,31,32, & 517-18-18 #24 'Location: Nine lots on the southeast side of Oak Street north of the Oak Street Elementary School. Change: From Multi - Family Residential to Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) APN: 517 -10- 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,34,15 (portion) #28 - Location:.- Four-.lots on the -west side of Canyon View Drive just southwest of.its intersection with Fourth Street Change: From Residential -Very Low Density Single Family to Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -10) APN: 503 -28- 9,10,11,12 #31b Location: 20851 Verde Vista Lane Change: From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -15) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family APN: 503 -20 -86 #33 Location: Nineteen lots east of Saraview Drive between Surrey Lane and Sarahills Drive on both sides of Russel Lane and Russel Ct. Change: From Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) to Residential -Low Density Single Family APN: 503 -53- 29,30,31,32,33,3.4,35,36,37 ,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,67 t el #34 _Location: Eleven lots on both sides of Arroyo De Arguello south of Corte De Arguello and north of Comer Drive, and five lots south of Comer Drive and west of Calabazas Creek. .Change: From Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family APN:.. 503 -16- 70,72,73,76,77,84,85 & 507 -17- 50,51,52,53,55,56,57,58,59 #35 Location:- Nine lots on the west side of Arroyo De Arguello north .of Corte De Arguello and south of Wardell Road Change: From Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family to Residential- Medium.Density- Single Family (M -15) APNi V503 -17- 33,34,35..,.36, - 37,38,39,40,54 #40 iLocation° ", Four lots on the east and west sides of Via Alto. Ct. Change: From Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5) to Residential- Very =-Low- Density Single Family APN: 391 -40- 1,2,16,17 #41 Location: 15840 Peach Hill Road Change: From Residential -Very Low Density Single Family to Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family & Designate certain lots currently under County jurisdiction as Residential- Hillside Conservation Single Family APN: 517- 2 -2 -30 (portion)- and 517 -23 -20,21 #42 Location: Narrow strip of land between Hakone Park and the property commonly known as the Hincks Estate Changp: From Proposed Park to Residential- Hillside Conservation Single Family APN: 503 -48 -32 The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 10th day of August, 1983 by the following. vote:. AYES: -Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: - None ' . ABSENT :.None. ABSTAINED: None TEDGed ta ry � ./ y' ,:; �J � ��j � %:•- , /LCD ':�� Chairman, Planning gommission r g1 log oil so am • . • BONN Val1*4.11Sd login MINI loin : u q...; r ��` O Lft,fo.co Q4 .i� VIM VIA 11 k"W!MWI!0"0 ........... 416 'U'r gun; 1-8.11re moon rig low IW!i info Wig logo son .� ��■r -iiir��li�� ..'' . VS, &'Mzl !A--, 9 �d INNIC4 ° A kilo ROR! IWO "MINN "NA, ME I Now A 4.41 --;V-1 1 t 16 IVn� �7 S IVA EIA -4 ! C File No: C -202 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED Kgie,rr (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 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Change the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga so that it is consistent with the City's General Plan as required by State Law. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed project is required by State Law and implements Saratoga's General Plan. Potential significant effects are addressed in the EIR for the General Plan and includes mitigation measures. The General Plan EIR is incorporated herein by reference in terms of the potential significant effects associated with this project. Executed at Saratoga, California this. 21st day of June 19 83 ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVI ONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARA OG1 DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER EIA -4 File No: GPA 83 -2 -t, Saratoga 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 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendments correcting the General Plan map to reflect existing develop- ment and minor modifications on a total of about 75 acres scattered throughout the City of Saratoga. A total of about 16 more dwelling units and perhaps 16,000 sq. ft. of Commercial /Office use could be added to existing development in the City. This is considerably less than what would be allowed under existing General Plan designations. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 15S37777t Fruitvgqalgge55((��A77vnne. iiEgb Ig�ORCNEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project will not lave a significant effect on the environ- ment since most of the proposed General Plan amendments will reflect existing development and will not allow any significant amount of new development on those properties not completely developed. All new development will be mitigated by application of General Plan policies (hereby incorporated by reference) and existing City codes and ordinances. Executed at Saratoga, California this 15th day of Jul , 19 83 ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SA TOGA � j DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT DATE: 7/20/33 Commission Meeting: 7/27/83 GPA 83 -1 -C, 14498 Oak Place, City of Sartoga ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- At its meeting of June 29, 1983 the Planning Commission considered both rezoning the subject property from C -C to R -1- 10,000 and changing its General Plan designation from Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Retail Commercial. After considerable discussion during the public hearing dealing with potential traffic, parking and access impacts from intensifying commercial use on the site the hearing was continued. Restaurants in particular were discussed as intensive uses and the need to make restaurants as conditional uses. Considering these potential impacts and the difficulty of controlling these impacts, the Commission decided that the site would perhaps be better designated as Commercial - Professional Administrative to only allow office uses on the site. This was seen as a compromise solution and noted that the P -A ordinance would have to be amended to allow catering to continue. The site would also have to be rezoned P -A as well. SITE PARKING Some of the residents of the area have expressed concern about what parking is provided on site and how much additional parking could be provided on site. A rough tentative parking plan submitted by the applicant indicates there are five existing parking spaces on site although they are not marked on the site itself. The three 60 degree parking spaces shown in front of the building are 9' wide where a 10' width is re- quired by ordinance. (This width could be reduced to 92' if double striping is used). The two parallel parking spaces shown are 22' in length where 23' is required. These modifications are relatively minor and indicate that 5 spaces could exist on the site. Report to the Planni q Commission GPA 83 -1 -C 7/20/83 CPage 2 This same tentative plan indicates that five more parking spaces could be provided on site. However, four of those spaces would each have to be widened about l' to meet the 10' X 20' ordinance standards. This would require reductions_in landscaping and /or sidewalk areas. The applicant has also indicated that some parking spaces could be located in the rear portion of the property. To accomplish this one of the parking spaces mentioned above and ''a proposed trash 'enclosure would have 'to be 'deleted to provide ingress or egress for this rear parking area. A minimum 5' landscaping strip would have to be provided along the eastern property line of the site. Also the existing fences and one tree in the rear would have to be removed. With these changes a strip 38' wide would be provided for parking and access. This would allow one way circulatiion around the site and perhaps 3 -4 parking spaces at a 45 degree angle. Thus total of 12 -13 parking spaces could be provided on site. However, this access may encroach into the right -of -way along Highway 9 in which case the State would have to grant approval of the encroachment. It is also possible that the existing 30" pine tree in the rear may be jeopardized by the paving required to provide access. It should be noted that these figures are approximate since a complete site.plan is not available for review which accurately shows_,the. dimensions...o.f the.. property and-the-location of existing features relative to the -site's. property.lines.'. Building site approval would "have to be _granted for any new parking area covering 1000 square feet or more. At that time an accurate site plan would be required. Michael Flor s Assistant Planner MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 7/27/83 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISS -ION _ er:,.,.. -... ..,... �. _ _ .., DATE: 6/23/83 Commission Meeting: 6/29/83 SUBJECT* GPA 83 -1 -C, 14498 Oak Place, City of Saratoga ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Amend the subject property's General Plan designation changing it from Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Retail Commercial. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared _. for:,this`project: - "- -- - PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News. ZONING: C -C (Community Commercial) SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential (R -1- 10,000) to the east -, Our Lady of Fatima Villa (Hospital) to the south; Historic museum and commercial uses ( -C -C) to the west; and Saratoga Federated Church to the south SITE SIZE: 11,300 Square Feet± SITE SLOPE: Gentle (Less than 5 %) BUILDING SIZE: 1,300 Square Feet± STAFF ANALYSIS: At its meeting of June 1, 1983, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider amending the General Plan designation of the subject property to allow an existing commer- cial use (The Napkin Ring) to continue operating on the site. This was a condition attached to the reinstatement of the use's business license. The City Council also requested that the Commission move forward on a zoning ordinance amendment to make restaurants conditional uses in commercial zoning districts. This parcel is Rezoning #25 on the list of rezonings required to bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the General Plan. As suggested in the Staff Report on the rezonings, the Commission may want to combine the public hearing for Rezoning #25 with this proposed General Report to the Planning Commission 6/23/83 GPA 83 -1 -C, 14498 Oak Place Page 2 Plan amendment to discuss the relative merits of both. The site was formerly used as a real estate office and, according to-, the present owner, has housed other commercial uses in the past. In researching the City's archives it appears that the site has been zoned for commercial use since 1960. The 1968 General.Plan designated this site for commercial use but..this. designation was changed in 1974. Currently only the catering use operates on the site but it is staff's understanding that the owner plans to have other commercial uses on the site including a market and perhaps a restaurant. A major con- cern of staff and area residents is that traffic generated by high intensity commercial use (e.g. restaurant) may have adverse traffic safety and parking impacts. This site, due to its size and its lo- cation adjacent to single family residential use, may not be appro- priate for such use. However, the C -C zoning district allows some higher intensity uses as permitted uses which does not give the City much control over these uses. This is the reason the City Council requested the Planning Commission to review the possibility of making restaurants conditional uses in commercial districts. If the City had greater control over these higher-- intensity uses, commercial development of this site and.other similarly located sites could be allowed while protecting nearby residential uses. OPTIONS #1. Amend the General Plan designation of the site to Retail Commercial to allow the continuance of commercial uses on the site. However, this amendment should be delayed until the commercial zoning districts are amended to permit high intensity commercial uses only as conditional uses. This will give the City needed control over these uses to pro- tect adjacent residential uses. #2.- ---Rezone the property R- 1- 10,000. consistent with its current General Plan designation of Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10). This rezoning would require the removal of any commercial use on the site unless the property owner applies for, and is granted, a conditional use permit to allow a non - conforming commercial use to continue operation in a residential zoning district. This application would have to be made within 30 days of the effective date of the rezoning per Section 15.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the use permit approval, the Commission or Council may establish a time limit for the continued operation of commercial uses on the site and specify other conditions that would be appropriate for the control of such uses. It should be noted that according to Section 16.1 -1 of the ordinance, conditional use permits may be denied by the Commission if it finds that reasonable regulations would not prevent adverse impacts on adjacent uses or properties. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The site has historically been used for commercial purposes and has been zoned for such uses for over twenty years. It was also designated for commercial use in the 1968 General Plan. However, it should be Report to the Planning Commission 6/23/83 GPA 83 -1 -C, 14498 Oak Place Page 3 noted that the previous use of the'site was a real estate office which is only a moderately intensive commercial use which did not have a significant adverse effect on the adjacent residential properties. Considering these factors, staff would recommend that the General Plan designation for this site be changed to Retail Commerical but that this amendment be delayed until the Zoning Ordinance has been amended to give the City greater control of higher intensity commercial uses through. the-use permit process. Further, since the General Plan can only-be-amended three times a year, it is recommended that this amend- ment be consolidated with the other General Plan amendments the Commission will propose to the City..Council due.to the current review of Zoning Map and-General Plan Map'"--inconsistencies. The City Council can consider these amendments -during-their review of the revised Housing Element thus conserving an allowed General Plan amendment. Michael Flores Assistant Planner MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 6/29/83 0 9 W*4 RESOLUTION NO. GPA 83 -2 -B RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR AN 11,300 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE NAPKIN RING (APN 397 -22 -2) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga.dir.ected the Planning Commission to consider amending the General Plan land use designation of the subject property from Residential-:-Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Commercial; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at regular meetings in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held public hearings on July 27, 1983 and August 10, 1983 and reviewed various alternatives regarding amending the land use designation of the subject parcel; and WHEREAS; the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That-the Planning - Commission recommends that the City:Council amend the Land Use Element from Residential- Medium Density Single Family (14-10) to Commercial- Professional Administrative for a 11,300 square foot parcel, commonly known as The Napking Ring, and,as shown on Exhibit "B" of.GPA 83 -2 -A. The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 10th day of August, 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners.Bolger, Crowther and Hlava ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Chairman, Planning ComKiiss on r ATT T: 7) QJ4/1 Sec e ary c � 18531 Vessing Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 July 22, 1983 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners, ;r'-)CA1NT K. JUC 2 7983 �,0,1�M pNITY pEV ELppME Nr As the owner of property at 13402 Sousa Lane (APN- 391- 21 -25), I oppose the amendment to the general plan changing our property from Retail Commercial to R -1- 10,000. If or when the proposed freeway goes through this would be an excellent site for a small shopping center and a zoning change would depreciate the property value considerably. Yours truly Lee.L. Lesh July 25, 1983 Planning. Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners, RECEIVED JUL 27 1983 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that you intend to recommend to the city council an amendment to the general plan which will change the adjoining property to mine from Retail Commercial to M -10. I would like to go on record as strongly opposing this recommendation to the council. We are in the process now of acquiring (in trust) the corner lot at Sousa Lane and Quito. We hope there- fore that we represent another homeowner vote. . We eagerly await your reply and are truly concerned about your recpmmendations. Sincerely you manuei r..00A 13535 Quito R Saratoga, CA 95070 6? PA 63 -2 -A RECEIVED JUL 221983 COMNUNIT_t UkV_ELO.PMENT D7G lie �, �Cri�z s) -/- Hocoo _�i,te Betig L. Rowe Maw 20360 Saratoga Lo& Gatw Road. c5arca=, CaWopaia 95070 (qrA REC,Fqwfp,o AUG 2 31983 Oj tj L a-Z�L (`C`" -4 u -7z j 6 5 L* �� PQ Box 725 =CA. 950n David Moyles City of Saratoga 13777 F uitvaie Ave: Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear David: Re: Item 23 APN503 -25 -29 G°3 C� LO, AUG 3 11983 _ II_ DOns3-d --f --Eagl e s ton President Saratoga Village Assoc. 867 -0358 Saratoga Village Association has been taking an active roll in maintaining the commercial status of the village from Fifth 9t. to the Fitzsimmons property . As you may well know, this area is the only remaining usable commercial land in the village. This area is also occupied by several historical buildings. At this time, the Fitzsimmons property has been selected to be zoned multiple family. Zoning this property in this fashion will prevent any development at all, as the owner of the property has no intentions of ever developing multiple family dwellings. Dr Fitzsimmons is however willing and anxious to restore her historical buildings and develop a series of small shop with a garden atmosphere. Enclosed are two letters pertaining to the Fitzsimmons property. Dr Fitzsimmons and myself invite the City Council to attend a short study session on the property location prior to the Public Hearing on Sept. 7. I would appreciate prompt action on this issue as I will be out of town from Sept 8 to Sept. 16. Feel free to contact myself or Dr. Ann Fitzsimmons(867 -4231) Iassure you that the Saratoga Village Association and I assure you that the Saratoga Village Association, Dr Fitzsimmons, and the village residents are all concern with Saving the Village. sincerely, Dona1F. g ston C PQ Box 725 &rdb4a,CA.95071 Discussion of the Fitzsimmons property at the end of Big Basin Way. Dear Planning Commission: RECEIVED R� JUL 2 91983 7 ,129�'MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I find it difficult for myself not to take the blame for the Planning Commissions split decision at the July 27 meeting. It is now apparent to me that the entire spectrum of pros and cons should have been presented. Regardless of outcome I must respect the Planning Commissions diversified voting on this issue. I believe your jobs are perhaps the most difficult in the city. As we will both be reviewing the village plan throughout the year, I find it crucial to clarify the conditions at the end of-Big Basin Way. It seems that much of the General Plan in the village area has been derived from The Williams and Mocine report of 1973 and 1974. The Village Association has recognized that much of this report is no longer valid for the village area. The limiting of the village development to fifth street was suggested to provide a healthy and saturated shopping area. At the time only 60% of the village was being used. It is now 1983 and over 95% of the village area up to fifth street is now saturated. Beyond fifth street has also been developed by businesses. The businesses beyond fifth street are The Fat Robin, Saratoga Motel, Saratoga Carpet, Saratoga Design Center, The Tutoring Company, Adriatic Restaurant, Pat Richards Insurance, The White Company, Martin Meeker and Co., Westfall Engineering, Benjamins, Creative Furnishings, another Fat Robin, Saratoga Village Photography, Warren Heid, George Magnettps Welcome Services( previously George Day Construction), and the health food store which is no longer operating. As you can see, the village has`gro" considerably since the Williams and Mocine.report of 1974. It is crucial that a door is left open for the few remaining lots beyond fifth street to have the opportunity to develop on a limited commercial basis. Becau..e of small lot size and parking limitations -you are riot -- =going �to see a major restaurant attempting 'to develop lots such as the Fitzsimmons property. It is important that the future of the village is not based on an outdated report. The Williams and Mocine does have some very good suggestions... stopping the village at -fifth street is not one of them. Another reason brought up at the July 27 meeting was the fact that the Fitzsimmons property was on a dangerous curve. This is the same corner that Cal Trans has suggested a `speed``limit iricreadea- -. -This -is also the "same corner -that Williams and Mocine suggest be used as a safe and practical turn around for shoppers to return to the village. This turn around area viewed from the Fitzsimmons property is infact the safest area for a turn around any- where on Big Basin Way. Saratoga Village Photography, the George Magnett property, Warren Heid, and the sixth street condominiums are the areas confronted with a blind and dangerous turnaround. Commercial access to and from the lower parking area on the Fitzsimmons property is infact very convenient, practical, and safe. The access to the Fitzsimmons property is so large and visibility is so great that this is the only place on Big Basin Way that a double tractor trailer can turn around. Saratoga Village Association does not see the danger of access to and from the Fitzsimmons lot. The lower portion of the Fitzsimmons property is in a flood controll area. Although building on the lower portion is not at this time allowed, there is still the possibility of allowing that area to be used as parking. Stairs would need to be constructed to reach shops on the upper level. If condominiums were put on the property the parking would also have to be down the 60 foot cliff. - The upper section of the Fitzsimmons property is very small. A small cluster of shops or even one medium size shop would be practical. A developer would be lucky if they could squeeze in three condominiums with detached parking 60 feet below. Although this matter is now in the hands of the City Council Saratoga Village Association feels it is still crucial to keep the Planning Commission informed... especially on issues that could not be solved. The outcome.of the July 27 voting does show us one thing... The Planning Qommission has set a precedent that there is a strong reasonable doubt in zoning the Fitzsimmons property for multiple family dwellings. Thank you once again for the long days and hard work you all put in to help keep Saratoga a successful community. Sincerely, eo lqmald ' / Donald F. Eageston President, Saratoga Village Association C July 19, 1983 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 PO Box 725 Saraiofia,CA. 95071 Dear Planning Commission Members, RECEIVED JUL 251983 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Saratoga Village Association has recently become aware of the City of Saratogas desire to adhere to the general plan. We have particular concern regarding the Fitzsimmons property at the end of Big Basin Way. At the time the general plan was developed, there was a strong lobby by a developer to zone her property multiple family dwelling. That developer after considering the location, the terrain, and the overbearing cost to develop the hillside did finally abandon the project. Saratoga Village since that time has also progressed in a new direction. The development and beautification of the village area has brought a growing pride for the people of Saratoga and the merchants. As you well know, the village area and its surrounding areas have two functions; one being to provide services for the community, and the other to provide a buffer zone of multiple family dwellings between the village shops and the more expensive homes. As we see it, that buffer zone now exists on the North, South , and West sides of the Fitzsimmons property. The East side is bordered by the village shopping area. The traffic flow, the potential sign frontage, and the foot traffic, all suggest the remainder of Big Basin Way to be much more conducive for the growth of the village than the development of more condominiums. Saratoga Village Association urges the City of Saratoga not to adhere to the general plan"And to keep the Fitzsimmons property zoned Visitor Commercial. We are aware that keeping the zoning Visitor Commercial does not prevent a property owner from developing multiple family dwellings. Keeping a door open for development of shops and businesses along Big Basin Way up to and including the Fitzsimmons property is strongly encouraged. Saratoga Village Association in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce has developed a long term beautification project for the village area. As this is one of the Planning Commissions projects over the next year, we feel it will become crucial for all of us to use all our resources to make the village project successful. Sincerely, Donald F. Eag ston President Saratoga Village Association I Donald L. Lucas 19370 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Saratoga, California 95070 August 18, 1983 Mr. David Mayles C/O SARATOGA CITY OFFICES 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Mayles: C tI�S L-2cL Qv a AUG 19 1903 I'm writing to you, on behalf of Don and myself, regarding the old Gatewood building, or The Napkin Ring building on Saratoga - Los Gatos Road. We first want to comment on the vast aesthetic improvement Mrs. de Benedetti has brought to a dark, overgrown, and slightly rundown area of Saratoga. The renovation of the building and land- scaping have greatly enhanced the entrance and /or exit to the village. It certainly seems nice to see businesses other than banks and savings and loans come into the area - nothing against them - it's just that Saratoga has an abundance of them. We admire and applaude anyone who is willing to spend a great deal of time, blood, sweat and tears to improve any property in the community. Mrs. de Benedetti has done all of the above plus spent an enormous amount of money because she thought the City was acting in good faith. We've since read the accounts of this "saga" in the Saratoga News and according to their reports, after all she's done, in accordance with the use and building permits that were granted her by the City, the City is considering changing the zoning of commercial to a different use. The area has been used commercially for at least the 22 years we've lived here, and was sold as such. It would seem not only incongruous, but highly unethical for the City to change it's mind at this point. Changes of views and hearts take place with changes in personnel, but agreements made between purchasers of land and buildings and city planners and councils must be kept. This has to do with the basic integrity and credibility of our lovely City of Saratoga. Mrs. de Benedetti purchased the entire building for a purpose, and that purpose was assured her by the City. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, �u� Matteoni & Saxe / Lawyers 1625 The Alameda • Suite 400 San Jose, California 95126 4081286 -4800 Mr. Michael Flores Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVE JUL 2 91983 .COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 28, 1983 Re: GPA 83 -1 -C (Napkin Ring) 14498 Oak Place, Saratoga Dear Mr. Flores: Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Lynn C. Belanger I am writing you in regard to the forthcoming hearing on General Plan conformance for the above mentioned property before the City Council. Specifically, I request, on behalf of the owner of the property, that this matter be noticed before the Saratoga City Council in the alternative to provide for a hearing on a General Plan Amendment from residential to commercial or professional administrative. The reason for this request is to present to the Council all options that have been discussed. Further, you will recall that the Council initiated this Amendment and originally sent it to the Planning Commission as a request to consider a commercial General Plan designation. It was the Planning Commission who converted this to a professional administrative designation. Moreover, the Planning Commission had to schedule a second public hearing, because the option selected was not within the original" notice. Very u yours, NORMAN E. N TTEONI NEM:sd cc: City Council Members City Manager City Attorney Ms. Sylvia de Benedette Letters supporting commercial zoning on the General Plan as the most appropriate land use for the eastern corner of Oak Place and Saratoga - Los Gatos Road (Item #25 - Napkin Ring) William H. Bowen 14672 Wild Berry Lane Robert Swanson 19616 Farwell Norman R. Anderson 14650 Fieldstone Dr. Mary D. Anderson if it Michael Vick 14137 Squirrel Hollow Lane Emil Kissel 21154 Sullivan Way Mr. Hazelwood 14664 Springer Ave. Beth Hardy 14607 Aloha Ave. C. Hardy 14607 it ? 15554 On Orbit Dr. Barbara Behel 15320 Peach Hill Phyllis Oliver 13846 Saratoga Ave. Ruth Fox ? Jean Kuher 14200 Lutheria Way Barbara Corbett 12532 Blue Meadow Ct. Thad Corbett It it Fayanna Letzoldt 19980 Bella Vista Mr. Mitchell 20605 3rd St. Marcia Summers 14800 Andrew Ct. Marcia Bradford 250 Los Gatos Blvd. #C -1 Mr. Smith 13754 Howen Dr. Mrs. Arthur Anderson 15201 Sobey Rd. Mrs. George Pierce 14584 Horseshoe Dr. George Pierce It it Mrs. Darrell Duke 15329 Peach Hill Rd. Joan Vogel 15055 Oriole Rd. Joan ? 14127 Squirrel Hollow Mary Florsheim 14638 Placida Ct. Mrs. Samuel Stotze 18071 Maud Ave. Mary McCready 13840 Saratoga Ave. Judy Bartee 14484 Black Walnut Ct. Mr. Bowen 14672 Wild Berry Lane Dorothy Erskine 19581 Juna Lane '.4 A 4.) ';I 1 J '' I f rr i f G l .rl , d f I. , y f r i , A t� , f J �Mt ' 1 1 d: i s r7l ;�t �a , J �, `f ;f i ', -yt , - -, f+r tl r 1 `` ,J v t 1 f ., !' �:'1 Ii J n. _ ,; Ji' ly A,I J .y .l* r.'JJf JA' A , f 11 r d 1 f "V ., { 4(1 t ,1 < k ,• t o L. 11 . 11 1. <r -J9 j 1 ,J� Louise Schaefer +•, +, n ,��,�� w � 3V 1.• I; : ,� .{.4'. EF,, C.t 1 v it it "}x t„tir Jr 6 �.! t a i I t S< + —'41K' i :.1:' V '� F 1i r�;1,Gj«lt� rJ kl t +r'4ir'" t •< r,. .t 4 7' ! Chairman Planning Commission r E { t �3e� f 4• % .n, x 1.,. i? H 5 s 1, 1 ?t J� w "F �, ! L�1, J a t} .J , r ,r §_ '' 1 r:4, i I r4np J P'I qty {r -J i t: ,y { ?:jt!frr>'l 'r'll .,'3 -t s f, i 4 - l +,,1;, 1,;N -:(, tt r r , {.f ;i1 imt, }': 1 v 7•,(,1 trt ru' 7 .itl ; 19874 Park Drive a , ��% 11 (,"j, �, �, ,.•. r�l J , 1.' i h t J, r : t: ti'; l y t ! f{ •d .t S't JM tKA, h r t r n ) b {,i -_,_�' Pert J t J r!} ..: 1{ '.•.t f At tcJw , t x ?:>rJr . rf f i ,11i1, :f,J ;r ' � � L ,, ` �- }�� ',;. .. 1. yT ; l f x t: r, "!5 . Saratoga, Ca 95070 f t=rta�� ti, ti fY1 ����, , , ,fr ;, �T _, ?_ 11 . �__ kc�,� . ,. ', 1 17 , f \ J 1 •i i Y 17 y ! 1 _ 1 I ' 1, \ fj l .�J 1 _ ' �• r I . ti I S 'r , r t: r, i t- .1 4 o f tii -J r t ,. C 9 r p, r t f p 4 V n A 1 f T r 4 �eT x y r , J° 1, rtt . iI 4 • i rZ- 1 S r �JJ' t t.l JE J� if ,t J t ti!:! r, r , 1l�k '4 _ {1 "� a, r , t � (' 2f'vta }1, 7 o, , . 1 I �'t� i yr, `i Ir v _.its I rl - , , ! A 'd c r- c a 1 7��. �. i Air n'. r:U7 E 1 , J ,`1 Ic,Y d' I- .1 J I } rq { f E lFIr 1H� r A , 1 ,. ,!� ; f iJ , ., „l },t{ _ i jl�•r ,.1 1 /4%'I kn r, , ti(rr. , t+,• �•�' t �14r M1)I1 ,t +,y �' '� � f: f)rS .Vrr r � J r� J�' }. ,#Jj.',, }�J }t..;i�j rl ,-. ,`4" Jry p ,t L !.1 ,,, .;;. r .. .,. ,. ,;1 J ..•.,+. ,i �:':'• t: `. t J, ; if N. '.11... - l,;r .", #i -�jf"1 i�ixd {`y,,, , �I support commercial zoning`on the General .Plan as the most ���5; lt. ,�` appropriate `land use for the Eastern corner of Oak Place � and ;' '� h J , V, . •.. . Saratoga -Los Road,'item '25 to be considered by the Planning Commission �Jl, on June twenty ninth t'' e" , r ,i� °, t s , j� r s s A j� 1. ` Li ,1 1 , r . + oukr , �1 r} rti 41' t� 1 t. ,,�4+srr t+� >1.1 1r Y� J '� ; t` J ` fi 1 hr. i , ' n E r} . 1 r, I �j • ,, y a: ri ,ri. r r+ 2 �'dGi��Y r ,i'7,,11ee, --,, 'r. 1. / r� . !. { . ,:, ! ' J r } J. ; 1 ' , f 1 ( - i t t7, � Y5 � . Jrj11 fr Yt } k.+ � t y .� r^ `t. , t ?.r. I J h y ,, ''i ! - ��'�� 'i a r -7 ' j >: . 'ts 1 , i'. r' vi iF w, � }7t §F �Fi, ",, � L'I i t zrl j x - tl } c 4, r A t r [t ! (f a! tr 'I , FJ:,1 {t ''rl riit. 1 t<.., l ( -`:` 1 ^ 1 k I f 3�l ri,r a "f *'!,,- F i' of , 1 s v r c ti, y J p, r c In e e flt , t ;% l- f, 3 t D,, t Ir J J 1 trir 't ,1,' r. C Y, T 1 � i r. fy ig# ^Crt,,, S '+u d' a v ry {i wr �r .J �� a' a �. _t y ` ) �.5 r, ,,cr 11 I1. —,At y,1 +z r 4,. ">'.x �fyc�.13'C, v i• I ° f t�cvtid� 1 t I.. t r r hi \. .4�G. J x d`': aS (: e'Y*¢ ?ca. 7 .v .1,. ,i1 / f r _ r:.Uy rf{. t •` _ J r J Ctf k `,, 2 l .1 „.! y r, t `, 4) < - fir Jh,. ., `.�I'"'.J'�\' 1, ,. �'7. y'y:f.` A,, r 1. r �r 1vt '� ,. + r ,: r S ,.I, �.t_ f 'tI !Q _ 2.,' . —L `J� / Q :i f.F't t: `t rzt 5 aJ. ti��l 32 T Ira'yt t e� 7L ,7 1 f -e + i. r 1 °.'r 4vi , k �j-l�- A:J J.!♦. y. , 1 e,,WNk< tt t 1%J�ra �c1,iy, ;,5 I Residence or Business address t n 11 t,, �k� t<n�`I' Yr r �T 1 u:: u C t J 1 i r.i J, .y, A r D •J M f : 11 rK o Y .y. y>.`1,' ?A t�f t•`•I it ✓.' 1 • .�- F ' r f >. C qq. 1 r y v t C 1,•S�i.'Y a.. ` } , �!T Ir fI �� 1 rt 'i..` }v , t r{�, i (v, cl"R'�R` .- `.}1`. + 1 - +a1`tl•'_�., r "�`J 4 }{ L KN"�� r°al A �1 V V A I `-Q �..�..E y i'� i� _i r ,, l _- _�_'�l i 'S ra t... \.r r-W ' f ,r37 r� ;gip:' 2- f r ? L r- ) I� J 2 4' h t Y^ ` I. r r� ;n t� X�14�' r `tJ wl r } .a� �)'. " : , F' ,\, fCt�w.�. :¢ d k lx '� \ _ r �J t v \ "tVL�r,I I..b rlrl ” ! fr o- Jh' F {An t l , � -..{ `�" .r I T1r Y-(.� 5 "' J !', J L 1/ t � 1 5 I` i i a Y4 1 { C 1 /.v t it- I.f ?aft er, ,� , j 1 t �;. IL .. r n ,t.r 't�cv if 11 '� 'w� lM' _ _ _ _��rt- �yf'�...�`iv`�,n `�J �"Qt'`i }'.t�C.'v�J r t �1 L \ 4- 1 lA ,, `1r�,�/a� \� �.l''P t �y f'�. \I. 1 J$5 - r. ` 1 i . • ��'! n - 5 P CAW `. ' cS G. , -Cj•� F ..C°i� /r ��� . z { ��3 ���f A ntit u7'r _ ri / ,{t 1. �r �\ ^ t l' + 'S +fl ' r eJ� I. �, , rcfcSi "� i' y.� rF t 1.r r .1 1 �L �n \ _ �y \ t` `` `' C! \�$S .-CR1 T. �� t A t J`.tiG� t'�.Y� �-�CT �-W'�. vL J' . •. -.. : -, i r` -.'J f { r r 't t..i r fi k�'x I t r 3kTiyl ,ti 'fit t ', ;' r . 1 " ;t t J� ._ r v • ' �7 � 1- �wG!� \S y 217. C.� k , '� ` j .: ( \�i� i ! �' �� lye {� �s ± },1 In. ' " v . -.�C.CL1.12_ , e-., �C.L.,... \ _, yt,. �� .,t�� -U 2 — , �tt:I�Q�fi/ , 11. . •r. - \J���.. , T .r14 '••J +R v C r "-t4y "� - itrw JP�!,; , 72i, " .$� F, -L'3 <" { 2 ) 5 y c t g 7E t^ . fu} '. "A.I \� „� \ • I 1 '? ,w Orr r G4 !1 x�r ) 1 't . r ac o� T. _e ' "'C .. '0W$ 1. S C�9 ��f 3�' (c�Cc �. .rz X11 v - �rrwA� S . .. , I . . . �% 11, , , � - ,.?, . " - '-.,�,.. * - 1.�'�`,- '. . . � 11,1;..'�V.( � . . ': �1. . ., : � I . : , � ,,'�,, � . ., , , , . . , , .::. .; I � , 4 , " . , , " : 1Q1. � . I - . I ", I . I 1). O!, �, I � I , _� , , - .. r 51 ( r tw "% i.J: t "i d '�t ��� {,,xr 1 .r 1 _•vc 1. 1, + ' t 7F;i t dFVy f 1 , t t % ]S r .r r _ ff tl r,�l 'f 1•f j`..5 r s Fy ­4' r! j av %,', ti 'n �i, rf �' 5 5 5 t y� /'l ,t r , ' S �' .: �� I { 4 f 1. I ",1!j, l �� n +yi y l�� %�: v " " >r�M f f� !,f'. t I $" 3 r. tY ;, J. t 't w. I. A 1 r t6 q� y *. }� ,�J,K ,rr't�r v r�kK ,rn A I. Louise Schaefer. �r�,/-�s, t. ,,} ��ri r'�-, �,y ;% - It r.A t - .' I. I r V` :Yt�rt��Rry'4 -F.r F{ .' J f `i x�> rt a 'is1F� r1 .Y HI 4 f`aY�... 11 ...... \ �':t a� s . %h, l { °o-.y?, 4'�k" 1J i r d 1 ,r 1 F %y SY r»r,/+ ;yyS �,, Chairman Planning Comm1SS10n �'r .w / � 7) y f'f + , " [ ,�r�t r :i.' % : t., , . , '' : f y ' i kh %,. e t r sir t at t f:. "t, r^V ` 4 f 11. 1q 1'Yx ". yr '' �`t n.. ,.„ - hk r ��. rr + „ Z t ,J3vy {vt.>x4'�..r�i "u tr ,:,.�f w/{ y1k rH.�l4,� yi `�S, .1 14 198.74 Park Drivel Fi 4 !% -f �l �jY{ ti v L�ri ,A riv `Y d Y Y 11, � . ! r, 'O." . r' r. `: p 'S l , r 5 t .; ts1t r +f'� 1 '>, � 1 ti ,f` { {7 Tr+krl l "G t r r - 1 1 i , tt t� N1� +r: ;'Y i � 4 -r - + .1 d y i! 3 t ,I,'j, +" xA'�i ^t �,.' �, J ., q d o �)�'t%yk'^�.x "C' rJt F. i. .rl t�, Saratoga, Ca ����� ` r`- �i �!'�. tYt k lx'1'rr - ', JiYrt �It 4S� ,,,` 1 f t i u �, t �1 a .Y •a 1 1, ',�" {rf .'r)'�f iMli k{3s",' <! T r., k! .r]-tfJh ,Y1", tl ,)I., �i h ii,4 i rr :e +,i1%' ?.,,. 1itl '3 .lu r t �t S r t� l ��t {t��I -'41 , ' + �,"y�M ] {� , r �j(11 y .eft ! r ; 1'x J,' 1•. r J v. t� M •y i. }Y, L, ., f. t t t r r .� i r .. i r r) k l' A St s I t i C, ' i p ,r yf,� k� J�r�� ? f ,l i i e�., v 1. -1 4 y l y r r •P ! } /c. : l 1t 'hr i rrJ \r µ / I _. +S r i r ?+ \. Y,•t,� ,rr.,r, ry�{JY r l 'i~t f .f r �{ r l -��5 Fr�S ' t�t'"f r{ ;F r q. r__ �', /tia�J vr1_ ly, 1'%,t- krl 41, P4,yyj �:V +�� 1' �JF� V f f S $ %�I'„ ! ` ! i - y it r " '1��j lr.r R'�%S:r' .{ f Y: rt r FFrr /tF1 44 1 ,r6 S , .,,1 li.. {. ,�:Vy, r 1RL y7ii�� aySCh, .ln K y'IJ 3rf. l�'f�J�.�,y, } i``rr�!' t �k i.�rJ+} �,I. 1- t�y"�"r+ + ," h d ii t + f ,w 6 6 ai la r r . �f +i %r, r •F+. r r t', Ar { t .(�� ., t;>. r.' s;� i >'. < !�?I 2,. ., r }- ,.,:. r ' �yF /+ flrJ "'r F� ri.1 ftr 94't�g r I. support commrercial zoning on the General Plan as the most t; r' i �.' �- ,,•y ,..�, Ft. r.M1�.f _ 1. '., .. . yr ..,5 °r .�; ..'a{::.. ,;'t r j', 4 _ t.3 Tike F. ' ,appropriate *.land use for the Eastern corner of Oak .". Place and �� P "' +? 'i��yy ✓i,� Saratoga -Los Road,vitem #25 to be considered by the Planning Commissio x ° - r' }11 .. r i ,i \ �,;xtivn r 4•.1•. �1 t on June twenty ninth i" / J�k,l�- J`d" I. t ^rY f .Ae r ,>u fi rf + \�`J�+rV §'v. J l "lag" /yCt't i .. ( - t t + % /rlr z1..7J : fir- r i y r+� st�y 1 ' fiSt'`i ti r .f 7.1 a. y i .i r fir;. y . .; ♦y rn r.\ fy ,{�+Y .�t yRr , 1 b J L`si y ? r v r i + c ,. .�Vy \ , Y 447 .? 'r7 cr .(� R {_! J , 4 ii Dt �i t J up 9i 1 }� "! C '{ c f5. ' f + +1ti a I r t r j 4 yY Jtr r ,, i {, t f r� 'Ili }.i;A % r F' S' 4'- t' t }" n z n fJ i "y t ,r t/r�{^ri fit t t rr: ri l3 " 11 ,'Y +� i ..1 '" :., > fx r( - , ; y v'I tt , , }f. ( µ y .ft�t i1 H S 1 ­V-, Sin erely 1 "Y ,• t r lA" ( 7ri {� '„ ?�(,R , ri " -��y fJ j t i. a. t'! /ir. ;�tl K -- t' fY:'., 1 �. 1 5 �i "'j,"4:4 . 5. JS /.:qt' y. _r fp .� 1� 1 r�-r r' -tit S � t � i v t „r Zr+,r r t' A t/...1'l t j , - ! 1 i } " 'i� .�", r .. t� t r�' rt. 4+ . r ,, ,r , t r F p Fr r ,.J h'' ;.. , �, ` r i l y 1 / ) y�1"f f '"" J-, i•y ,5 >• ) 1 J - f{. t� t r 6 t . a'� c *� " T, ,, , r { j . -+! >? a <?� r i 1 �� /, ZI 4 i�,' r ° Fr n 1Yt µ { 3 yy a 1. 11, .,•i r - r 15 f 1 y� 1 wa r.: .,r r.. c., !}ry p ffJ'tl t� �1 �j y.. ,. ,R f� rr }Tf ! + `I�f f; R ,�e ,r , illIY4 •/7 �X 1° +' Ir"'.); ::,-•f .rC\ s �� .:. + . , r f ;il r , ', _ .T 4�� ; Residence or Business adidress ,{ `� a � -' `{ -ft i y Jth� r ! �,4 r+ rJ}},'jlJ +' "t t,..t rt >r 4[ +.. '1}" i. Jr,, r ? 1 r S, ,J :i.'+ 'k y �.t, 5 w� v! '» v h `ts i ` r rl,' � f i ,,, ti ii': 1.11 r r• a�l SSr '. r 7, r% Y r�.:. i !,� i. C K F r F -I k1H� 7 t• f + + - " ' ffJ v!•- ,. . ',G.i. 3 t a I r� J r r i 7 . t rro .p �Y �� 1/1) y� ", I���� � A J %rte 1a�a+�'I � �� )' I K A 4 4 \ 1J. �+f i .+ , C d 1. f — , *` r i 5 of /�,e., r„ r ., ,,111 W.,j1 {Ct to sf �, r .f1 y r. ti�;Ll i .f , }r 1�' riL r ,�. % ��l/ ��C�� /��c✓ �j : �� wi sC] 7th s i, r 1 " '.rJ _ rR� L� ,y Fti! f , ,',At '.i t �1 1{ y.. }� 1}i�fh 1 {a ,. A$yy � 11 i� r f I (. :� '., .rte L M1 `.!v ) #Ifl -7 ] 41 ? P.9',7� ' ) �J' IJ� tR �iYs 7 f 3: 'rAF4 r .,�. y , r'i I ,li ` t 'off {d,�1 c` .� y 1 r - / ! �r f rr p,y s�, � .t t 7 1, 1 11 ~ r f Ay -.4",;,i.-: [.N� u•r�^�"' •f1 I"r tr r v c t �i# �•,,, a+" r "f L,�' .1 .. F*,e `- 1? 6 iJ, , r 1} F N' iZ "� }'t � l ; J/ br t t ", t 9 ,a "' { I V�Ji {+' rrE s"'r 'x ''�('i e ��y41 rrPti- 1.- ` f .;' J GGY "��r- i rf. " r ,�. �. i 1 t 1 yN V , % . 1 �i IY r { ,r{,, i:,lu ti r /�( �• - 3 { ` ,J •' _r #i of 1� i 'I+ r' , : n J "Y' / 1: r .. t I h'w I rN i ii ,' n �.�fiiJla t n_ Sr ki,� .,jt�ai(* !`�4 7 : , J C� 13 �r 1. 1'' `` r -, .i J "' Jl t % szU+�'w it.r)} -iR r yr fir. V, 1t w r { % ` 1 • j�r>rs 1!,, i i ,x. :r tit +lj < t w r r a.R 111. . .. ,N, t, .•,3,7 f '.+ v r, !/4'r ,! yiy�.vy 1. S 1 ( A Svl —N, { f -. ?'+ ri.r ,v ,, J.:. :? Sr rk... t > t '," rL: -�r 1 ,. �l`rr J�f {.t': y s C :ter ii ar r , 7 t t •tJ � - , t�, {i'i r l .,, -` i• `1 y" f.�' µ,C ,1 r �. - >.Tfa s +t' v1:j J1 { S 17 h. y4 ^ iS/y^r . " -13{f wi a* t. , sf� yk� 4 �? } r Ji �I IJ' 1 �! •F!N _ tl{:7%Yr { # p. JC {`}Mfr+i.+. Y1 V� ­. ,� } ./ ++�}� J iY \ {.. 1 v , ijxd�`t.n SY N.{� {�3,t ✓�`r+�� _ -Y ., t�( t't a�•y,,.y+r,.slrt l> r L r f r �i�t?R,1 x7' f i '\4 w ti r uX�l. xk� r i d.'J,r . Jrr,r F r .` r �u-, l L - J - :Y .J r ,'7J kr v,S J*i i /" a _ fz S`{ d ,c`,5 Cr 1 1 4 r zi F"�! r -r r';.4.i . r k '(c i '. 1 ,, 1 x. , i kil ris' r i 7 e -� 4 i yt , s,{ '1 -+j.,f , t 4:11 . N y ,J �f ' ; v '-_ .. - ,t. , .. 1 I� - t . I - . I . I I I : I % I . , . . . : ., . . , —. - . . . , 1 ( j,1, .. ( � t, 1 ft' I all S� I + ,-I' .. . 1 , ' 1 \ ra t.4` t I J, It! rl.; !)r 7 I' s t , h .-. + r /, ! f •rt I t 1�r ti '.i 1 d: r , , I�{{..'r 1 ' trt / r ?i,ki, p l h S r IYN ! w F •�.l 1 ,I'' i1 1 '`" r "I ' S i,'L� f�,1 +!'nk ]st ir,° a, ;) t xc f ` w'. r : C 'F ✓, a' I,R t ��; l` i ^iJr IrVG .ply ,( �,I f. rtl , '6.111 J, 1] J ' r 1 1. •1 .. , \, I , 4 .; Il4Y Y if f y fl J Jk 1 I F,," " / rA��d lt.: , ,.I {� 1' , f7 4..`. Louise Schaefer 1 " I �� *f ty+ J , f- fit ' fFv �i 1 7 , , , -k r a +i # I 1 7r I r" I f' F7 "�F' �{ r i F + d.; 7' tf IE: I r_ _ ... r „ 1 r + li.� 1 th H' f1 A J I JJ �'iAtq'a Z ^'.- :r nl tl nnin C / t r.y j r Chairman Pla g ommission L ,I , ,; 7, �tlr � rrt T. �yy 1. q I.i 1t,.Sr I .." jH 1 I t U 1 ! 111 �. f I� ' 4 t i , 1' - if P. r i � e - i 1 1, I t - A w ..' J @1 k C" >', w ^ 'f <. - -, ,{r } tt`1 '! `y' + r 198'74 Park Drive ,, ; { •a 4 h�, f r r 1 . tt {� + ! I yi1, y I r t 1 �, Kr w f 7 t 1 -y', I r. ', Jt �",F. 4rr 1� E 7, r A v 4F, '. j , a i i ; i?: ,�N > 1r, q�q:," :..�;�t 1 t1, zY rl f v I" ✓, frY 70 oA X• s� Saratoga �Ca 95070 , ; Y , , I� 1� • y ; t � , t ,, v i ) t'ttli p iii ,'.. C, TI 't i4 E ��id y, " r � ✓- - t --',. r,r 11 t i 1' "�' },11,; . /, / , ii• r. "itw -4f�. r �rtit 7o Fl. )1 �5° I,tf•! %v r 1 p f t5 , ;t, s I l' I i7>y .r' i a<.g.'• t t - J. r l !' of t o t 1 =,r �.N{ >j r , :x_71 'r� /:� tf. ��I {,�t p 1 tvy. !r ei r� t pp ,r + f. 'I ••yJ 'y>>y [ I j: . "i) ,; If 4.1 ., l f .•1 !1 •r 1 .Y ! . Y V ��I1. �tlr 1 r .)• i 4, 'j -,} t 'Jixe� ,� i. `'.f t,rf� r��,'r!} �, t "' 'r t7. •..�I1 1 t', � 0t S. K k ':� - i(`.•, ++ �' Yo Jir t t 't r� •'J y�J. ,', {A ii) 1.M �r�t ! r �. r I l' �.ia i ( f t r r�l �, f� .. .Iq , I ) ,,r. ,i 1. ,,x h, l r 1 .. ,�) a '6 r ! t M1 t IT Ili Y. r 1 , 11,1 t r y f t gat j . -,1. /.� } ,t . i, �It' 1 -a `J:1 S 111 .t., }�.'. '':r rt 1 - ,, i if, 1. %, r' y } �.`,,. ! f '+. ytr J. t r, ,1 _J ,P;. - ,7•S I`I /1 i, 7r ! , �:, Y �:r V ti4� I /'.,a�� i t 1 /' ,, , D .. I 1 :^i n i, ,!1 ryal r F ) ,ra`•I ti t... t ;�,4 5:�. Q 1, l rp,.r �a 1,.. +. • /�r ; IL iti. 1 k J. V t: .ti. t oa • 'A r' {: t a, tia, f, r t� i. / i T= air t 't V ti' ri '-""I.. y,, t ! ,'� r� ° I support 'commercial 'zo zoning , r ,r�' y4'c n ng on the General Plan�as the most��Ytrr y ;,i, appropriate 'land use for the Eastern corner of. Oak Place `ands' '" a7 ' ,. 11 .1 Yi'1N i --.%, ' ' i}rt Saratoga Los Road, item #25 to be considered by the Planning'Comml S ---,:� F on June � twenty -ninth . ,r! ; t .r 1 ;,I f 11 ,41 `.-,--.7,. �^.. I± l h •', f,f 1 11 •t rt r , ,} 1lr,:— .l,; —A 4 4 I ",r i;(l_' ,,rA{t '�J. /rC txr 15 `.",j t i }. 1 i�` L' 1 I .711 J .1 r ,.: 5) I ! r :., i i J n , i :1•N 1 r 11� 1 , t {4 } Ir `e I � . i J ♦ '! W t !. FV L t1 L '(lip S Cr7} i > I'1'•4 Si! : i1 .7 , I i� , r .,f r V r i :A11 Et �,. {r �" ;i r Y,yl •f.. , t. v s`igy+y tc'l,,r. <F1 r I I , I,, I I ^ 'n } ' :.I r.� I t �rY r if r� 2 , Viest�'x N` �tl,y. It" 1. I t I l I' -�i I \ 11 1 t rt l7 J � 1 h� f�l r�i`., A t .." t r t•J t� �C r .. r Rl'.,i,�lr t'.� i , t-{ .'9X({lt'rp�', �r .t F'i }r.Jt j` ;r4'NFj - `�ix't ', v �l} !'i a3F .r t i! i f ' t /t t r .;tl / -�' i 1 } f i t 7 t 1 V V N k� T, A J1r,�.hl`" 4rf � ", ��.i:•.; lrl •tr. r; 1✓ r ����t�IS} �timv r�r!r �v�Y J r ` s'i '�Jfy1,.-1 Mretiy �+y,� :i,�Z,fi1F� •: i 1. "fft tiriJ! �r•�, ^� " `u, 'try b:3 _..:w r .I 7t, F / n erely! ..';'� i r y4. 7 !} �� `sS,�'3T�y+ R , ��'.'�� 71 ! I � P ,i f 1 -1 Y 1 t r I r . - I'�• / � � Y a r p 1., . :r.' .,i1 er p ,} }t r.i 't,�y�•��, y l+, "" ; . ;Ir •Sr,( :4F,1,�I/ it / ". . •.s I M1 .•,.I _ I l5 xiJ'A ilk 1?!rrr,{�TJ IJ {.1., J w k /� ..�- y /�' p j t� / iJJ ((pp / /C/ LL%� -- (�(/��t 4yA44t t1 t.Ji f.�, y r Vii. L 1 i V 1 �' - i Y ,i { ,1 , .[ { r t r 1 d ".,;> 1 a 1 y rT! Lo ;'w IsfA ry r t f ! .._�4tt k ,L it a. i• i.. ,Iit {' } ac i1. F ,Jiys� ti'r -7 11 r r ,, + TI ,ire v < p 's ,+ 1s�e� i t r �:, s" Reside �Mx7a a: ..i ; =1 �;.,`rt t , J. nce or Business add ess =,irata� �� �;�<!�',� t R I t r II- ' V - 1 r {.,r•+• , 4 il)r^Ik) t. roe �i t.i)i t r A A ". r 3 ♦! ti I r { „r 1 i t 'i t { i 1 1 i uth 1 �r✓;r � , ).1 I � �:d 1 tf� i d 1 9r'}r`` ,}t !`}'F JS �!F! r'',il J�k., .9'S`it� +,t,t`yr.:,;t r ...:. R 1 y a ) c 7 .. ls� a "•. It 1 1 , wt }F Jar - t ., i.,ir >.,7 1, r �tfi ;l rte' kyy' t'tI'� /' t , 7 ,: � 2li .1 1 }o f A- ,I T.7) C % 1 . •`I.,4�#T 11t r.( ,rtif it it {�.�. �'�.� 1V 'f{+T �•E Y.:y„l•', it ,��,; ,, ll.Vt n i'flt I,q ;,'1: r. f1]'r t {,t i,� 4r -( } V l..,r k.17.F .R y '�>i'4 ]1�. 'p ., x,r�: r w A v rl 1 . 1�, I tY a :r a!, q., 1 H s r tl r {, i r. r z iy i 7 l I,,r , I 1 .t y , s i,l r l t �'r 1 1 },y yj -r'I� )� 1 `4:�t f f;; t n Y} ,i Y :'1 Nif F� d, }' IMt•. 1. 4 '.1 ! r1f.)t, ?a ;FS',tIV�A rl. -h. t '� M r Si}r "� ,". 1 t 1 f1 / 7: ,✓.s Y '% S�i5 " ;,, �,,, „I it r,� �. rWrr Ia 1 +,1 iv�LJ .J'td Yti -'' ' I p ,r L17 '•'M1i(Fj'i"' j' •�•„T,L14A.,.t3t- A 9}.`� I r ,J�k J' y 1 ,c V{ 8 r} .•y r .4• l'y 1, Z.,, ^iii i1. c41t I i, jt ltylF.'.` j,'r ��I ,. i 1 ,M1 t v (�j, 11 Y"E"T, r - ' �.•._..__ p /l�ti ht„ 'LS�b r �'i� t t 1-.7Ft ,. f � Vin , {Y 71 � t i. P. rfrT .• , „� r • 3'17 . ,�. •, >:i r r rr } i' rr 1i t t f `�• 'r t r. ' W g .. 4 , nr• t r y r c t If 4 r {C Jxn 11' i-%. 1 r �,y 7 t irr y.a .s' ,;s ..r.�• : .r.•.,` '.kr- ' }7 �, tr i'} �, /' cG.'1 4. *r^:� v�_:5 _ S _('� . S. . _:-L ___..�_. r.1 Lr'.. • /t, , ,r� t' . JYV—/ . ,1.,. <, �: , r.,.. ` / - .. Y 5 r� . r . .. � i ;� "';,"". N' ,� I � . ., . I I , 3' , , , - I: �--: � , :;- -,-.',".-`,--,,��,i.--Q , I � r •' `, , , , ... .. .t - tl .- �% 4XIV /:( V ! rt /. , - :� r ./`i It, - , i'', , � I I .;1 '•I '� 1� ! 1 �. . �, -,�— I ..'' - �� - . '. 1. !:, . -.., � I —1 � "'' - I , r. . . . .r , ..�! � ' , . .. . , . . .. .. . ?;!,. .. �� ,�' " , �(� - . . . I I . . � ,� , I '-'., , ""' * 11 / . , , I : .." . - I , , I.''... '.. .1 - �,�. I r; .. ,..�.' � ".....- , ---T,11�' "., �: I .-I.C.., I/ . . . . .1 I . 1w, . I , r /�'I`i' '/ t t rf., t 1 I . . ,.- �'� , .. . . Ic , - . . , � I : - *1 , , . � . '. .:.I:: ,,. . . .i�Tt,__; J. � . I . . . Iry J I ii _ y tx r , r' 'r • ,i d - . _ _ . rift. R ti 7 V.1' . 7: Y / 4 , ' Y- ", , , r. 'I , * . . . .. , lm , . � - . - - , . . I I . " I - , . . - - 1. r ''. �. i. �/ ! t -- ... j ., / I :, , , , . , • ♦ - f ]ti r •,. . i t J .l., i.. " Lr ,'r'r t l] �rC w , y . � a . r . + ,r, r : ar � _,,,1.Y La r 11:1 r i..� .� I I 4.. %. IT- Y L.. l i ; . � I , I" . - 'I - �j ,,�;'. , - , I , I � '.%m';:. - I' . .1 � I . ( .. . • , I ,�f,�!,`,I,'.-,, , ,1 , �' ,� . . ,; . , ,�' ; . .� I .1, "Al"! . - �, � ... ., ""', '"'. , , , , � ,, - �, -. • . - .� :J� .- "t'' ,..,!. � ,N,:,�,'� ! ", ;. , ,-* - ." . �, . I . , , .. I., - " , * •.- ; . , - - , , . -.�;,";'i -,,,. -, . ... .,.:. - "' , i.01... 1: - , �e- . T.,; I " � . - � � � 0 , � .,,,�., I, "I , 1'Y.',,,_:,- , I . t., , ., , ., , . , , ,!, . j I � ), . . , , I. � . : " , I , "I/ , C .� , 1� I I . - I 11 - %� , ;� � 1;'. I I I, '. f,'If ... ,,, I.,'., .1, I, . "'. �, .: , , I ,_:', .., ,��.., - . ., . . .. I � ", - " , �.,'�,'. L.4 . , . 4, - -, " I'; -;I, , , . I . if , , ., : . , . . , � .. I . - . , � 1 4.1.*jt, ". I - , . I , " ( .." . , �.. " . , . , 1� .. -.:.'�. ,,, I; I ".,;, �.-, " I ,. , , , Aill . QT , • ", , , � .. . . ��, i . ,.�'. "N " ". , 'J"', ,� 9; I . I I I I ­ I., .��',� I ;;.. I � IT 1; jf�Ae " � .'R, . . , . . ,...j " ,I` , , �., , .1 ", , , .. '.1 , . I� ., `.':��k. ., - � " " I. , ,. V I I I L" , j � - , . ,� -, , J� , 11.1� -1 :1 f � , , 4 - �, " , . . � . , � , � , . . , . . ; , . , " * . I� .. , .1�­�- . 't�..]� - �,, . '.. : : I s, . .�� " '11, .. . , , -, ( . - ". ..: I,' � I , � .. -_f, f, -, ,, " ;`-�!, , 'T . 14 � . : . , : . : %,, . , . - , , , ,& �, � - , , "/ � -, �1 , �� - ,`� 4 , " i . I . . . . I , �, , 1'� � : �, , '. - III .�: � � � � '. , ; I . . .. , ,; -1 , ",, � , , - �. - ,� 4 1 ,; O il � . . � � , . , . � ; � ,f.l, , , 4 ' , � ', 1_, , , .1� , , , t ,-�, , , . If -!..'. I,1. ,- . � . ; . I . .. . . � .. .i . . . . . 1 , I - .. :) , I . � I , I , L ,� � ,�,� "'I � I . I I I I . , - t' , 4,� � , j �j I �, - 's � ' � I - ' ' ' .. �� )'��p I ,Louise Schaefer' 1� 1� I.;,..,,"": `�,% �','�%�j'X. . 1 . , . -�,`.I �,-, O",`-IAI*PL�4,� I . �� 1. . I,,. . -1, ­11�'- ,�." . ".I..", %!'....':�:".. . , . ; "., .. �,)­ ..t.. : " I;,.,:,....'-. �,". . . - f�,� .-,.,, � ,,, ;. 1, ­­ '. ., � m."'.-� *,. ,i',�� .. . , .� , ".1.1 , '. , t...Chairman Planning: Commissib''r" , 1. , - 'if; ��, M I I . " j' A, - �! ,.j. I , I I ! I �, ' - ,,; :,� . ,' i�!` " , . r? ,'T'' 'T, `,j- ,� , 119874 Park Drive .It '1­1, - ; 4,..� "I, "� ,1.,f"", � � , 'I, i . "I", ., � 'A'. �& i - �,fi, . �_ , , I ,�-,W: ."r ;.,, ". " , " ,�."; i, .. , , �. ", �, t. P$ 2 �.f-. '. .---. . ,� 41� , ',, . , 4 . 1� . ", . , � I . . . . . , % I .( I' - . I'll ?. I � 1 , ; , , ..""'4"'I. 1. , I "'. ; . ., w .,. ". ,,, t ,� " j ,;, .� ­, � If .. . , T . �.�,k, j;'. - ,�, f" - ' "'­ �t .;: . It -A I .1� � . - 11 4 j I,, ��'!��,.I,.�, It "._,�,�, �-� ,,, , '.�,' ' .,,-�", c� , ',`- I. 1� 14. ,I - � ,_� � , , � 1' � � -.,.If I �,� , * ` - , , , ,�. ,,, �t� ,�,(;.�,' 1,��.,. , � , , . :IK NTYi­..,­,�.!'�- .11­1! - '.1%.. _�f, , , , '.,�, ­ ­(� '. ­ , , " - , � 7 f i t ',Z,­ -, ,-. , ,.�!. , 2".., Fl, , I, ", ,fvI-t - ."%�.',,�'.­' � .. , , t . 4 . , . z : , F'. .! .�,�.T9 i , n- �,­ � * , I ,.�� R . ,�:! . - : , �f , " " � ., - j,,:', , T,,J,.,�� ,vi :;% ; ,,, .2 - ,. � , - � I I , Ffj I - .q I. I - � - . / . � lli!l ,'I :' 'j. ,� ,If � . , "T'.. . � I �. _T. � It., - , ..: : 1 � . . '� � . . ` ,�, 'C%.- .. .1. � . . I . ..,7 -S:. �i P­ v. ,�, .. . , - , , ­'.1. , . I . ­1 , ', z - � . , 1, ., r , . �, . ., . , . , . . 4 , - .. .. . '�,j � ,�, , - - � , - � � � G:•( >1 "r " , �', �, . � . , - 1.f' �, , I r .10 , __ . .. " .., �* , , .., , e, , , � , , , ;.. , I 'I� � , ,,, , , ,. , ;. . I , I . , .'�. � ,.­�;J, ,,,I'Ir� '. q, . f . . . , 1, , - ". * 1, 4 , I - , ":*,.*, * *,�-LL ,'AK' lfi`14,��' f., 'r.�,`j .­, . T­ '. I ", *:-,�,, : .. -, � . , .. ": - ­ - .. ? .t, " •� t .. X.t: N'Tr, i -r ,. - , - - � , e," ., - , ,- i , ., : , . .-. -,,: ; .� �, - , " I - - ­ .1 , I , "' " � , l. : . I . , . . , ... 1, -j44 , ;�.,. '1-,� _� , - � -� f.� , �J.,N% , " ­1 , lj ,,.,�,� - , I :��_ ... �). " fl. , " � h ,� 1,11, i , I ;. � , ,.,.k, *,' �,-,' J�,� Z..!T�,�. , ­!�­-, 4, .. ., . . 1�­"-., -7,4'e , , , % , .. , - . ., , , '. ., , - - I, . ,�, " 1. 1. .- I., , _'. ,.�. - .:, � �, , . , . y .V d�t I , 'I ,_� ". - ,,,* . I I I . I . " 2�;,iW, � I -, ;)�": �, .1 �; , t,,", f_ "j-'. "74, . '��,;,q`, "'!" , V _. , , , -�` . , i ,?`.��4,,'!.­7 , "'. , V,;w�Ai % I, I", 4- I J, '�,.' - -f A ; , . - TX ...... Z ;'.. ..'� ,.;,�; . '.. I ,��., 114 I. ­1?; Vj�., , ,�,,��," Ix. 1. : �-, 6%, , "� , - �. ,r, �"V� , I ,, -, ; ,., -kuz." " . " 'i�; I 1.1� I; .1. � 1, . .1 - &� I-41"';­ � ;.. I I \ - �k- � - ,­g'r , 11--, "1" , .� "--' " .1 I 11 1, I' I - r, 7. � , I. I ". - , , , ✓ IKI . , . . ", �, , .. , , ". 7!' W!r!'­ , , " '. % ", "j). 1, -, . I'?: ,. , - ", " i �,�,� 9 , " , � _ . �j � , ;I : N Wy, 1, �, , I � , , . , p : � � :� ,,J� 0 V ., � . " �, � .. 17j" " A".; i, !, . " . -� .. "'t, ._*, � , , .�, ' ' e " _: I i ",�4 1 .�",", 4 .." I 1 4 I. ',.,, : - , . 1-•Y .. , . .1 - - 4 -_ . .1 � . I �� � I � , " , ; ..... . !, ­­ , ­e. ."". I . 1. .1 , " �� J,&, "Mf .. , " (� - , , S �i , I . �. I � -, , - ­ "J.. ';",", _1 I I . .1 �, J, T, � I � � I T § 4�4,�;, � ." - " - - I- - ,-1 - _. I 1� I I K-; ;1'14',13 v - I I :1., , It-, � ",- I " �, , , , , , A" - ­ `� - -Y , , , , , " '. !I,".,' ., " �' I " v., ,,:,, t - 'I,C , , 't'; - I;, : � ... " . - .111, .'I.�P"I"�'I". 11� '­­­1:`e,r,:' , I 1". � p Nw A, , )�� . -j�,".., 11 k . I I 1 -, �- ..14', ,,.f-',:,,I,.S . . .1. ..",q).. I -11 "I N , - v5 -- - -" -" 4,!, . ".. ­"�' .."i" - ."I'...- , '',-�"O'.�'l.". _1 .41, ", " ". I ,� . ­ , r , ­ - -�t;­-"­-,f, .. ,_ ,$K,,,fiJ"-,�­ -, ".. .. . ,. 11� _11, .�,�.;'G",­w. :­ , 'i�;,. , .,,,,- .", ,�-s-�,,..*'I_ ,,,-, .)", .. """, .4" 1 .i t.., 11, *-­,,'� -�i�,,­ I " �. - ­f,i, .".. I. " ''. I -.�'p,'yll�fl .,.r. . 4-,-11 e,-, :,, "� ­ ­ I ".1'., '11711�1'114�1"i,p .- , -,. .;, ,; I " ..f..."I.-,�'. - 14, ­I - - - I . ,,, � i"..'. �. , ; .. I- " -.1 '.: � .:,-,., , . - I , ­'�: . , T, . . _�, _.�, , . ,'­I, � "�� 1! . , , I .,�i.� #� " 1,�J' ,,, I " - � '. I I' .:�. -Al.r. -, ­��,,, I., .. , -, ­ " - '. 'L i, , I , �wj?:1N,, �,,­ I .., �.�;�' Y,i Il ­!!m'!1,,',v 0 RT, ,� ., , V e, _. - I 01711.­A.7,�',��,,­'�,-�,­ _ . . I ,�,,­V�'.­tI.-.., � ,, ie ,.,. , ,r. ,� !� ;'.�_. ", X)�' � , .1. I II)i ,'. , . � ,, t�,j , , , . ". .,. " 'I t , , T , I I �,' , � '�. - " � . , - ." , " - , ,� C ,j -- "T., , ,4 - �, I V ;; 1. I f. . ,c , 't'),. " - N'j�) � QA, ?�` It . , ­', �t ': � . Z I � < .1 " .1 , I . . 2. , - I ", . " , . . �, - �'� � �,,- 1. t, , , - . ;."­_ -1, . "1 T ,\!� 4 I. � . "'! - .'�� - ! " ,f� Il ", 11;i,". " .. 1,��.'. , 4' r� � I., � , , - '' " ; - * I ,' ,;. , � - . . ,. . . , -, " ., I, , .,'-.. 11.14'., � - - �,.,�)! i ) j _"" , , . " � .; " �? - 1:y. , 'd, 1; � 1: , I!. , . 1, I . .1 - - "r . , ,,.,,� � " _. � - , "t "It . , I ,�1'.";".i ; ��, , , , � �-n , - , , 1, .� . ,:I " /. �, ,'.� : , , . �­.­ , ." ',;,-.'.' � +},# -,, - . :4 - �, .. I� , ,.,.-..,. � � � ". . - , ". �` ,,, I ­'. "'S'I­,�J;",�..�, �:,;` F f"t. itIj., ",;-.;.;" ; .: - . f �'1,.',.F_ ! ,- -, 'p . _ - , . _ ., , . , , .� � � I , . �,, . �'. , ��, 1� . 4 " , _. , , . , � ...', I .11, ,*,- -, � � , I I ',� . , 1. 11'� I .1.Wj -, I ,,,,.,r )I'? "I"*o "'. ,�, I ­ 1 - I f'. ." -, .� " � m , �,"' ' � I � '�� 1;. �" " �, �,","�, T;.' - .I - :.fj,.",t1­.'(%:�-W v � - � .�v ....... . . ­� - - '. . -S!, . '�Ij �� I , , C � , . , - , , .. � , . tj�'., - �'; , ��,,� .; . I - .. �' I ,��, I"": .1,;, " , i. ;, ..". , - , � ,�,"�­­�,',�-� '� .. , 'T,1 � � I;; " .j ` - - �, , . pio , ."­­ * r I _,­ 1. P - 1�. I - - " I ; " ,,I%�.-., ., ."; ,I , ;' I. "I ; .. . " 1, I, T I �-, , - -�i . t � . . , ,. . .. , ., , .. . . , __ , 1 ;" , .. - 'f�..­, , �- I ��'- . ", �' ". - , !" ,y , - . ,' , ­,_f�". ",*4 11 . , ) i'144. -` . , . 'J_,­ v .. `4 " -4 Y'. , , - , - I., _.� - , ,,.�; - � :� , ­­ - � I I -� .., - �r,.•1, '� ,'�! - ;".' - � .� , � .I..- , %,,� �` , , , � , � . *IV q f �` '. " IV - I. I , , " .1 " ), A ;. -:- - - .1,1'. , "I"' I �J,,,,��,�I , ; I:! 'kl, .,,�, .. , " �%�l",'i�,�.,�.-.-.!;�,!!�',�': ,.!, ", """ . � , ,,, I - ", . i�ql m , .f.., � � 1 .", p ,�i. .I, ". 1. ;T.,,�,, 1. .. .11 . � .. . 'j, ­�;V` �* "I­ IIII,�').'j", X.I; �111r; I.. *, .-,-,z ,,, , .,! `;, t � "..'-'A , .,� ; , 'I'T", , j, , , "I , . � f I `1 11%, - 4 6 , 1*�M I I' . � . n ", ,� 1. , , "'; I � , . I-. ��. , ; .. 1, ��o � 6 . I 1711"A"I i I �, , . , , , � ...." I .. 11 ,,, . sl'�-, 1;fj,�Ot,� , I.` ,,") - I .. , 1,; -, I , �� , ;, � - - .. . , . qf: : *T, .- 4 , It I �4,0,- '.Vi,�� f ,414��'�,,`j.,-:11�� "', , , " -, -V I,.' .�, � - I � , "I It lt'il: 11 t. -, . . "­, , ? I - , , "" - , I q - _­ I ­r.., I -.1 I !. p'. , , � " 1 -, 1 4', �; I,' 1 4� ".." , - • ­..If �,t,' - ,T� ! �J- ­. , -,. )" I. .1 - ,. " .. i :;;,%, A� , . . . � . -,..T - , i� J ..l.", ;,�­ . - , � - , ; : , " , � .,. - I, . - li"_ .�, , ': f�. io,:% - �, , , I I , I " ,� , . .1 , I . , .;: ��: r4� � ,� , , , , ". I,, ­, ., � I . . .,., 1. . , , , ,�. '. , •, ' q:,.: � , � " . � .�� --.',� :,-- , - ol - �. � ­,..-, - " ,-,'��,, "V ks'pW1,; , �f , � ...".V: ., , . . . .. 11 o " ,�. '. ., �, ' . ." , , 4 p , I 'support - ,� � � , . , � . . � , " k*,� ,, � , , . , -ptih -. .., , � 'the 'most"'. . " ,� mmercial-zoning on' Gener'al,'Plari . , . a s , � .;' . . � , - - .. .. .'�, , . , .. .�, ,...(., � , . .' .. , . -, "'" "1f' `1, "i .M- . .,..,I ;appropriate land use f orner.of .Oak "Place 'a" ' , ,.-Ill. * , " ­�-,i ':%�. � . . . . . and ­-,,',"� , . �. . I .., . .� . . - . . . . - � �'I,.z�I` � .1 '-�-�.:.:.., " ­ 14���', ., ,.-­-':­*,I.I- 1 1 , . .:-1. 1, . - _V. - , " . . . - �,:., , I "Saratoga-Los 'Road, item'#25 to os the Commis., 0,, ".r. 1. 1. - � 11 .1. ;_­,; ... ., ­ - . , 't. - * '��-Ij-�,7 . . . I" 'll- . : -, -­�".:,kc;� ... ,,.'�'_ - i, q I ,,,,,* , . I � , ), , , ." ."_,:_"�, .. , ,';. :. '., ..'. , '. . . . ,,,, , , f � ;..'-,' i "; -�-,,,,;.:_.� .';,,71 - � :1 .W. ".11� _�%-: ­-I �, -i ..;: 1, .. , " . - - i'*,j�1---l. " - - :­ ,6 ."'t - " I I � t.. .� , , ,,, "., ,,, ,�'�";%, , , ;,�y��,;f",�J,.14,-�.,�:i,.,�',��, , - � ;t, .: ", 1� I - � , I " I . m,-. . CI �)­ ;, , .. , � - -719 � I" v'1111. il I- .,on' 'j ; �; " -,��.",;`. " N­')� ­' , �,, %.;` ". ,. �': Y ,�� �. . , llil. .1 . h,. ,.'.'-t;l ',',,.,I , P�vl,,��'etf""i­..� " - -�!.� '14, - I�TI , W" .�%'..' �1­ ""'11-1.1, . j,­' ..'' '. - I !� ""'o �, - " ".�. ,�"! ,,...'-,:: . ,',-- ­­­­ --t ,, ­ �,­ 4, Ik'-'1,F 11- . "'.. - I . .. ". , . . . _�, T_4� .", - W�',,�` -.I- .,,f-,,,. .�Ie�'i-.,,-K-­, . -:�- '. , . ''.:_( ... ­;.�­ 1. ­,11'_.�.1,i,1"-:,V , ., .- '... ­ :" ­­ I :��P.,;.­, i.'I. "'K. -1, . ­ �4?ai 1 . '"' .1 I, - 4: ,,�,,,�,, �� " � .. , , ,�,,,',.,,�' . . I ­ ,­­-j- .f."', � �-, ­,�Qi,.,­ ".", ",,I- , I* .. �.. _. 1:�,j,11-111':i , ki W,6"�� .,,.q� . . "., � Tj!.' .,�� -',.I, �;-, �- I , ,_11,' �, 4�� - P. , , _� * " - _ , -1, '' . I ,,, -.1"In J11:., - -, ­,;'�.i',�,%'wI­ - 'A.-, .. '. " " I �,�,A � - ,,� � If �,_­_ �, .. ,,U,.,11)�,,�'-.,-,,-,�-,-.e"..��,.k.,.�,�:, -4-,7? 1:,-):. _�'a. ; . ­ I � ,� - � I �� ..! �� ".,­t,.,. � A." J': � .., '1:1­,.��,�-P,,­-N�' tflt�­,,' 141, "� 'fi , .11.1111.1,111. I .", , I, . j.�,1fr,j;:..`,'1.,' , ,'-�­' ':'­,'!�'t.' 4, ),'.,, ,,I,'pl­,)*.�M�l � 1'' .." ..".0 . ,:�X -Ic-ii, ", ., � ,4'1,1%�I�:'A , " .. .��­j �,., 4 - I , -.4V , , " I .1 " �� I., 4 1.� ­ ,,A � " . -, . I - , !; ,,I � I, rill ok ." - v 4 ""t. ";;�,..;"! : , � ,.,i,�A­, -,�. - 1: ,,, -, , .,; ., ", I , , � 11, . III " , I Ill � . : I, ',' "J . :1F � ", :o!a - , - ., . - - I,, -, ,�: ,: "' � . . . 1, � , . Ii, , I . - , . I . . 1� I'll .�.­ . ; , _ ! ,"d,�; ­', , ­­", , ;� 1, - I-. - . . . ."., - �. ,F , , A �,, pv, , 'If..,,,. I` f;� , I jf,'�,,,� " 1% o,,'�� 'J,�I�, ,'.'I.,- t ". .� ,, ,.,� , -�)L - . I . . _,x- , .., � 1 . 1, , � I.' ". .., ;� itf. ­4�- �_ ,.,�&�,� ,;:�- ." .1, _� �"V�1'11` ,6j'*­ "R . , , , 1. , � -- . - , ., I A , ". , , , .. , '- - 1, I! ,�� `�' ",;",:� �;',`�,I'4-: , . . I .. Ii. 'ji - . , , , 14 1 .", , . � , . . .1 . ". I. " � �, - . ,.�. " � I I - .., �,,L i � � .. , , " , ! ,,.. � , ,; 4 , -, '. " , I I ,;,,�,� ,.�,"k , , I ".�,­�, � 11 ) * , � , ,,. �' - '. '. ­ ­ _' . , %, � ... r'- ;, ,,,, , - "', , - , , ". ,�. , ; , , , , , . . . , , , "',�, 1, " , ,� -, , , 1,�� " 'I � ..', ; "I'll ,,� I, 't, .. ,,, *� ��, I - 1, t. � .4 ., , ", ;:,. " , , m - , ;1" ,_j", � ", '. 1. I f . , "�- - . " � ,.,­,�. , , ,-,.. , , I ", % -­4 � "'­ - .-�!)_4?11t,i,' . ., - Ij'.,',, 1� , , ;,, I s', � " , , . ,, ,, , , . " �.. - . , . , , I , .,� . ..�,;.'­' .1` - .,I,,'1f.1 1,'� 'I " , r-­� , '­�' !,S�,-N,- - , ,'�j , " , , ,.­;', , � ,� � 1.� �.. ,' �'. . , , �, 1. (�f 1 ­ , , .41 - "O"'I . . .�, r . ­ 1'. "I I - , , . ?'III I. �. ., I ,.,i. -:,,,'. � ,��, ,,�..4;­�q, .1- ,., I . J� ,,.k. " ., . . .: - ", . . . � '. . � , ', . , ,:��.� " ,.- - . � -,:, - �, � �, . , - � s'� ,1.f�" .�^,I," ? - , , , 11"', , � . :. : . ;, , , . ,ti,�- w", �,, �- ,�,, . . o, ,v!�,,. 't, I_ ., ,.", '21� .,Tj',�.� k�:, f , 01, ". � .-,i;. I . tI '-I i 1w j "e, I : , . . �. . . � ­,' ; I . ., ,,­Iz, 11 -P - ., . " . ... , 1 ", ., . - , . ­ - . I . " - 1w . I 1� h'-` , , , *- , " r" -, , _' . od " " . , , �'- .", * � - . . I .,. " �.� - �., N ,g P , I : .. � . .p. ;Zpg�,..i .4� " % T , '�- :.,:., . ,� � " . , ­ , , .. . •� -"�,.,4:1, 1�14,, I.% il . � ".�-.1"M'i I ..v.41 . ,, - '�.� - . ., , I' - , t , , , I � " - ".1 , ;Lf - -� -, � �;,;,7?", �F � Z, *, , , , . ,II, ��,, '.',-, 1,tI:1�,,, , , 4,1­'. 1 .�, ( ` 'I . ­J' .1 r•~` . J,q�,/�.,�.-'!.-. " 1, '. �a, ? A - ;-- .,Y. .., �..4; �� ;­ `�;` I'r4-I't- ! f . �f! , ,� tZ;. .��, ­­,­" .1, ,,It ;:,�' ,`­, , , a . .� � ,_ . I- , " .f .. . I �. -�, ; �, i. � �, � " , . . ,� ,-,711�.�,�. . ',141' . � � , ',`,�,� `­/�- ­­ I., ,;:-Sin-c6rel .1 " In '1 , y7'z. ': ".1. " - - ,,,-1,1�," , ,z­. - $1, Y, ,,.1':.-.,,.,' �­;, k� � 'IT , � , , , i, , � 1, ­ '. " %. "', I, I I -'-.T',;,., , � k, I '! ".." ..r. ,­Aw - , 1, .. ''! . � . I f, . . ie'.I_)", . - . _Yft�.; I -�.-., "'t . . ,,�i',,�",'-,'�-.-,-' -_ -1 .- . - I - I"'. -, , 1. .1 • .11, - - .",fz-,q.,!%-1 - ... 1, - ,,,, "'­._ ­'..._ . k_ IT. , f�_, .... ♦ : � %,_ . , � " -, "". ''. ..­ , fT :_ �*. " �II. .,I" . ; ­,�,,� _t',',��j�',,`�),­�,q`� "�,�,',',"�,,�",�,tk:�;�,',,,����-.'�l,-�,�- .,­;j: � - _;,:��!,. - _­� " .�, I , , - , , 1 .1 � _1�1`0,��,,!!�-;��l , I ..... _,e , 'I ­�, - , ?"?" L - . I 1�i:'!,�,, , , .,.. -11. M-11�� - - , 'j -.-I 11_...­ � , 1.) , , -, -I. - I., "d- "'A - .- , :.`,�'117, 1, �.:,�;., I , t - I,. . ,f _­ 1�1 � '. 1!�!'.'��'."��-"(�.is:�,,�,.'-,-,,,�"-I ,�,,� , . . - Z_11_� ­.��, .., , � , 11�_ "I -1 -I"'."- . -, : ,p 4, �­­­Y?11�1 � . -. L 1.1* .V .... "'.1 _­4 '_ I -r.' - .;._��;-,`., � , , ,--,��,-- �.,-. 1�. ,: , - , , I � '. 1,. .. . * .. , ., , - , I .,.� I _Z?' ,. 11 . I - .., , I � � " , I ... i"'.�, : : , ,;`,`...,�3i':*,* , : ,� �:e-- ,�.1, `7 ; ? ,.. " V . , - . , * , , " -1 " ... - .." � - "." e), `t'.;,A,�'O *P,,,,: i)jy ,�, t - " . . .1., ,� ..I . J.oq, ,,, , . . ., "' I� ,., �I: �:��.­ ­)', , " I . - ­ 'C' "., ,,, .1 .. . I ) ,.I .� p .. ". * - f"? 1, ? , �..., - " - - 1. I ,I .., . 1, ,,, 't;-;�.V,;.;�".., ;�,' .. , . .,.. ..z ". .. t .. ,_ ... ; ?. - I (11 � ,.I tk,; , IT" -, �oq�­ - , . 4r :I'.,;��. ,� , ., - -, " f ,g;',�11 q:o�v.j ,,, -� ", , I',"r I . I �; *, "..' .. . " ., ;:�:' , . , ,., , - , , , � �.,_.l r. - ,,.,-. ',.',,",.'�,.,',,,�,,,��.�,;),-"Z,�,'�,�t"i�', "r­_ V '.., '... .1, - � - � � "- ,., � . . �ia" ; �1;. . .,t,-j?,'j .A. "AtV � " I I ... ; . '. . . . . . .� A� I � - ,,,, A". -, , j� " , i�--, -�, ­- , 4 ; A�,:I,j;z.�f�,,- , � � ", � - �. ,:. , I'.,- - - , ... . , ..." I:%; IV .. -, , , ,;" . � " � - , ? ­*-,-A�,, I " , , � " ,j :"- - -�,,k � ., , .. , cc A ." M'': 11 ­�, , - .1 . I . 1 - - y ;U 1 11, . ". "'..',"". '�-?4,'�4`;,.,4 I I . . . - , � I 1. , . §1 . . .. C,4 " . , ��`, 11�1 . t . . I I. I �, f I. � 1111111_��,, , , I 1, ., . :1. :V�Illl 11 .��,� � ,,, ; I - - _ J � , , •, I : . I - ., , - ... z 1 1 . � . - 111_ ,.� �'. ��! �': . " ;j I � .11 1' ; . . q .1 I , - I . I I , I , . I , I I .. �. . !_. .. : : ..:.'I.I-1. 7'.. , ITr,;� �, , ", p - � � - " , - � , , '&!t,',.,�-,,."%,.:" " '­ . - ". 'j".".- " :� �-V.�, ,4 4 ,_ �, . . " . I . - - . .1� I " ;,:,­.-��T:.-Residence' or .r� . . . .. . 'Jr ," - . _­.-I , I .1)11.41'..; I" -, �. I 1.�,-., , , . , , ". 1, ,I _:" I. __Q, �, ­�_�-:.Ir�­,, "'. ,�!_ ;._., I, , �. , "i! iX U Iall"41; z i,�.;I"�''.�l.,.,.,�",�,.�-�;!-,. .. ') 'i . . , � ­ : . 1. . � Business address . . �:,­ r. . �.'tf,�, I - * -,-':T - I" r .. r."", , , I_, " .-,;,�. � �-: , t!Fl?.. :f ',,I - k __�� :;Z,7� 1 , , , . M, - .1 , , .. .4� , , - - __ - _ __ I - . I __ - - - .,:�._ , ;,� -`­ -�- : � ­,� 7 - ., - - -,."" ��' TIC 1 . , , ­ '. • . , . V ,. .-a,. �� , . . ' , - "'.,;T? -,?�-- �,t. . � .. ' -,,, "t T - , ; . , - . � I . I I' . . . ion-_ � - . , _ ?�-.11 ' ; - f -, _ . ,,I �!,_,, �!!"�%.76� _.1T.-.11I'� ­.r, , I, "'k, '. .. -, , , � . �t M _ -, , ." " � ­ , *' L` .'..� 1. I , �, _ -, , , * .,- - , - * ­.. 1�.. " 1- r I i - -"', - �� -'.,'�,,-oi--.­:,1v ,.III. --- � i ": , t.. i J , " , : . , C " '. - '11, � 1. ,�; - -, _t'j",-, I �T. " o,­,� ',­�.% . . ,.,-: " ­­­� � . , 11 � ... 1 ,e . ., ., ,­ ,* , " ". �, '. '. . ,.. .1, _U� , - _ , . - , _,- '.. , L ;,, 1 , ,"I' . ., �, .. ...... .; .V­�, C. , ,� , - I . . � `J�7 ­­A �. � I ,(_� .10V, �­ . '.. .. . � . . . . , . I - ,�,�'. ; ";,�".'.-"��,.7­�,'�,;,� , . J', - _ * 1:1..'_ - v . .. ", .,;, %.. .. M. .,. " - � � " . '.,?�'. , .. --. .."';�;L . ",- . .-;,; _� :t,.: _- .. , -.. , -1 . , '. , - . . , , . :I 1 1.4� ,.: . , . r. �­ - - I , f,q"4"., I;,� - , . . .� � --.­��,,.-I (Y�t,� ",.".� , ,�," - '-' .'7 . 1 I'll, , __ - - � I . " 1. ";, I . , , , � Q , v.., - - .�, , . f , " .t 6- � 1�1 L, I .C,�- - :,. � " I, ,- I �. ,,V� '. I "i . . '. . � 4�--.-. � .:'_ * . .,I 11� " -. "' 'e, � . � � ,­_,-T , - -�' ,t.(,-..t1. .. '. � __ . . ..... � , , , , - `14 . � .4,.; �.- !. 1'1.4� , ,-, ­ , , _U4 ". . ...... -,,�,,,!-.�,T,._a, � � .v_ % -% a'.�, � .� lf.,,.-,T� T.". - . � ." '. , , i. . J. " ,. . I, J__ , .1 . �� ., .4 , ." � I - � I; , � , t-, , I + j rf I!1 i. •� ' 1 J P if l,��L r. M1. . • >` ;.r . r. t V9 ly 4 <V r 1.•1, i� 'ry��7y'1� 4 tl : �59t1'�i, � t �. �u i� r� jj t y. i n^ 4If M1 l r i �� ,, 4' N h1, t t ..• ,tr'il, tt is F 1► {// /'1 ,'' -7►� O j. r 41 P .77 1 1 * SOL - 1 ...Jfl» LJ/� --.. r t r; ' ( - 1, ' �'��FJ k(. /�.+l rvt {'y {i 1 !!' + S Si ' �'� 1r (i �i'y' �t..t, j; / t' 4:'d:� -r �y, -r .. • t : f - � I 'i 1, ', 1 .l 3° l I", J, - i t 'ter r r.t hir r r f ➢F.�k {l i`l ��a y . (.. . V f V_ L`} i t. _ p { I t .• + , a /, r�'� �l J 4. ` 1 r .IM1' + 1 - ! t ,aiy,ss`SI r , r t �,r v Y lyp, 41, t :`I (I` ,-?"%,j 4+ ter: t' Ir( ",` rF 1', 4,,IIIJnlll�+ �; ^r�ia+ �^ jhrrry{f rt = y fk r `'Louise.. Schaefer" � f'� ,, l I. , ���� 1 � . t, _, ;. ' x ;- .,�AF , r Sf.. - I,j,, l t ! ;l ,, 1' r. 'r4 t , '� , , .mat n� 1 } + :1':;'. v,K ,43 + -F �; iv t :. , tt, t ,. #�,. k,-u} t' t r r 'Y r f, r , r 1 •SY�r �# ilr +a Chairman . PlanriM1ing C�ommiss ion r' ,`t�'"�'vy1 -� ` 1 �: ' r; ` �Y+S :�1r ar w .C,r "' ,:U IP"; r..r -!7,t . ,rt,, fY ,, Ny ,'e, .., XA'. -- {If rti,..V -,� ,r. �} .U,. t r , �// kr, S� �r (, 'a Ji,ry�r't ,- .�`G(jrrf Ij. .ri f\.f J� , t i Fjl �trLL +, 1 '1 f i f. Y ,i 'f. Lr 1f,� YF{ ',(,J F,Tr �J1 �1M l i a fYy •. 4(' 19874 'Park Drive ,, tr { +, t ,�;�,' ' Crat t �k�,; I , *�. ,+ >a,� �ti t I 1. 10 } —.—,.,-,,.—,19874 t r� L r. (3 3 :r ( S , f 4 +fit s '`t „ y >� i i rt r y �rf, ^ K >',. '1sl v { +� fit? Y " .. I,rf. ;' rr .v tl/ } l i ( S o IF ,I V} S, -,j lti, t "I,' haft � * 1h _ 11. }4, a, Saratoga, Ca x'95076 , (t i I 1 -e 'Ft't uSo ^ ,Vi /nQQJ 11 -'X11 +If t(( '- 'c{t�r ,vh(tt� fi A.1( VtA �SY4'V'l�r �� J'tr 1t i w! 'YJr,, '. }1. 1 '.r Zj �,'a xv�p� ,, +y1 = I. •S•'.)• `v tr �-f1A a, :ter f,. t I I v it '} .1 -9 _ c l t ' vl {� Y�'ha rJ7 i +.;ri•;p 511 ,4.-,l:.; r. r,111 1f�', Ja(v :,�a V�1 r. ,,•� Ito �1llAir:�� � + I.J. + } ,, " t 1 ,.�. "'r tit', ,y.l.: " %,�r. 14,11 ♦ J` ' �''' �,l r i ;� r ;� J,: ,.+I a i..., itr t. •'� f,4( ra h +, 'i .t i (t .J.,. JIB ':. Iy`,li' #t i. , r #;r ". rt., i� " -iC' ,r. f' . rt. { t 1'r 1 , "j f ,.1, '1! I i 4 1'1 t .1 +, ql. .. t 1 1. r . +. i, J V�r1: +If, <t' !dl'1, )+ ,(S !;'^ .l� I .,(; 1' i t,,,,,'(�, I". .:: "J ;.4 , �r. ��dA �I ;F.. .. v y+.1 +• ,e LNt 1S j•; ''.- �,n + p FkJ t 4 v } 4. } e a d t• B `�S 1 Li al a• 4 r( r Y 1, i1 S�iR, ` 1 :1,, 1 p Est t,� 1+ d j5 . r, f r:sf , r r � I 1 }. In Mr t'+ t r f 1 r r '• +:y v J -o' r � I rd . ,,, a . -:; .vi i - 1. r;:'. �:�• 1� 1 i- J „ t 1 +..t r is ,,Cl ,-,,. ). ., _: lr 1k 4r 1. r.�,; .. 1`t r'l:.r j �� i(- . , ",,�' - 5�r,�, �.''�(I support commercial zoning on the General Plari 'as the most 2 °'k ' tz. -t I. , f.. h - r , .�,, appropriate -land use for the Eastern ' corner of Oak Place and -' s, �; Z. ,; ;,I Saratoga Los Road, .item'-#25.t o be considered �l,y the Planning Commission `{r ,";I, °� . t - ;. 1 �. N,r ( t. '� , > .1114 }' " 1 , , f r + r r Z l i r 1'' -f t ;� . ;. on June • twenty- ninth,. ,'4i tY,�riir.. r (r ' li'•.ittr 1' '' n # f 4; ! r', . 1 I; S` #.� Vte� ' i r '� `ti. ,, ? 1. !" .I �,-Srk F'' a- t „ r' v y. ' ” a1L,r'�' -:� �' p ,t x..11 5 ,� -,! ( . 2 h?, v r v r .r * t ,, 17 r : > R te, 1. ;?•i. I, ' r + Y ,Trti:, �.,( ,. , r ry 1 �v y h- i`, ,v S, i T tr�q'' �.rf.. .f; t�ri.a! T +.,�J '• +� rt>" �� j ,s'rrrt{•:j r e, ' ttYS'f iS! v 'r.YF ^s-yb ,! •,.r t �J -':i Air.- .�,ra, S'.7, y r 1 ,� 4 t J t , 1 t 1, ,, ,, - <t 8r` ,( rf �, I t f Lj f 1 r v ch c• L% J �.�f �,y t' r, lr t r h15> r , r + , 4 "'�44- "^j, ' t•Y �... �,- r JC:�' -r crc ] n,5r�'}�, .. + ' }. ri' l t_ 7 IIF r� r �Ir r , -'d,� v ,y� + 1 \r p.tC.' , �,; yr �+ r : ,..C��+42.'.7. + } Ir tr ,. ,, A ....fit am 1 .I`w ' ' , s . "X X05" v rl,V- I? N 5 �.. •xF,�' + ' t_y tr>cZ- C•`t -t,. y ,7. 1(. �, - 1 y, rr �7�.'.,Ip� rir• "t _ 'S l.nw erel' hdFl +, r tl {{tr td� , .S �. , R v e r r 1 qk* h y, � F ( ! x Xv t� { }ai'lg� `, '. : 1j i.. Ir',1(t ;l . , r . �, r1 v l r ,+ ;t I i 1t', . i� air• �i+ i ,{. i.. f .rte .. �,' J',If'; { N ' ' r c.h+ ! a S � ,fT ,4 , ' j':d ��. f;.' jYM1 1 y � � V �. 141 f ii 15z w`t rs ^ :. 8, t • •�, r w . }. 3, . s dt v' i l i FL t+fj +'l� nr:� ,. �tY� ilt i 3 rlf,r J ++� r I (f n e4 r h �:+ au F,, ay. r �f,"}I I ' �rt,x,IN t rti),A r .,+" Ir i -1 . r <taF. �°! - +. +r �{r t ` 1 +' r �4 ,A-V, 4 !r r, j Js ' t t' y ti l` t, 1. ?;, t,JI { 1 ,S �,. .. 1 �'A - r t 1 +. , r ` - v_� a ,• , I- '3y,. STr ,ti v , ,rp, +r —A'� . ,I 1 1 _.( 1 +'iY ,i�, c K F ,ty 1 ..sr ;,`;l I r .., ; +t r ,i. ,i ;l ,j*q A. . r. tai. ` '�'v. C._,A"dL rL f.-k. _ I11I. 'I i },J. J a "q 1, �l% h , y 1 1 / I 1 . ,7 1 , it (i,.. ( ,, —�, t �J Y rFrl I ADZ S ,�,. e�S_ , '� ,, t - •o r .. _ x ,, , r,,E /S ,. fii s,•. ., .,r 4c•r r `'T, mot r .,, Residence or BusinAss address f �t -:,, S;. i �rf�, ` - 3. I - r , ,, J i t S, - o ,f y :- ryr� i -,. it 1 yt 1. ., 1 . ,I r , +' r r t i. , r r x : '( ,' rll l., rr i 1 ;.�. u >h 1tY . r r+ it Y'4 17 r 17 l°c_ ,j i' ;� 4 r1+ . d? {''rr ' 4 's 41..: t , 1, i I < iY fit. j�l s/ s +1r,'/'� 1s";^\1�V�1 [ix,�h r. ..f, qtr.?, ,�.Y •, '1 + t.,' 1 J 1 1t rr M1 t ` ! J '- iYY, ( ) 1 r r'r' Fr tit, ti rEN vrra)n au 4i �r�4 T�ty i 2Ar .4q>�.Nn,I x4 a n: r1 a q 6 k i #r , ,1 1 ) �i,;11ty r, t a , a: J , ��Ah4 ;��Jn.;!rty4 :�;` 1 v, `, L t h 4 1l .' r r r, 7 k x, � n �!.r tr . `�5� 1 Arr Y,:,%, l t ., ?: j .L" ry 4 N K d r �( �ji G )'.1'( f 1r, '� 1 .. Jr:• t t t,., 1 1 V4� ,}, r T ., i us.'(. 411 6M1 I`,A, + fd t , r �'ri i °, '• I'11.Y rij�rtc y,,� r., rt r# �1 ls? (:,, + 4 1 s., f A.4 1. ie y r , r 1"; -Ay J, , ,-?� ,vA�r , x r + vi �' ( ?: t k 1 fit, x ,�,� -11 11,1.;{ ,1 ,jt,r ^. '� c, (( t I ♦ 7 + x. r• 'A i n. ,, -k k?r+•S` .t+''+ t, f, Uj 1-1 rf•� f r (1 1 l( �O Y■ "cam" f 4i� 1 C �I I �F lti4 L {'ll �^ ' 'rt �a `''i v r r ) 1 -" , F, 1C.,! - , >.: „'� t �'a�• + i��t, c¢ r 7 " t- 1t 7 r r t + 1 7 +v i :P 1 ,f �Q' / a 1 +at +lV nt 4ir O,. 1p,It a,:-;--,w,',! �Sjr�, .,�.,L �t r` Lx ­ ­ ".fll': r, ) ( LS 1 )� ) a,AI t�i�. 7 `Y�PAfi I, ii'"'" �' ,r +.! r v 1 ]:(..�: :,��, :, ^' W (t //. �d•�J �/�y `ff 111 ��/�{�/�[1/��.' , V ./11 ,ti���• - I ", . �;t'r1 r �I�tit t.� J r r ,`.., r *� n 4 11" `J ` i1� /�I "'�� ;yam R_J v L �­ I I i %V f i WILLIAM H. BOWEN 14672 WILD BERRY LANE SARATOGA..CA: 9507Q r z; u i 1 I I � I l�r: 3 ir;•�{ t f f t k �,� 1 !:. I ,I n '. _ r 1 j , i " a I i34llt Cf Y+rl nYJ4 4 r11 ` z { Louise Schaefer - ,1 r 7:" -.0 '. y �` t `1t r '\'r ^crl� 7. f t r r i k '< Ns ,l ✓ t r 1; ,� .Chairman Planning Commission' '''`4� {` +� r' I f , bt '.}� (L w+ {:-... "I' ! ''' +i ,: rl.' .ar•rss/ ylt� � { ��� rrtl�L t, rt � °� ��' ,trri, " �rs1.3 �!—,y ! 1 � i - y1 I - J t'S' } � [ •t � i � r Y �t Y I f'r• tl• _ . 19874 ParkDrive ,., 5.. 7 Saratoga, .Ca. 95070 Ilk i-r 1 L ✓, �. , -, , , h w , • `i r r J f J 1 4 �r t+ i. i -- l 1" sup or, .-commercial ;z'oning on the General Plari `as .the 'most } appropriate land use forethe.Eastern corner of Oak Place and f t1 , 'Saratoga -Los Road, item #25 to be considered by the Planning Commission on June twenty ninth �'f_ r r I� t !r' rte { a �e / a rr 1 sj 3'• t .(r , l�J,.i.� is ` •I'vr 1. I •, 1 1J .i ` r I,. �•i` �„JI I { '' t}d , I d 5 i I .' a t I � a �. ,1? f ` t'> r ' 1; i '�� � t. +. f thy.:. r! /• {t 4, ^ , frtF r f4 rx i Ay'- �' r a tfrT 1 •:'r %. r�+ f'ay;.; ^! 1; 4 ° I._. i:r 51 ..ere ly '�__ ,•� 1 rt3i: Fc Rt( � s Yr1' I ly 1' r. f,, J c� r r °! .• 1 � r si -r , I 1r'y1 —L - 1{�1( ,/,�. .. (/� {^[,_Q '�/ L /1�.!�r `s rr 7 ,� .Ql. J �, t eral r. /,Ir �/ / 6�� • v ��L _�J 1 \I�/ : /�' rV F^ ! j iTi "� f �t r r ! s f •'. {' jg' _ ; Y u� rt '� /�•� " /1"r�' *P , t ( ✓JAR / r�� �(� J ���`J Resi en es's a Q d.4. n + r , ce or usi res {1 ,) 3. t ,,.{ ' Syr ,.. I , •'S - 1 „•.,� r�...+ ti ! �5 c l !� ', d ! -ii 'yy s � � Y � ,{ N � • J � J , ' 441 y .r,., rrt^ 4 < ;x ri { �' yy' J t f I r - r.k svr �?'' �{ d �i_ r• � ?•�'i { .�� �f Yb' �• i'n �, . .y. I r j - ',n � C j i , \ \>• r ` I y z - r �, � Yt �s�r y x + tr; i + t r r 1' 4,1•Li,., j. rr.i� sfE'' xv a; r /w se •.. ri: r +�i . .� 7•,�t i,,., • ( ah. y r,/ �t � ri� J.Y 3J iC ;YL r£�r J r tg ^I{ I of S't xG. 2L CD 1 '. t � ' /'• � �'W�� ' ' '• � �a!'.:il �. - tA>. h ,rr. .: t t,Y �t ++.y'.t • June 24, 1983 -Mrs - Louise Schaefer Chairman Planning Commission 19874 Park Drive - Saratoga,. CA 95070 -. Dear Mrs. Schaefer; Continuing our interest in preserving the historic character of Saratoga, we wish to go on record in support of the viable commercial use of the land on the Eastern Corner of Oak Place and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. . -The property in question will be considered as item #25 by the Planning Commission on June 29th. This property seems entirely inappropriate for residential use, and it is our considered opinion that the zoning should remain commercial. We should encourage and support small bus- inesses that restore our small buildings and turn them into viable uses for the benefit of all of US. The owners of "The Napkin Ring" have taken a neglected corner and have created a charming.spot of renewed.interest. Please return the favor and support their commercial use request. N p eserving Saratoga, t wansons well Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 . , . . . .� ... - .. , . - ',�., � 1, 1.03- . I 1, I " ", . , : ... � ; �*, . '. �: :-, - . . � I.. . , � �. � " j� , , , 4�� " - � �,'* 1, " . . - c , ,� . ". ..... I - "..'I't ,� -. ; �. . .�' .. " .I. .., ,I " . : , -.11 � .."', ',-.' - �,,�`,-'v `,'�'.,". . . ,,- � - ,, . I I ... � .. .1, - .:. '. .--- . . �.-.-:-* ij,;-,,.l " " ""; . , � ,.% . '. '! 1,�,' ", - � , I I,-' 1 ; .i� , , , I .... ... 'I �� , ;; ',,� ., .�., . , '" .-- , " 't ;, ", , a .-,'. �T, t. k. , , t � �,., " 1 . . , � . ,., .. . � .� , � ", , -� i. �', � �t ;, --�-: ,;, -�.. . , , , - 17 I , . , , * - . ., .. , . � , . .1 . I ., 1, - - ", -,.,, - - 1:".. �' . , . I , - ,­ I I I - . ".� ; �', - , � I , , , , � " :. I I . 1, : � � 14 * "", '.1 .. , � , ,11 , , . � . - � , I, '1�1111' ll'I.,�k, " , , - - "' ;� " - " �`�,- I . . . , � , . 1, I I . , . " '. - � . �� i,., . , , ; - I � .,." . , . . I � .. , , I !, .", '.. . . . . ". , .,�'.,� ,v�- ly.�.� ,j ,,,. z, I . 7 �1; , , , .1 I �� � . , ." ,,,,, ,M� oqylA �� " ,,, ". , , -101 11 . , . I . . -1-1-4 .: � , .. ..", . , - - 4 , , , , , V. � , "'. ie I , - - - �- �' ';�p�,,�,t,,-.l ....... %. - 'i. 0,.-, ,,. , - .." , , - ;, "%', . , 4 "';, %, " � ,i� , ,,% `r)� ) 7f � ,� " ", c , ... 'Schaefer ;" ( ` I , ': 1,� - I" �;--i';j'�','t - . ". 1. .., , ,-)--�-,,,�,�,k,. .. , � k , I i " - �" ' ­ � ' " -4- " ) �: .; -- �, , J [-.�; �,'�4 , - .1 . . -,, . , " . " . , ,)�, . " , , � ,.� .., � ;lj�-n I .. . - .� Louise '' - ,, - " - - ...... v ,� .,---,, . , - " r- I' L� 1, I �;` ", , - q� -'V - � I �`�,-`- - J .. ­ � . i.l..-,`,j ,:,I" I ` Chairman. - - . I I I � 1 ..'s .... .. g-��- .,��,-'�;- Chairman.'. Plannina..',Commission.? r'.__ ... T�9,;;!!�i. � 14 , tk,�,v , " �4� �,-, ,�, : t , -'.� .M� . � -- - �. -3,� -�4- , 2� ;i I. .-,�.� .'. � , ..i "'.t't, , . I ,� .�j .., �'k� .." " 1� . i--�,- .. t"i V"- � :". - �l -, 1:.,�. � , . ;, -, - " . .; . , � •,..,� � '-V: - ...J�'.-;F,:,j- ,l,.._bara-toga-j,os_xoaa, item .., � -.1, - . . - . I 1.1,'',..�''t".,�,"�.'il,'!�-;��.� ,---1.14�1.�t,,-'-,-�, z . , June t 1— . ninth. .11% ;� �-,%! " �'.-:... ,;...4-:-- 'I; . I -� ;"', 1 1 1 ... . - ---- -,., I I. i'll,`--51 ­l .1 " (,I4' . , ; , .. .. .�,� .. ., :- .,., 1, " . '. I ,).. . . ,�� . ..� , ! , , '- . I , I I - I - *-,,,, , - .,:;,:?" � , . .i .-. -n, - 4, , 1,i-,vii *11 " � 4*.- , . I. I , , I *- , . _ . i, , � , 4" , I .1 "! ,�, k , . , I , ,,,, 4 ': � 4 � " �. 1;1,1� , . , I - �, , ,, ;, . " , , r ", ;.� J�, , . I lw, - . � . � ...... I I I!, I . .. i.., , � . '. , , , . , . - I � I ; I., - ..�, *�) ,,, ! , !.:,i% .,.,. ' �!t � - .-" z �� li il . - - -- .�-- � I I I , ., . , � , :-, ; , p 1- ..'% . '. .. : �,,-, (4'-r: f� -� :, : I I . - .1 11 . , , 1 5.-- ., 1 ?l "I ;4�.'', . I . ;.� � - , ,, "r, , . I , ) .1 , ,� ,,�; ,,:.. �-, , - i, .1 � I . X . '.. , . . � � j i �, ,, , -,,;�, , , - : , :4 -, I - ,,,, ";, 1 1 , ,-,,, � ; v - � "' -, � : , �, , . , . � , . . , I � '. . A� . .."', - 1-1 : - .. .. - , "i" . " I ,,-.1,1111".. I I , . I li ", ,� :�* 2" , , , � " ". ,.,,I ; ,,,'�:­t, , : , , .., I �, i, " , - , I � ,,,,, �, ,,-�� -'. - ''. :. -, , '.. �-.! I . � - .:;" ,"��. � , " � " �-.,' '." .1t. , , , �, � : , , , :_ :,��'f', . I , --,� , - ,. -� 7" , .� , � ,.� ,',-;,,-�.l.'-',X'j ,,,- - 't, `� - --!,, --; ,- .. - , , �j I Y"', ,;'-, o, It '-, ; , -�:`, �� 'j.. "., , J, �, , , , �,�� -� . ­ " - ,�� V�, ... I .? ,,, , , 1". .i. "", , � " , 't,'f , , . - :, i�,::I�,` �- " ,', - . t, : 1. .,.;. .711. 411.,11,4.�,* -"', j7,.j,,,,�;.`f% -,;-i ,,O) I ,Z�, , " " V - ,� r' . p C,-.,':- - "I I �: 1, �,,, , , , ,V� ". -1 %, � .. 1- *A-�' *. - , qt'". ,�:z, I . � . I ;:, �:-.���,,' . " , � . �. , " �, .;P .1", , 1� -, �' - ', lx �,-,,,rq-,�.,., ,I� , r - � " 4.: , � � � -, .1 -, ;' :Q ..It - -111�1. .'�.-'. , �r .. - I , , � - . I - .. � �- 't . at , � ,,� �'�. 1� ,� �,- , , �, I I " " I ��'.� �,-", �, P" �. 1.11-1.� , ., -, -, f-j,-� -)'M%,,� " - C,L't -,,",��' `11;- ,�i .,. � , , - " - I :onsidered .by 'the:,.Flanning O :� .1 -14 , � - , , . �Of,,-4 ;,.,�i 1. . 1, ", t ) , , .:". � - , "I't � , �'-',�' , ., . I , , , , " , I. 4!,l- ,4-.., ,- , '. " -, . I,. t,��4�-,, I.j. , I- , . . " .-;',� !" , , . , I.; , . , lf.,.4,�.�,:Sin erely --,qpi�l, ­ n � , -% .. 1, " 1,:��,It'-, ,.,� ,� - ,.`�'F��"&-��, ,* ��i;, ""'' " ..,., ll,,��: f" ,�z:, -�-;-- , t'j'N'-:,!:-f, 'V�j' -.- ,,,-,. -,,,'--'-,4' 1-.� ­ - I. - , , .�,�',�, " I Commission'.'.-.i'l 0 , '?�'- ',� �,(,t�:, I . �, � .�% . �,,, r , , -�t,�, �T�,-.1-114lj -�-,�-, , 'j^p'P,-p --* - :, -; , , '. N., , �K�l . * I' � - - , ,� ­ , - . , . - '.1.1, , - � I - I ,,� - " .", , , '', " : .. .V, �:.,,I !�-.-", -':: ", �'.t, " ,,,� , , I ..'," I ,.. :,"."'. -�t.,�.-�� Residence : ­ or Bus"ine"s' s* �"addres�:-�';';) ...... 1�- - j.; -:-:� _, -,-r. . - . .-71F.ji",��g?i'���t'i'��l- I �l '1,�, ,� 1. ,1:t ,:,. I .'�, t,: '� .: :, , I-� ,,:i��;:t:,,�---':. *,�:3�,-, " � ..--. �, �;, ­f;r,4..'�4'7- *,�-J�' -�Vf . " I . , ,( - ��* � , -t � , 1� , , . - � . - 11 `;Ili,, I . +. t: j'�f--' " i,r , * -I' . , , d �., IH%�,�! 'N '! ir-^ . � ... 11 ... . ." ll"k I-- . - - . L — "'.. j", ,-, V 1-1, 1-11 ,�-, - - -, - , ,�',- 4-lr,t) ,-,�--,?l:,l-f,'�Vl- ` q , ,; '. , , , *�� ,,,,,, � ,.--,`.`,.'-.W li, �� I , 4"'.1lo-W-�.!�:,:1 t,y', V�[--";,�-t,,--,,-Y:�-�, ., - . -- . ,� : ,11I-t , .1. 1-11; �11 ,*',l.,--,j,�' ,,4--,�,, � - ,, :., , , I . . " "" . �, - A . - , T. , , . - , , - , , , ,�, ,�,.- �-,-l6`,(�;f.-.".W -- . , � , 4 " ,. ,(,��- � -,f ... ,--..--,-Zg-c,-c'6 -------,-,",q!!a- . ,...!. .,:,��-, .. ,. . , � " � ,.- -��', ,-,�I. ��, " , ,,", �, , , - ,* � � .11"j", -�;,-, % , 'T. , ': �. � - - , . � , l.-I..", . ) �. . , - - , ""..f ,"- 1. - -1 , , �t -P.,% '6 lir , "'�'-q,', " , 1�t,- . 1'1'17-c-) , �,- ,, �i-1,p-�, ->t,�,j.,!p*"sv,k,, .,..�(�tY"Z",','T,�-,,;f! -:+ - " . 'A� � I L , f47 - , . I A�,,, ," , I . , . I j 1. ; .* "it". -,,:,wb- $ I" '��"";",:� �, , , - . " -, , " �,,� , � - 1, "'4'. 1.1' # �,-" - I �: N 1�� � � ,,." � , ,,�� � 7� T. �',-j . . - - . , � .,�. , .. .: , . ,� �� ,� �I. .�: ", �2,, - , t", � , , " � � . . 11 . -�' , ti;v,) . - " 'k" - , - �, � , . .. .t I cl, It ," A I -) "' 11 Jw,7��4q��4,-"-,, . V 1. .1 1-1 ,I .V - I - - c � ,;,* -o" - - , - - .. �� ;." , , It , - -Rl ) I " , . ., � ;, „� , , '. � I , .* t �l . 1,,., ”, :j - t'� P d 11, , , , " I. - , c"'lov- tA ... -­,"'i . ,. - �,!�-.- �i- ,� ,�-q, , (-,l!;M1, I , , 4 1 . , .1 ; XI t - , - -,:1"j '. 1. V. — I - %�i , -;,�, -, -1'��, '. ;,I - - --t�,kN:l,e5-,l.:l ,� , 'I t. " -, '� , - I . - , . - . , , � , " ,,',,,-;.- 11 - "","'..", V-v,-�-4"ll " i;�L�5�1* �, .. 1-., , , ; ", - , ,I,!, , , " ;, . . � "-,,",-j�� ..... ... ) �,�, .,,A ,�,;d :1;;�,X,4;,�, -�., . - , , - I T, : . K 1� . - - , ,il. OAI� , - " , . , � - � n i , , .7 - - - .. , , � , , . ..!", �;-'-'�, , .,� I . . . ., - , , : ,�- -� 11" 1,.: . �., .1 " , " , , -`fX N, , - , tti� . . - �. I" 1, I' �j 1 , ,.-, , .. . . .11 I. , s., ,,�,,,,�! , " , .! :t't " �,l , , . , � � :, -:r%.--,'� z ,�-,' , ',��-�, ;�,--"i",j fA,�F -,� -,I, P, I , , ", ,',' , .� . I . 11 - ;" , I " -t� , J� - � r, 4�,- , -� I., - �,. " .-� ,4j�%-�:� , , " . 1'. . I :�, 1� .�. �. - * , ,�., . f1c, tl , . , ., , , . " ,4,, . 1-1 " c " 4, �' 1 '! ( " . , �L , 4 I " - :.�� ,-�� . - " , I, --l: ,,, ." �,�� �,,7,: ( �, - 1, ',;� " r " I , .1 -, �, � �.g -4t), � ;- " 1��* ` 14, I ,`�,��, . , , '� "I � .- .!� r� , , 0, . - - - ". ,.: . I 1, .. , . 1, .. , - I ,,, t .,,,, ., .-1�11: I.- --!,'O., � P,-`-Y�: �-Q' I ,-.- � " I " ,:, '. f'.1 4, , � Y. �. ,�4 , � A;,44 , � , �'. - - , " � 1� Po I 7I 4. V.", - ,'� , - , yr, �, ! . ;.1j. . �� - , , � � ,�.Ivz;.'� s 't .. �,-'; , ; ,4',',*�? 1�, " �, , \, A�l .14, -1. .: � .,,,, t� ., W; ,* I - - I �': . 1. -,� , ,., ,'.',.,'- .","'j; ", . I!., - - - ,,, I - ".."', , , i!"�:ft I� ,--�', It %,'�,;� , . , � - . �. .. ,.I :. , .,. ., 1* , , I. -,,-,,� - !�- .. I ,�,.�,�t'�"."";,..�, ��-1;4"-!, f-�',' �, 'r, - � " -, ":! ,4 - ,..,;. �1_ t I � I - t 'k V I .."'! ,�il , 'a .. "A � .. . ", � , . , ;I", - �,L*, .. '. ,,I�., , i". ;,*, V .. I �i �-- , . �- -1 .11-711 ,r,-' , I A, , - *�' , -7- , - . , �!V�I,p, . I , - �, - L, , * " " , . . i -, - , I III -,�I. ;2q �,� , 1% i -� � - 7, ,".,'�'! " , " , - .,W, , .�. .1 1� .�t '. " " ,-�,,,- " ,,l,-,,�wT%- , 1" � �.,�-'.'. . .� ;.,��,-,-;,- ,i,'�,,,�--:,.*�. I ,� -.��,;., , , , ., 1 , 'q, . , . 4. - 1� --,4",-,­l,) .."..;lll � .� " , , .,. -.. , - , , -.,�,,,�,,,P� t" " , ,7 ", , -i ,�-�, ��-.;�,,� -;-":,.."�,',,,,!,�,-'���""',',". " I ` � ,- - ji.�,4, ; '� ­-t ilr� ,", � -, � _'T , -. , 11 I . � , . ., , :1 ..4 " 4, �, �, "L .�'�% 1�', ", 1,� , , .,;" ,, .,� :-�'. ...:! ,!Z , �, -4 � , , d. ., ,'. . ,I , , . , , -� . ., , -,; -':,-i�; � `i,��"? , . . . .. .1 � '- , .1 ... ��.,-,-� ,�� , . .1 . -, lil- 1, il;N'. W�,� .... ... . �-%',,,',-.,,jA , ` , .'M11113 ll,� I ;-,.,, . . :, , , �I, , 'i ,, ""t "�- ,; e, ". �, I � "t , . , ?Flt I i , ; .. , -( .. ,- - , , - , �,- , - S-1, wi,A -:,�- ,;-,` ., ". - f - - , , � 'I I �, , �. � � . , . , .,...- .,��4,-, �, , --'-,�,�,� , " , . , '.' I - , , - ter � . ,.�. , . " I , ." �11 '�,:*, tt��, - --,o � � r, ..., 'i -, ". , - 1. .. � . t - ','-I�l 'j " ' W-1 LiT -,; I, �.� �, !, �, ., 4�� , . , - . . , . �- Z, , �' ;l.: . , , : . - . " � . , - 'I , * I! , . -,�i 'T ,-, ;I- . -, rk-,,, , - - I .. � - - I rZi;.-1 i) � -10 ! 5 ." :. ,:. , , �. : .. , . , . . , - , . , ;. - � !� U� 4.1. , I , . , . . , � I � 11., , � , � �,,.-,' i A-',-�I-k . " , ,�,, ...' . " , � , '-,'.�,' , ,-%,,­-ll, ", -,Y' . . - A . , .��l , - ,;.. %,r,. ;. , , "q k" . - � , . . . . t .. ., . . , " �, o 1: . ; I I . � ". I , , I 1, * , , �-, ;. - , , ,5 t-v, ;, .. '. ". , , .". I, , -1 , '��:, - � �- �,'!. , �, 'k vt� . . , ` -1�, , "', , I I -� - ,� � . . 1. I , : . f ,f--%-�r,y. � -, -,, q, t1l, " .-I " -,I - "', . � ': . . ,,, I , . - . -, .k.;-A . � ., � -,., .. . �T .1. -, " .- . � . " ,;? " , g�;,�-�-'-`, ,t-�-, ,-,-t , ,,, ,,,I , '4k " ., , t,t ,-,,�4 �.,'-, I I 1.4, , " , . ., :- � ". , ...! " 1.11, , � ;..� . !�-, ., .. , JI . . . , -, , , , ; , . �. � ....... V,f;, N. �. . ..-v )�- �) W 1) , � i , .. ". � , ".., - ,-I,�,".�,,�,-�-"��Y-,,""�I li�lvz-I--, � - - . 1. I,,'. ,,, ,�- -,�'o , - '. -!� ,�.- ", I . ,� - -,,,,-b-.--l�,,- , ". , , '- YF -pl I , -E) �, -, � , .� , ... .. , � . � - , k, f, , " � ,,,, ,�, ,�, 1):� t.Vfl'!f: lk - A �, I . , . , .: ,. , : , . . . i, � ­ , y. ,,, "..., . , . .j .�l , �� .,4 F,� ... 4�,.�,V -4.11. I , � '4�� t"', �,*��', I .� -, : � ,,�,f, , ,, -,%-,C,,,�.,� dt ,J, ,bl, ,�,,. ,�Vl,:P�-�N" -');x �.- �,t,Li',' I I , I ,,, I I .-w � . I .� ":." ,-,; , ',."- " ", : , ,;-i:, ;'A, -;- -, t:�-Wl- t., - , - " ;-'? !..� , - -, .. -.1 ", �'� . --�! "'. �-,.,!�-�,V;-": ,,�!�.Q.�. ". -4. -I.. " A "N"T M�,4, � 1�'�, ,,,V�, . I 1 , -,- - -- . 11 . � .�- ­ , . . - - - � '. - �,,,,�,.,iz "'i"t , "t . � . , - . ! .*..�,w, ��,_� :!tll "I'l,", �-, KQ . �� � 'i -,,�.-, ".'(�, -, "'; � , 7ir ..-., � I . . , -* ", . , 11�1,� , . .1 I , -1, , -'j-',,.:,� .1,1 � , , , , ., 7 , " - , , . , , � " . , ". . . ";, �', - � ': , "' il. , " -'M 'I. , - I 1 -.1 ", , - , " ': � ,, , -, , . . , . 7! ,.� �.:, :- , * I I � �'. 4, , , A , , " , - . . . �-. ,,,.,� I , �'�,'i.�-'j I'. , , .",', �1,i"t,j-"-', , , ,, , � �.,` ,'�, 1, , .1 -11 � .. • '. ,,,,P�, "; ., , ii , " -,,-�,',.- ,�'q-- , , - 14, t. . , . , - , , t . �'� -, -Yj I I � 1. I ,�14,:,,: , , .. , �,,!o .-?'g�;O!.R�. - -., , It, �--� !,�,' �,Vl-.��i_`-Y,' �,-,,�"-;-:', , �j, " . , , . . " .. . ': -�',.--"-�,�. :1, � I �, I,.,, I , �,� " , , 1 , - , ..� - 11 , ,I - �-,lp ",:'.� , , ."Mm'j, .; ... ... :".�'; " t:,: - � - " � ". , - �-".- �li- ,.,'. )"",)qi�7�.��.�:�f�,-",�.�"]��� . . �,.- :t . , � , , - ., . 't 1, " I t %.t'- - - , �.,. , . �tp,T, ',,';' ' .�4 ,"'. A,`Z"l!;'l' -"*;-" . , Y, j I . - -- . . . ... : : ,,��,,, , . j'.. I .. � . . , " �4 . :',' -,v �, -, , �*, 4 -, , . ,--'..":�., ;,4 ,-.. . ., '. -:..': I �, , , ,.- . , I � : " - - - , . , . : , * - , - , -, , 1. 'I . , . , � 1:1 ,.:. , I.) ";- , ". , " � - - ; ,.". . , I .1'. , , , .. - o � � - - � . . �,, . '. ..': , ,!,., . I .t , , .., , .] , ". 11 - ., % - I I , ,;,::,-., t .. I . ... .1. .1 , ., . ., - ,- , ,.- , � . , . .Y 11 , 1, , . .� .. - '�* i . f. , . . . . , . , . . ­ -,�, �.. . . '. ,. '. � I . �. ; , , � ,- -,� -� , , - - ",- , ; . " , t , . .: . . �V' . 1: 1 , I.. ". k , . - ", . '' . I. � , , ,�; �, I �� , "t" ', '. �. , . �?, ,t,'-, ., - "": - ; I . � -, - - � . , I " � ,',' -li I ,.-,, . I ; '. , % . ..... �` ', , , � ­. r Z'I�lii-'- , ..-�: I � . - - 11 . , . ." �� �. . � . . ." ,,- Z . - , I., , -,..,. . . . -,--,�" " . 4. - : . " , , �4 , , - , , , -4. ..: . . , - . , . , . .. , ; .. , * - I-, ,,, , .., .. ; .'I . `�,,',;-,."',, ! � � . , e ..� .. . '. . .; -'�,-­� -�: � � 1. . :. i . . I ..., -,P,*?,- , ".' ! ;:, �,, ��j, ,� q � . " ::. - . 1: , ., � ,: -1 , -Y.� ,, � ,;'. -� . , - , '. " � . , ,5".. , '..., � , " l" , , ark 1 : , , , 1. . , ., ., . :rj-,--� , . - - s " 1. N ': " , - �, , ,.,�., -,� -.'-��. . �- 1;—'l , � p , � �� I ,f,�� � :, - . I " t, , .� VI ", . -, - . .i. .,.f,- : ,�. , . , I , � i * " - I I I . I . . '. ., . 1. I , � . I , , . 17,4 - � - , . ; I ., , I , - �, I , � - '-, ;,,�.,-�, , , � . ., ,�,. � , - . , . -,.:,.,., : " ;;�. , - - -,, .", 1:�� . , . , . . I , l.' � -� (�� i . , . .1 - . � I I �o . . � ; . - . I . � ., � . I. . I .s: , . . . "; . .. ,1� - , :,.� . I 1�;,:- j, �. ?, . `1� .... .. ,� ".. 1. -,, ­ - .", , ".,O: J.. , - .. , . 11". "' , -1" � I. " * -'.11.1, �, '. " --�; I I , , " r-,� . ' �:.I�i, , , , - , - 1 -7 ,,� - , I '. , �. . - , . : * * . , , ��. % , , ,.: . . . , I .11. " ? 1� 1� ` I b!:', , ,�!). ", . . . I � .., � . .... � " ;"P , - � ,", " "! �;� f ,;� , . , � , " .. - . , , . . , �.. . � , . ; - ,.4� � I I , � . I. . I I :"�--,�% , t , q . , ;l I , I . , . . , " : . 1 il�,,.`7, . - '. i-N � , .. - , , --' , � . , - , - . -.. - , . ,� -� :�.. , . "! - 1- .(, 4 . . . . ,. , I I . � I . , A , , - �.* ; , . . _;'�.� , . .(k .. ,- � ! , -,�,�. .: -,-- .... ...;,.:..I.,- 1. . I I , . , � ,., , . , �� . , . . . - . , , � .,.* , �, :� � .... � ­ ,-, .I ... �- �� : .V. . , ;'. '.,� , .. � . .,. ". . . -.- . .� 1. � I- ", , - ; ,- .. �- I -S. ..: - - :- -k _ , t:��-L�!,- . , * "i . I , ,.- " , . * ',-:, , " . . .� - � I - ,:,�,, , .� , � I 11 , " I - - . -� , 'I, �' , . I - . I ,; . .,V, . I . . . I I .. I I � I I :!"� :,�;..�: I_ * :� -�� '. ; ,�-V tr� I�.l . . � � I I " . . - ,- " ,-, "; , , " ".,­ 1-� -.1;_", �-----'-:�,_,��-�, .: 4 .. . . - , � t,� -�, ,. - , . , - '. * - - � , .. '. , " . . f . - , . " � . , : , . - . , t:1 - -�l ':,t ,. 1, ", -- il j . ,, .t." J,� '..'�. . " --,. , , � .. -, - , I - ,:- ,.,4� , , ".41 I . , �� lq� - - -, ,, , �,�. ., 1, ? � , I �,, � , , ". � ,"', - . . s , �?, -'t� , , P - , , - ` . , ,�­, I .. . 'rte,- '- - � -4 ..'414. . , . , : , � , , , I I � . . , '! 't � �, "; 4 - .�-, , .., � W4 'k � �,,, ,.�--. -1 ,., �F 5.1�,'- '. . ". � ; " !A� , .. , . , r , J, �. . . . . - - - - . ", � " . . . . - ", , i -, � �-- . - ;i., -1� ", k. -.4', , .� . .. �. " -'.,. , ., ,:� v , �.,. . �; , -.,�";�,-� . . : . . - � . � . , ��.1 Iii'l-: .. P , , , I V , , - ;%N v4, - Z,�, �. ".- , 4, I I . . , , , ,� p `�:.- '� ; .1 ". . - , "r, , �;. - . 1-Y " . . ,,, " I . . � . . I -1. � � ;_"I " �l I ,. I I , .... , I , -. � '.. ,� ,.", " e '.,; . . -� - , '.' . ;.- *,'-_'��, -�--* �-- . . � . .. I � i.- I . I . . , . " , : ,.lg" -, , , � . , , - - , -1 - .,,-,T� - - - 1', �-'- � I.. , . 4'. �- , �. , . . : I I . . , . " '. .At,..: �r. . . I . . , I� .,.., ­', . � . - . ., 1 , ; :I*, "-,. "; .. .. . . , .. , .:! , . . , �l , - -. , � , . . . ,�,!` , , -11". , , � - � - .�7�i - - - "., 1 g 1. . I , 1-0�, 4'. � . t , - ; , - --� -.-, .. - �;.!�, - . . . . I � � -, ., , � - "',... , 7- 1. 1. , - - I - - �, ....; � , " - , . ,; . , . . " , �� 1. , ':V; 1". - , �, , , � , - * - t -, �, 'n " 7, , " ,V,� ,i I , 4, , :�S , ,�- , : . ; f �! I . ,,,, . ,.,r, . . , � . �f - ,V-', - , 4" .?, '""', .,�� ,. '. , ' � - ' "-' ­ - ' ; - ' .t , ' ,. , I I , . 1, , I . . I � . I , , -.1 �. I � , !i , I, , -'�Y �lf, ll-.%�5-", , �-- -, -Z�4 � . . � 1, J), - . - - - � , , � -',, � - . � 1. ? - I .. - . � . I .,;,. , , """"'.�1i. ."p, . I IV, 1, .1 ,;.. -". . , ,.,�, v ".. k­­��`�,;:'� -�"� '�`�. ' ,, �1,;'T'7"�', , . i ': ' * , - �'.�, 'I -'�` -, ',�: -� ,� ,�14 V1, , r I, ,,,,,,t - � ,, �.� ? 1, :. I .­ . , , -1 4 - R, - - � a- ,,, , ,,-, � I , ,", , ,:,* 1, Int - I - �',t , , "'.. �� f , . . . . . . s. i ,�l � , .1 �.. I - , , - - , - � . � -,- ". . . �-. , ' � I' . �" - L",' �,j, ,-,�� ' % ", _ . * ..i - r. , - �, 'Z,,,,' -. i I ,,-. � 4, I. .Av �;t , 19 1, . ., � ".,.. , , , V�44 � . ,_ .:. -, -� ,,'� -, " '. � ,,�, � . , �0 - lz.%,� 51:� .'I 4 , - . . - .-, , I - !4 P, � � ... I 1� -. p" I - 7-7t--- q, �'.�� tl . I I " .1 : , 1. . I-,- - - .1, �.. V.,� ..- � % . � . - , , . 'o - , . . . �'. " . . . Y . - � , :- ,A , - 7,�r . . . �'� ` " " , - I * , I. . "! . , �:. , " �.. . ..I. . I.". - ,�'. , ,� . . �, , - I., , .I 1. ., , . , , -: ]�"'N',-;, " - ,;.-. . " .k - " , , I '.'� I �, '- , � ., I � , � . I " . . ;l .�,l "..,"'t , '-,-� , * i�,-,",!R-'. :<-�4%; ,,z . I - " I ,. . - � ., . '. . , - . I , N, e- - - , ✓; , .11 . .1 , - .�, , e! - , I tl-., ;�-, ., � 1, I , , .., , ,, , - , 7 , ': - �'.Y,,-,P ;�.Z-,- �",-.V- 'If" - ;, , .� , I .. � , - , : , * ;-�,� ", -, , - -"-'-,�­ - . , . " " -11611. ` -, i --, -4,i4 3 ": . ,,� i-11 . �� . . , , - 1, . .� � � , .. , , I : , � �a , ,-,', 11, . -`11-�`,- .l." •" - 'i. -1. 'P?`i,`, -,�,W , ,:, �' : wt .." .!It : 1" . i . 1, "A...j. .� , . . . ': ..., 4 ",-:il�f , , , -�;'- - .I,, � , . . .1, , , - , � . ,� I 1, , � I , , 1 w , . , .., . 11, . . . I I ; *' . I , � �. , . . . -----lAl-! ; '. - ! I : 1. �, f,l ; - "', � . - � -- - (� � -1 , . . . - - 77 , . � . . I . - . I , , .. ,-, I � " . I A, . I , I . . . , . . , . . .1 .. . . - . . " ,A .. : !,-,.% , ... .1 - " , . . . . , , ." i. ., ... � , t �. . , ' :n " I , I . . �, ,,, ,.z,;, ., , ., � , ,;: " , - .11�� - , , I ,,.. . , , $, ...J�'.-;F,:,j- ,l,.._bara-toga-j,os_xoaa, item .., � -.1, - . . - . I 1.1,'',..�''t".,�,"�.'il,'!�-;��.� ,---1.14�1.�t,,-'-,-�, z . , June t 1— . ninth. .11% ;� �-,%! " �'.-:... ,;...4-:-- 'I; . I -� ;"', 1 1 1 ... . - ---- -,., I I. i'll,`--51 ­l .1 " (,I4' . , ; , .. .. .�,� .. ., :- .,., 1, " . '. I ,).. . . ,�� . ..� , ! , , '- . I , I I - I - *-,,,, , - .,:;,:?" � , . .i .-. -n, - 4, , 1,i-,vii *11 " � 4*.- , . I. I , , I *- , . _ . i, , � , 4" , I .1 "! ,�, k , . , I , ,,,, 4 ': � 4 � " �. 1;1,1� , . , I - �, , ,, ;, . " , , r ", ;.� J�, , . I lw, - . � . � ...... I I I!, I . .. i.., , � . '. , , , . , . - I � I ; I., - ..�, *�) ,,, ! , !.:,i% .,.,. ' �!t � - .-" z �� li il . - - -- .�-- � I I I , ., . , � , :-, ; , p 1- ..'% . '. .. : �,,-, (4'-r: f� -� :, : I I . - .1 11 . , , 1 5.-- ., 1 ?l "I ;4�.'', . I . ;.� � - , ,, "r, , . I , ) .1 , ,� ,,�; ,,:.. �-, , - i, .1 � I . X . '.. , . . � � j i �, ,, , -,,;�, , , - : , :4 -, I - ,,,, ";, 1 1 , ,-,,, � ; v - � "' -, � : , �, , . , . � , . . , I � '. . A� . .."', - 1-1 : - .. .. - , "i" . " I ,,-.1,1111".. I I , . I li ", ,� :�* 2" , , , � " ". ,.,,I ; ,,,'�:­t, , : , , .., I �, i, " , - , I � ,,,,, �, ,,-�� -'. - ''. :. -, , '.. �-.! I . � - .:;" ,"��. � , " � " �-.,' '." .1t. , , , �, � : , , , :_ :,��'f', . I , --,� , - ,. -� 7" , .� , � ,.� ,',-;,,-�.l.'-',X'j ,,,- - 't, `� - --!,, --; ,- .. - , , �j I Y"', ,;'-, o, It '-, ; , -�:`, �� 'j.. "., , J, �, , , , �,�� -� . ­ " - ,�� V�, ... I .? ,,, , , 1". .i. "", , � " , 't,'f , , . - :, i�,::I�,` �- " ,', - . t, : 1. .,.;. .711. 411.,11,4.�,* -"', j7,.j,,,,�;.`f% -,;-i ,,O) I ,Z�, , " " V - ,� r' . p C,-.,':- - "I I �: 1, �,,, , , , ,V� ". -1 %, � .. 1- *A-�' *. - , qt'". ,�:z, I . � . I ;:, �:-.���,,' . " , � . �. , " �, .;P .1", , 1� -, �' - ', lx �,-,,,rq-,�.,., ,I� , r - � " 4.: , � � � -, .1 -, ;' :Q ..It - -111�1. .'�.-'. , �r .. - I , , � - . I - .. � �- 't . at , � ,,� �'�. 1� ,� �,- , , �, I I " " I ��'.� �,-", �, P" �. 1.11-1.� , ., -, -, f-j,-� -)'M%,,� " - C,L't -,,",��' `11;- ,�i .,. � , , - " - I :onsidered .by 'the:,.Flanning O :� .1 -14 , � - , , . �Of,,-4 ;,.,�i 1. . 1, ", t ) , , .:". � - , "I't � , �'-',�' , ., . I , , , , " , I. 4!,l- ,4-.., ,- , '. " -, . I,. t,��4�-,, I.j. , I- , . . " .-;',� !" , , . , I.; , . , lf.,.4,�.�,:Sin erely --,qpi�l, ­ n � , -% .. 1, " 1,:��,It'-, ,.,� ,� - ,.`�'F��"&-��, ,* ��i;, ""'' " ..,., ll,,��: f" ,�z:, -�-;-- , t'j'N'-:,!:-f, 'V�j' -.- ,,,-,. -,,,'--'-,4' 1-.� ­ - I. - , , .�,�',�, " I Commission'.'.-.i'l 0 , '?�'- ',� �,(,t�:, I . �, � .�% . �,,, r , , -�t,�, �T�,-.1-114lj -�-,�-, , 'j^p'P,-p --* - :, -; , , '. N., , �K�l . * I' � - - , ,� ­ , - . , . - '.1.1, , - � I - I ,,� - " .", , , '', " : .. .V, �:.,,I !�-.-", -':: ", �'.t, " ,,,� , , I ..'," I ,.. :,"."'. -�t.,�.-�� Residence : ­ or Bus"ine"s' s* �"addres�:-�';';) ...... 1�- - j.; -:-:� _, -,-r. . - . .-71F.ji",��g?i'���t'i'��l- I �l '1,�, ,� 1. ,1:t ,:,. I .'�, t,: '� .: :, , I-� ,,:i��;:t:,,�---':. *,�:3�,-, " � ..--. �, �;, ­f;r,4..'�4'7- *,�-J�' -�Vf . " I . , ,( - ��* � , -t � , 1� , , . - � . - 11 `;Ili,, I . +. t: j'�f--' " i,r , * -I' . , , d �., IH%�,�! 'N '! ir-^ . � ... 11 ... . ." ll"k I-- . - - . L — "'.. j", ,-, V 1-1, 1-11 ,�-, - - -, - , ,�',- 4-lr,t) ,-,�--,?l:,l-f,'�Vl- ` q , ,; '. , , , *�� ,,,,,, � ,.--,`.`,.'-.W li, �� I , 4"'.1lo-W-�.!�:,:1 t,y', V�[--";,�-t,,--,,-Y:�-�, ., - . -- . ,� : ,11I-t , .1. 1-11; �11 ,*',l.,--,j,�' ,,4--,�,, � - ,, :., , , I . . " "" . �, - A . - , T. , , . - , , - , , , ,�, ,�,.- �-,-l6`,(�;f.-.".W -- . , � , 4 " ,. ,(,��- � -,f ... ,--..--,-Zg-c,-c'6 -------,-,",q!!a- . ,...!. .,:,��-, .. ,. . , � " � ,.- -��', ,-,�I. ��, " , ,,", �, , , - ,* � � .11"j", -�;,-, % , 'T. , ': �. � - - , . � , l.-I..", . ) �. . , - - , ""..f ,"- 1. - -1 , , �t -P.,% '6 lir , "'�'-q,', " , 1�t,- . 1'1'17-c-) , �,- ,, �i-1,p-�, ->t,�,j.,!p*"sv,k,, .,..�(�tY"Z",','T,�-,,;f! -:+ - " . 'A� � I L , f47 - , . I A�,,, ," , I . , . I j 1. ; .* "it". -,,:,wb- $ I" '��"";",:� �, , , - . " -, , " �,,� , � - 1, "'4'. 1.1' # �,-" - I �: N 1�� � � ,,." � , ,,�� � 7� T. �',-j . . - - . , � .,�. , .. .: , . ,� �� ,� �I. .�: ", �2,, - , t", � , , " � � . . 11 . -�' , ti;v,) . - " 'k" - , - �, � , . .. .t I cl, It ," A I -) "' 11 Jw,7��4q��4,-"-,, . V 1. .1 1-1 ,I .V - I - - c � ,;,* -o" - - , - - .. �� ;." , , It , - -Rl ) I " , . ., � ;, „� , , '. � I , .* t �l . 1,,., ”, :j - t'� P d 11, , , , " I. - , c"'lov- tA ... -­,"'i . ,. - �,!�-.- �i- ,� ,�-q, , (-,l!;M1, I , , 4 1 . , .1 ; XI t - , - -,:1"j '. 1. V. — I - %�i , -;,�, -, -1'��, '. ;,I - - --t�,kN:l,e5-,l.:l ,� , 'I t. " -, '� , - I . - , . - . , , � , " ,,',,,-;.- 11 - "","'..", V-v,-�-4"ll " i;�L�5�1* �, .. 1-., , , ; ", - , ,I,!, , , " ;, . . � "-,,",-j�� ..... ... ) �,�, .,,A ,�,;d :1;;�,X,4;,�, -�., . - , , - I T, : . K 1� . - - , ,il. OAI� , - " , . , � - � n i , , .7 - - - .. , , � , , . ..!", �;-'-'�, , .,� I . . . ., - , , : ,�- -� 11" 1,.: . �., .1 " , " , , -`fX N, , - , tti� . . - �. I" 1, I' �j 1 , ,.-, , .. . . .11 I. , s., ,,�,,,,�! , " , .! :t't " �,l , , . , � � :, -:r%.--,'� z ,�-,' , ',��-�, ;�,--"i",j fA,�F -,� -,I, P, I , , ", ,',' , .� . I . 11 - ;" , I " -t� , J� - � r, 4�,- , -� I., - �,. " .-� ,4j�%-�:� , , " . 1'. . I :�, 1� .�. �. - * , ,�., . f1c, tl , . , ., , , . " ,4,, . 1-1 " c " 4, �' 1 '! ( " . , �L , 4 I " - :.�� ,-�� . - " , I, --l: ,,, ." �,�� �,,7,: ( �, - 1, ',;� " r " I , .1 -, �, � �.g -4t), � ;- " 1��* ` 14, I ,`�,��, . , , '� "I � .- .!� r� , , 0, . - - - ". ,.: . I 1, .. , . 1, .. , - I ,,, t .,,,, ., .-1�11: I.- --!,'O., � P,-`-Y�: �-Q' I ,-.- � " I " ,:, '. f'.1 4, , � Y. �. ,�4 , � A;,44 , � , �'. - - , " � 1� Po I 7I 4. V.", - ,'� , - , yr, �, ! . ;.1j. . �� - , , � � ,�.Ivz;.'� s 't .. �,-'; , ; ,4',',*�? 1�, " �, , \, A�l .14, -1. .: � .,,,, t� ., W; ,* I - - I �': . 1. -,� , ,., ,'.',.,'- .","'j; ", . I!., - - - ,,, I - ".."', , , i!"�:ft I� ,--�', It %,'�,;� , . , � - . �. .. ,.I :. , .,. ., 1* , , I. -,,-,,� - !�- .. I ,�,.�,�t'�"."";,..�, ��-1;4"-!, f-�',' �, 'r, - � " -, ":! ,4 - ,..,;. �1_ t I � I - t 'k V I .."'! ,�il , 'a .. "A � .. . ", � , . , ;I", - �,L*, .. '. ,,I�., , i". ;,*, V .. I �i �-- , . �- -1 .11-711 ,r,-' , I A, , - *�' , -7- , - . , �!V�I,p, . I , - �, - L, , * " " , . . i -, - , I III -,�I. ;2q �,� , 1% i -� � - 7, ,".,'�'! " , " , - .,W, , .�. .1 1� .�t '. " " ,-�,,,- " ,,l,-,,�wT%- , 1" � �.,�-'.'. . .� ;.,��,-,-;,- ,i,'�,,,�--:,.*�. I ,� -.��,;., , , , ., 1 , 'q, . , . 4. - 1� --,4",-,­l,) .."..;lll � .� " , , .,. -.. , - , , -.,�,,,�,,,P� t" " , ,7 ", , -i ,�-�, ��-.;�,,� -;-":,.."�,',,,,!,�,-'���""',',". " I ` � ,- - ji.�,4, ; '� ­-t ilr� ,", � -, � _'T , -. , 11 I . � , . ., , :1 ..4 " 4, �, �, "L .�'�% 1�', ", 1,� , , .,;" ,, .,� :-�'. ...:! ,!Z , �, -4 � , , d. ., ,'. . ,I , , . , , -� . ., , -,; -':,-i�; � `i,��"? , . . . .. .1 � '- , .1 ... ��.,-,-� ,�� , . .1 . -, lil- 1, il;N'. W�,� .... ... . �-%',,,',-.,,jA , ` , .'M11113 ll,� I ;-,.,, . . :, , , �I, , 'i ,, ""t "�- ,; e, ". �, I � "t , . , ?Flt I i , ; .. , -( .. ,- - , , - , �,- , - S-1, wi,A -:,�- ,;-,` ., ". - f - - , , � 'I I �, , �. � � . , . , .,...- .,��4,-, �, , --'-,�,�,� , " , . , '.' I - , , - ter � . ,.�. , . " I , ." �11 '�,:*, tt��, - --,o � � r, ..., 'i -, ". , - 1. .. � . t - ','-I�l 'j " ' W-1 LiT -,; I, �.� �, !, �, ., 4�� , . , - . . , . �- Z, , �' ;l.: . , , : . - . " � . , - 'I , * I! , . -,�i 'T ,-, ;I- . -, rk-,,, , - - I .. � - - I rZi;.-1 i) � -10 ! 5 ." :. ,:. , , �. : .. , . , . . , - , . , ;. - � !� U� 4.1. , I , . , . . , � I � 11., , � , � �,,.-,' i A-',-�I-k . " , ,�,, ...' . " , � , '-,'.�,' , ,-%,,­-ll, ", -,Y' . . - A . , .��l , - ,;.. %,r,. ;. , , "q k" . - � , . . . . t .. ., . . , " �, o 1: . ; I I . � ". I , , I 1, * , , �-, ;. - , , ,5 t-v, ;, .. '. ". , , .". I, , -1 , '��:, - � �- �,'!. , �, 'k vt� . . , ` -1�, , "', , I I -� - ,� � . . 1. I , : . f ,f--%-�r,y. � -, -,, q, t1l, " .-I " -,I - "', . � ': . . ,,, I , . - . -, .k.;-A . � ., � -,., .. . �T .1. -, " .- . � . " ,;? " , g�;,�-�-'-`, ,t-�-, ,-,-t , ,,, ,,,I , '4k " ., , t,t ,-,,�4 �.,'-, I I 1.4, , " , . ., :- � ". , ...! " 1.11, , � ;..� . !�-, ., .. , JI . . . , -, , , , ; , . �. � ....... V,f;, N. �. . ..-v )�- �) W 1) , � i , .. ". � , ".., - ,-I,�,".�,,�,-�-"��Y-,,""�I li�lvz-I--, � - - . 1. I,,'. ,,, ,�- -,�'o , - '. -!� ,�.- ", I . ,� - -,,,,-b-.--l�,,- , ". , , '- YF -pl I , -E) �, -, � , .� , ... .. , � . � - , k, f, , " � ,,,, ,�, ,�, 1):� t.Vfl'!f: lk - A �, I . , . , .: ,. , : , . . . i, � ­ , y. ,,, "..., . , . .j .�l , �� .,4 F,� ... 4�,.�,V -4.11. I , � '4�� t"', �,*��', I .� -, : � ,,�,f, , ,, -,%-,C,,,�.,� dt ,J, ,bl, ,�,,. ,�Vl,:P�-�N" -');x �.- �,t,Li',' I I , I ,,, I I .-w � . I .� ":." ,-,; , ',."- " ", : , ,;-i:, ;'A, -;- -, t:�-Wl- t., - , - " ;-'? !..� , - -, .. -.1 ", �'� . --�! "'. �-,.,!�-�,V;-": ,,�!�.Q.�. ". -4. -I.. " A "N"T M�,4, � 1�'�, ,,,V�, . I 1 , -,- - -- . 11 . � .�- ­ , . . - - - � '. - �,,,,�,.,iz "'i"t , "t . � . , - . ! .*..�,w, ��,_� :!tll "I'l,", �-, KQ . �� � 'i -,,�.-, ".'(�, -, "'; � , 7ir ..-., � I . . , -* ", . , 11�1,� , . .1 I , -1, , -'j-',,.:,� .1,1 � , , , , ., 7 , " - , , . , , � " . , ". . . ";, �', - � ': , "' il. , " -'M 'I. , - I 1 -.1 ", , - , " ': � ,, , -, , . . , . 7! ,.� �.:, :- , * I I � �'. 4, , , A , , " , - . . . �-. ,,,.,� I , �'�,'i.�-'j I'. , , .",', �1,i"t,j-"-', , , ,, , � �.,` ,'�, 1, , .1 -11 � .. • '. ,,,,P�, "; ., , ii , " -,,-�,',.- ,�'q-- , , - 14, t. . , . , - , , t . �'� -, -Yj I I � 1. I ,�14,:,,: , , .. , �,,!o .-?'g�;O!.R�. - -., , It, �--� !,�,' �,Vl-.��i_`-Y,' �,-,,�"-;-:', , �j, " . , , . . " .. . ': -�',.--"-�,�. :1, � I �, I,.,, I , �,� " , , 1 , - , ..� - 11 , ,I - �-,lp ",:'.� , , ."Mm'j, .; ... ... :".�'; " t:,: - � - " � ". , - �-".- �li- ,.,'. )"",)qi�7�.��.�:�f�,-",�.�"]��� . . �,.- :t . , � , , - ., . 't 1, " I t %.t'- - - , �.,. , . �tp,T, ',,';' ' .�4 ,"'. A,`Z"l!;'l' -"*;-" . , Y, j I . - -- . . . ... : : ,,��,,, , . j'.. I .. � . . , " �4 . :',' -,v �, -, , �*, 4 -, , . ,--'..":�., ;,4 ,-.. . ., '. -:..': I �, , , ,.- . , I � : " - - - , . , . : , * - , - , -, , 1. 'I . , . , � 1:1 ,.:. , I.) ";- , ". , " � - - ; ,.". . , I .1'. , , , .. - o � � - - � . . �,, . '. ..': , ,!,., . I .t , , .., , .] , ". 11 - ., % - I I , ,;,::,-., t .. I . ... .1. .1 , ., . ., - ,- , ,.- , � . , . .Y 11 , 1, , . .� .. - '�* i . f. , . . . . , . , . . ­ -,�, �.. . . '. ,. '. � I . �. ; , , � ,- -,� -� , , - - ",- , ; . " , t , . .: . . �V' . 1: 1 , I.. ". k , . - ", . '' . I. � , , ,�; �, I �� , "t" ', '. �. , . �?, ,t,'-, ., - "": - ; I . � -, - - � . , I " � ,',' -li I ,.-,, . I ; '. , % . ..... �` ', , , � ­. r Z'I�lii-'- , ..-�: I � . - - 11 . , . ." �� �. . � . . ." ,,- Z . - , I., , -,..,. . . . -,--,�" " . 4. - : . " , , �4 , , - , , , -4. ..: . . , - . , . , . .. , ; .. , * - I-, ,,, , .., .. ; .'I . `�,,',;-,."',, ! � � . , e ..� .. . '. . .; -'�,-­� -�: � � 1. . :. i . . I ..., -,P,*?,- , ".' ! ;:, �,, ��j, ,� q � . " ::. - . 1: , ., � ,: -1 , -Y.� ,, � ,;'. -� . , - , '. " � . , ,5".. , '..., � , " l" , , ark 1 : , , , 1. . , ., ., . :rj-,--� , . - - s " 1. N ': " , - �, , ,.,�., -,� -.'-��. . �- 1;—'l , � p , � �� I ,f,�� � :, - . I " t, , .� VI ", . -, - . .i. .,.f,- : ,�. , . , I , � i * " - I I I . I . . '. ., . 1. I , � . I , , . 17,4 - � - , . ; I ., , I , - �, I , � - '-, ;,,�.,-�, , , � . ., ,�,. � , - . , . -,.:,.,., : " ;;�. , - - -,, .", 1:�� . , . , . . I , l.' � -� (�� i . , . .1 - . � I I �o . . � ; . - . I . � ., � . I. . I .s: , . . . "; . .. ,1� - , :,.� . I 1�;,:- j, �. ?, . `1� .... .. ,� ".. 1. -,, ­ - .", , ".,O: J.. , - .. , . 11". "' , -1" � I. " * -'.11.1, �, '. " --�; I I , , " r-,� . ' �:.I�i, , , , - , - 1 -7 ,,� - , I '. , �. . - , . : * * . , , ��. % , , ,.: . . . , I .11. " ? 1� 1� ` I b!:', , ,�!). ", . . . I � .., � . .... � " ;"P , - � ,", " "! �;� f ,;� , . , � , " .. - . , , . . , �.. . � , . ; - ,.4� � I I , � . I. . I I :"�--,�% , t , q . , ;l I , I . , . . , " : . 1 il�,,.`7, . - '. i-N � , .. - , , --' , � . , - , - . -.. - , . ,� -� :�.. , . "! - 1- .(, 4 . . . . ,. , I I . � I . , A , , - �.* ; , . . _;'�.� , . .(k .. ,- � ! , -,�,�. .: -,-- .... ...;,.:..I.,- 1. . I I , . , � ,., , . , �� . , . . . - . , , � .,.* , �, :� � .... � ­ ,-, .I ... �- �� : .V. . , ;'. '.,� , .. � . .,. ". . . -.- . .� 1. � I- ", , - ; ,- .. �- I -S. ..: - - :- -k _ , t:��-L�!,- . , * "i . I , ,.- " , . * ',-:, , " . . .� - � I - ,:,�,, , .� , � I 11 , " I - - . -� , 'I, �' , . I - . I ,; . .,V, . I . . . I I .. I I � I I :!"� :,�;..�: I_ * :� -�� '. ; ,�-V tr� I�.l . . � � I I " . . - ,- " ,-, "; , , " ".,­ 1-� -.1;_", �-----'-:�,_,��-�, .: 4 .. . . - , � t,� -�, ,. - , . , - '. * - - � , .. '. , " . . f . - , . " � . , : , . - . , t:1 - -�l ':,t ,. 1, ", -- il j . ,, .t." J,� '..'�. . " --,. , , � .. -, - , I - ,:- ,.,4� , , ".41 I . , �� lq� - - -, ,, , �,�. ., 1, ? � , I �,, � , , ". � ,"', - . . s , �?, -'t� , , P - , , - ` . , ,�­, I .. . 'rte,- '- - � -4 ..'414. . , . , : , � , , , I I � . . , '! 't � �, "; 4 - .�-, , .., � W4 'k � �,,, ,.�--. -1 ,., �F 5.1�,'- '. . ". � ; " !A� , .. , . , r , J, �. . . . . - - - - . ", � " . . . . - ", , i -, � �-- . - ;i., -1� ", k. -.4', , .� . .. �. " -'.,. , ., ,:� v , �.,. . �; , -.,�";�,-� . . : . . - � . � . , ��.1 Iii'l-: .. P , , , I V , , - ;%N v4, - Z,�, �. ".- , 4, I I . . , , , ,� p `�:.- '� ; .1 ". . - , "r, , �;. - . 1-Y " . . ,,, " I . . � . . I -1. � � ;_"I " �l I ,. I I , .... , I , -. � '.. ,� ,.", " e '.,; . . -� - , '.' . ;.- *,'-_'��, -�--* �-- . . � . .. I � i.- I . I . . , . " , : ,.lg" -, , , � . , , - - , -1 - .,,-,T� - - - 1', �-'- � I.. , . 4'. �- , �. , . . : I I . . , . " '. .At,..: �r. . . I . . , I� .,.., ­', . � . - . ., 1 , ; :I*, "-,. "; .. .. . . , .. , .:! , . . , �l , - -. , � , . . . ,�,!` , , -11". , , � - � - .�7�i - - - "., 1 g 1. . I , 1-0�, 4'. � . t , - ; , - --� -.-, .. - �;.!�, - . . . . I � � -, ., , � - "',... , 7- 1. 1. , - - I - - �, ....; � , " - , . ,; . , . . " , �� 1. , ':V; 1". - , �, , , � , - * - t -, �, 'n " 7, , " ,V,� ,i I , 4, , :�S , ,�- , : . ; f �! I . ,,,, . ,.,r, . . , � . �f - ,V-', - , 4" .?, '""', .,�� ,. '. , ' � - ' "-' ­ - ' ; - ' .t , ' ,. , I I , . 1, , I . . I � . I , , -.1 �. I � , !i , I, , -'�Y �lf, ll-.%�5-", , �-- -, -Z�4 � . . � 1, J), - . - - - � , , � -',, � - . � 1. ? - I .. - . � . I .,;,. , , """"'.�1i. ."p, . I IV, 1, .1 ,;.. -". . , ,.,�, v ".. k­­��`�,;:'� -�"� '�`�. ' ,, �1,;'T'7"�', , . i ': ' * , - �'.�, 'I -'�` -, ',�: -� ,� ,�14 V1, , r I, ,,,,,,t - � ,, �.� ? 1, :. I .­ . , , -1 4 - R, - - � a- ,,, , ,,-, � I , ,", , ,:,* 1, Int - I - �',t , , "'.. �� f , . . . . . . s. i ,�l � , .1 �.. I - , , - - , - � . � -,- ". . . �-. , ' � I' . �" - L",' �,j, ,-,�� ' % ", _ . * ..i - r. , - �, 'Z,,,,' -. i I ,,-. � 4, I. .Av �;t , 19 1, . ., � ".,.. , , , V�44 � . ,_ .:. -, -� ,,'� -, " '. � ,,�, � . , �0 - lz.%,� 51:� .'I 4 , - . . - .-, , I - !4 P, � � ... I 1� -. p" I - 7-7t--- q, �'.�� tl . I I " .1 : , 1. . I-,- - - .1, �.. V.,� ..- � % . � . - , , . 'o - , . . . �'. " . . . Y . - � , :- ,A , - 7,�r . . . �'� ` " " , - I * , I. . "! . , �:. , " �.. . ..I. . I.". - ,�'. , ,� . . �, , - I., , .I 1. ., , . , , -: ]�"'N',-;, " - ,;.-. . " .k - " , , I '.'� I �, '- , � ., I � , � . I " . . ;l .�,l "..,"'t , '-,-� , * i�,-,",!R-'. :<-�4%; ,,z . I - " I ,. . - � ., . '. . , - . I , N, e- - - , ✓; , .11 . .1 , - .�, , e! - , I tl-., ;�-, ., � 1, I , , .., , ,, , - , 7 , ': - �'.Y,,-,P ;�.Z-,- �",-.V- 'If" - ;, , .� , I .. � , - , : , * ;-�,� ", -, , - -"-'-,�­ - . , . " " -11611. ` -, i --, -4,i4 3 ": . ,,� i-11 . �� . . , , - 1, . .� � � , .. , , I : , � �a , ,-,', 11, . -`11-�`,- .l." •" - 'i. -1. 'P?`i,`, -,�,W , ,:, �' : wt .." .!It : 1" . i . 1, "A...j. .� , . . . ': ..., 4 ",-:il�f , , , -�;'- - .I,, � , . . .1, , , - , � . ,� I 1, , � I , , 1 w , . , .., . 11, . . . I I ; *' . I , � �. , . . . -----lAl-! ; '. - ! I : 1. �, f,l ; - "', � . - � -- - (� � -1 , . . . - - 77 , . � . . I . - . I , , .. ,-, I � " . *i � . !-; � . � . I . . I . . . . 11. , � " ,, . ,.( I I � . I I . -. . I I . I 1, I I . .. 'p"­ I - . �:, I 1. . , . I , . I 1: I � .. . I .�� t . , I . , ! , I: : , " . -,:, � � . I .. � I I . , (71' , : ...'. . — . , . . t 1 1� 1 11 St • kY`ji , ` ), a ,(r i '111 1 _ r, t r 1 1 F ( 1 A �i id , .. '1 ti 1 0 1 t r tp, J ..� t t f t- -'7 ,1 } °. ,' "'i ' N 1 1 q i v it ", 1' 9 k 7F J , Jain }: t r;L i t + i c / !r J Y t ,L1 t 7 i }s t 1 a i, i �.., t 7 t t , , ', Jt �� ', ' . :1i : ! , � .. Ij'71 " ;t� `... is cr r.r �,. i 1ar.. i7�.t ; 6r�ti' r? f �' ' - Louise Schaefer ,_ 7, J rt .� 1it,, r.,Y - 7. r 1 } Itr'• .e.• , ' -.,. j ,,. 'r,.•, f R. +,1.i 1 S { {, ;'' t..•� J r 1 a`�'' { r h Chairman Planning Commission , `; _ , 7 }�` GIs 11 .3� kid .. , r rs t. f 1_ \ fi r}(y-Y < lSP. S i ?! .t ti Jl� S .5 I t: 'I i , r r1 7 -u r 741 ,SEA r.i } r -�' , (; . 74'' Park ' Drive ". - �, r {Y 1 , +�7r f •} _ b .I , t t 7 t .J,- . i f }�i�N k);'jt, :r.i'> Saratoga, Ca. 95070 ., 7 " r ,. 7 -. s r; ,t f r, a , , 11 .!'1 it >'4 I:tj,l f{J t Lfii r 11.,. -,I'- -!F E r Y' 4 �,- ..) r' 1� 7 i' k,_L ,' en , t I, f j t 5,1+ a r7.i Ira i' \ 1 C -� l { .w�f t rJ a J AF' ,; '.4, { tt, ,t.` , K J -- 11 "4" tir f , rs- `t� , i L ! YI r P �•y 1 I 6. I+ i n S. l'i v ly 5 7, 1 e : 1r'F, ` t t!. { S. -t rlY'1 7 1 �. �'�. t I Lt}�+:7i �1`%' i „ c '} 16'y i ... r71 r.. �� „t a F �1 i4 Y.Y, C� 't t. i,. ;1. c r,,.r•f 11 s i I'✓ t !Y 1 'Cx v 4(.'i itt 1 Ir ,I i frf Y'A f. it 1 ,'. I :i. yy r i „i, ,f. "�,. r r .. "' r o ) r'kl t . 1, , ..f rtl J f if,4� / 1 . 1 +r +4 ft e r, t - I support commercial zoning on the General Plan ^as the most `� ,Y. 'L , ., ,1,, ..• . I. . '..appropriate land use for the` Eastern corner of Oak Place .and w i j f . %r, , '4 • .. w� 11 I :Saratoga Los Road, item #25 to b' considered by the Planning Commission ' on June twenty -ninth . ; I s , .� } v f y * I 1 lx %1 ,. r 1: f i Y" r�� v tS t .1111 —f �F + " r ,,� - ti - /fr ,n.,i r .z r t. a( + t I >'n -rk R 5 r 1+ r t1v � i v I � ' �Y ,f t r 1' ,,ti Ir ; �r i SH% r J r ry r l �� 1. . v� Ei 1 , 7 I" I7 'rI :\, _ 1 ;'1fi`h _ , :'t. F t» 1 �..`t I r [k , i • I rllt t rl .b I t�! 1 v ^' r [,. ! ) } r } y'1 y, r t t --Z;' 1. �'. , - t'1 \✓.. , j .. ; 7t ,'+ it 7. r, Y`� 41 : .♦, r.F ..FIN ! .i ft Z 1 i -G J t ,! -,1 1 tr , Sin ^erely I ox i (' as £7 r- i( 7 i9 : //,ty>?1 ilf',t nb i. �, f y�1)r I i,+ ,N ..r f 4� I�t G^ 7 r F 1 7f t , 4Y rS iill,.4 . Y;. '? r - , 1 U 1 .r i i S i, } C i� �f1 r s M,i , 1 4 H �1 3 ?f C i F'i M ire ut I +R Z 1,� e . '.rl o, tt Ir n Yt t <�• •Y r ( as 11 , 7 1. t I. f xt�t_t +eN ,: +irxY ,r �r t , -��C - 11 . �L :' I r I ( A 't 1 1 4 _ fh 14 , 5 _ I'. dl.. i" ,L C ,,: I ..X Z t v J ..f E }fj7 'a f t1�.i,, e: t. ii.J1 +1 •r I ,1113 1; F. y t .Sh3,)� ✓r 1'� 1t',,yr i' �•,,. .1. 11 7 l ,'. 1 c ,,. 1 i S �' ' ' , tr 7ri rY.t A L""�� 'ct t~ 7 '4r1 { I-a'f v. ;..� I. �':' \ ,. t Residence or Business address '. �;yr��t jt�rt u,o, 1. i a t( I ti 1 -, k y y) �'+� YTY }i1�K tij tryM 7 s117 E- .�, 1,'. r; Iwo '� _ 1 '� L + ^ h li,rrykt11111�a ly iai +`' / r ' +l r� li ^`S[! ,.. �,j r f I 1• I �- .. s n v r I t�� !� �// / 7� /GIiC f1 n� `'i�.�rt"Sk�' �k�'+ "� irS'.i r 1 I U t f i 7• k 4y 4 7 yl 7 1. f J I C ,. '71tr -i ! ! ± '.r, J 1 �` 7 + t "t M �w x i f L� \(i�4r �/�7 /r� . 1 _ �, (r/�^ '1 /� c 7 , f ]+fit G'- 7 . A. Y I. 1 f 4 ,, , f . f 1�14i.' �S+ i IJ i'{ 1 r . � V V ` I / 7� 1 1 { h , Jl F r l,_1 .. • r? �! t ; t a v •JY r }r} F1 1 73 : 3?7� N,,. Y }, r•� i ,� j r it , t } .} _ f , l 1, 1_ r , r d�P 'V tr t , �i r .�. 7�..,y -,:a,: .0 ./' I t t , t1 �t fi+'. �t J skfi rdr '• r I,,:. IL 'j1i'I ! } " ♦ 1.. `�t4S' t } ! I k c`L"1 ?� 1,+ T f .- j tl.. it A r -1 � t I ..s' f t 711 1 J " `4 .f k� 7 ° ; f 7 r I ' ,W i, "Y +�F . •J'�'5 '1 •�1< .�1i^4 f +t I ,Y r: + , , +. ,il " i >, { l s `` .i E vt, is v � 7j i1 _ I. pJ t l r, r z:'' Y .1114 "�' r. i l'i' 1 Y.{ t t }� "vi d� ` y J a•� p :i i i � 'vr t�. � I ar �. `� rr r. �ti, YYYa 11, 1Ft�e tlr2. y1�it� fr f i ' 1 r :� b � : 1 4 r � J `r c 1 h a y t d ,1 ( ;F / 1. 9 fi ,Y a ilb�t lft+ Qr u,r - + f r 11 .1,; (t I +, t - tilt i ' A 7 q b ,t r rr . , ° 1 ,; iz �r y }4 - .:"h �l tt.: 1 r 1 r �y> ,. at r.. ^r lY 1 r ,ill 11 1 v t ~s c, ate b .r• p i r ,'J 1 t a a, r: d rt I i` ) ' t a r cr+ tidy d.� r,l Lw /,IV. l r, JY7 f -... r '� 3 {' I '+ E .' tit It s3 +; v fly -a i, ,f r ) � ♦t1_ �,_. _ • ^t 1. t rl y1 Y 1 r ri z L t t i, ?:,,',,,.I; ' ,i' F .t1 11 '1 7i '1 rt'tt^ `�`.: .t - -'... rr i '1 7 �. -� I 1 v 'r,r• Ii S r ,� �ro,1" a Ja�.1 - _ 7 P .1 J r 'x 1 1 y 1 t ', ..c •'1+ ,t ,,c; � k t }" ;,, ! 4y , 11 '' r y x' 1 1 n 1 .t . � 2 y„f�. I .t I - : r! < N 't 3r Y��7 T r Y � i '".p, j r 'II D•� ' �, I at a' %h+ :'I f r�s 7? c htr. . 4 1. it 7 I { ,. "A .I f.. ,. ,. { , L,, \ f / KID � ^ A /. t t 1 n t t �A Ito ?• °..;, , j ., it :1- ; 1 �, '. 1 ,. '. ' 3 i .. . ,. 1:. l d 7. . ' 4 �. .. , 1' '- ,�.. ' 4 1 T. I . t 4 2 � y J . i ✓ ,!,14_,-. 1 s. r t t �' .L 4` i'..,-- t, ' ` f + _ •� ,> rte:.! } _! `� y71 g. �i� t x rr ,� x4o` =[ i t� -� 1. , .. v I : , ,,t .. �t to . , fg L r ° . < it L.4 j w J i , . . . 1'__ . 1 a ,t 1`_ ,, . ,!It, Y. t , '. . , ." '. . , , .- , - � . ': : ; ^ . 1%. , -A ": " "..'.. . , `�,, , , N , �_,'....:.,�,;. "I, ,��;%*�,,' .� - " ., � :: ,� � . . . . . .1. 'i. " ., . . . ( �. - .."', , ... � 'i - ,� . . � .1: , ..y . I : , , , 4- , . , �,,. � , , � . , . '� , -1 . - �1 ,� ... "� ... I- " "� ,. ; , : J�1_ ."�:.:�,. ;, �, . � . � , '. ". , � ;! - " - �� �. , "", 1�:.. , ",."! . . . t,l .. . . �, � t, : 1. ., . ., , . ". , I., . , I 1.11 — ­� ... Al I " . , i 'N', . �. i,;q;t:'?,'�',,*',Li;.. ..),�. ,� .. I :_ � .. ..� - I , " �. .", f.11 %. ,1'4'--,�,.�n ­":- .,. " , " ,,� � , � I..",.,.. .,�11 I., aratoga-Lo6 'Road 2 to 6 ' considered by the Planning ... . : . -��,.` ",, , , . � . -Yme,,T��A �;. ��,:. I 4 , , t, ,,�..�,,, , . � I . I , .d . � , (1); . . . � I 11.� �. . I , I— � , ", � � , 1", , �: , , : , ,1� .�,, .1""I", ��1_11111� .1 1. 1". � �1'1, ��.�- -1,1.1--l-, I , ..., �, I � � . . Resi . �.�!")_.j"..,.��,�!,' ".!, I I.... e. _11_.�!"..!.:-�,- . , (" ,� . " :, 1�,Iv. " � . I ,,.,. .1 11 � .1 . — - i . . " - � I..",.,.. .,�11 I., aratoga-Lo6 'Road 2 to 6 ' considered by the Planning ... . : . -��,.` ",, , , . � . -Yme,,T��A �;. ��,:. I 4 , , t, ,,�..�,,, , . � I . I , .d . � , (1); . . . � I 11.� �. . I , I— � , ", � � , 1", , �: , , : , ,1� .�,, .1""I", ��1_11111� .1 1. 1". � �1'1, ��.�- -1,1.1--l-, I , ..., �, I � � . . Resi . �.�!")_.j"..,.��,�!,' ".!, I I.... e. _11_.�!"..!.:-�,- . ABET `. FIFI]INANCIAL gORPORATION 431 Monterey Ave. • Suite 5 • Los Gatos, CA 95030 -5390 • (408) 354 -0551 June 28, 1983 Joyce Hlava Planning Commissioner City of Saratoga 20137 Guava Court Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mrs. Hlava: JUN 19 1,903 COMMUNITY. 0MLOPME(YT I am writing you because of my concern for the use and zoning of a property in.the City of Saratoga. The subject property is.. One. :Oak....Place,.:which.presently houses The.Napkin Ring. The Napkin Ring, as I am sure you are aware, is an existing catering business that has now added a small delicatessen at its new location. This property was developed over 40 years ago for a commercial use, and has always had "community commercial" zoning. This zoning is appropriate and consistent with this type of property and its location, which fronts on a heavily travelled State Highway. The traffic flow to the property itself does not negatively impact Oak Place. Rather, the ingress and egress on the Napkin Ring property facilitates the movement of vehicles either east or west on Highway 9. I am concerned about the manner in which this property has been processed by the City Staff, and by the vulnerable position the property owners are put in during this interim period. I believe the property owner'-s right to lease the remaining retail space should be consistent with the zoning, and should not be compromised by the City's resolution of the restaurant use permit question. Furthermore, as a resident and property owner of Saratoga, I would welcome the revenue that would be generated to the City through the sales tax. I will appreciate your concern with this matter. Sincerely, BRUCE B. BREIHOLZ 15670 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, California 95070 BBB: jc 14638 PLACIDA COURT, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 5070 � P 0 21983 eo�r S1r -5 - CD One �o-c- �Cr12C� Co MMerc GG--5 G-� •,� to b e e r%. September 2, 1983 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Council Members: In re: Property #APN 391 -34 -64 19303 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, California We are writing this letter in reply to Mr. Shook's letter of August 24, 1983, informing us that the City Council will be considering an ameiA,,.ent to the City of Saratoga's General Plan which would change the designation of our property from Residential -Low Density Single Family to Residential - Very -Low Density Single Family (currently the property is zoned R1- 40,000). At this time we would like.to request that the property be rezoned to R1- 20,000, thereby allowing us to sub - divide and build another house on our land. The R1- 20,000 zoning would be consistent with the current general plan and would be consistent with the majority of development surrounding the land.. The property faces West Valley College and development to the east and to the north is zoned R1- 20,000. our acre is located on the corner of Harleigh and Allendale and the current house is located right on the corner. There is half of the lot, which has street frontage on Allendale, contains no specimen trees, is level and declared very buildable by a local builder, upon which we would like to construct a quality home. A house built on this land would not impair anyone's view nor inconvenience any neighboring properties. Development of this half -acre site would actually enhance the street and the neighborhood. Mr. Ebertin will be out of town on business on the 7th, however I will be attending the meeting and will be available to answer any questions you'may have. We hope you will give serious con- sideration to our request to re -zone our property to R1- 20,000. Thank you. Sincerely, ichel A. Ebertin aomi A. Ebertin Matteoni & Saxe / Lawyers 1625 The Alameda • Suite 400 San Jose, California 95126 4081286 -4800 Mayor David Moyles City of Saratoga 13179 Paseo Preseda Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Napkin Ring Dear Dave: September 1, 1983 Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Lynn C. Belanger `C�(��rp S E P 02 1983 Enclosed you will find a letter I have addressed to the Council on behalf of the owners of the Napkin Ring. I have sent a copy of the letter to each member of the Council at their home address. Nonetheless, I would appreciate your placing the original of this letter in the City's file in this matter at the hearing scheduled for September 7, 1983. Vey'y truly yours, NORMAN E. MATTEONI NEM :sd Enc1. Matteoni & Saxe /Lawyers 1625 The Alameda - Suite 400 San lose, California 95126 4081286 -4800 September 1, 1983 Mayor and Members of the Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Lynn C. Belanger Re: Napkin Ring General Plan Amendment City Council Hearing: September 7, 1983 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: I write to you on behalf of the owners of that parcel of land at Oak Place and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, known generally as the Napkin Ring. The Napkin Ring itself was before the Council in May of this year regarding reinstatement of its business license which Staff had invalidated upon discovery that the General Plan designation for this parcel was residential, and as such inconsistent with the commercial zoning and use of the parcel. Fortunately, the Council took immediate action to reinstate that business license and to initiate a General Plan Amendment process for bringing the General Plan designation into conformity with the zoning. At this time, there was active investigation by a prospective tenant to establish a gourmet fish market and small oyster bar in 750 square feet of vacant space within the building. This use concerned the residential neighborhood which feared additional traffic and parking problems on their streets. The neighborhood has indicated that it has experienced traffic and congestion problems due to increased activity over the years at the church opposite the Napkin Ring. The neighborhood fears that additional uses will only compound these problems. The Planning Commission chose not to recommend a commercial designation for the site. There were three Mayor and Members of the Council September 1, 1983 Page Two votes, however, for such a recommendation. But, the actual recommendation of the Planning Commission was professional /administrative, with the requirement that a catering service be a conditional use under the zoning for professional /administrative. The neighborhood is asking for a residential designation with some sort of use permit procedure for the Napkin Ring. The owners of the property continue to ask for the commercial designation on the General Plan. As you know, the property has been zoned from the time of incorporation as commercial and was general planned commercial until 1974. There is no indication in the 1974 General Plan hearings of why the commercial designation was changed. Certainly, there was no controversy about the commercial use of the property at that time. It would appear that the residential designation was simply a broad brush designation that happen to include this property. Moreover, no one was aware of the inconsistency until the Spring of this year. Obviously, any designation other than commercial will require further planning activity on the property, whether that be zoning for professional /administrative or residential or PD. Then, once the property is so zoned, there would be the possibility of further procedures such as a use permit hearing. All such activity is time consuming and expensive. It is an unnecessary procedure to validate what has always been a commercial use of the property and a legal use by my clients. I think that there is no question in the Council's mind from the hearing in May, regarding the business license, that the owners of this parcel proceeded in good faith reliance upon the commercial zoning and their personal investigation through the Planning Department, before establishing their commercial use. Mayor and Members of the Council September 1, 1983 Page Three Permits were obtained from the City to install a kitchen and food preparation area to meet the necessary health and safety requirements. The cost of this work and other remodeling to conform to City Code requirements was in excess of $40,000. The fish market use which generated the original concern is no longer being pursued. That tenant has abandoned all plans for a fish market. Moreover, because of the Council's concern that restaurants be governed by a use permit procedure and an ordinance amendment should be undertaken by the City to do so, my clients are willing to enter into a binding agreement with the City that they will not seek to pursue any restaurant use on the property, to allow the City sufficient time to adopt an ordinance to place restaurants under a use permit. There are a number of other reasons for designating this parcel commercial which I will speak to at the hearing, but I highlight the following: 1. This parcel is a part of the downtown Village area. Its relationship to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and the Village indicates an obvious commercial use. 2. The commercial use of this property since the incorporation of the City has not created any precedent for further commercial intrusion in the residential neighborhood nor will maintaining the commercial use create any such intrusion. 3. The actual square footage of the building dictates that the commercial use will be small. The Staff Report of 6/23/83 to the Planning Commission states that the building has a size of 1300 square feet. Mayor and Members of the Council September 1, 1983 Page Four 4. The City does have design review control which governs, not only the architectural appearance of the building, but the amount of signage and parking. The use of this parcel commercially is in conformance with those standards. I respectfully ask the Council to place a commercial designation on the Land Use Element of the General Plan for this parcel. NEM :sd cc: Sylvia deBenedetti VeV!! troy your§/ /7� NORMAN E.IMATTEONI 1b Matteoni & Saxe / Lawyers 1625 The Alameda • Suite 400 San Jose, California 95126 4081286 -4800 June 30, 1983 Mayor Dave Moyles 13179 Paseo Presala Saratoga, CA 95070 Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Lynn C. Belanger Re: Napkin Ring General Plan Amendment Dear Dave: Congratulations on your election by the Council to the position of Mayor. In that role, I want to give you my personal feelings regarding the City's handling of the Napkin Ring issue. Last night I appeared on behalf of the Napkin Ring at the Planning Commission hearing regarding making the General Plan consistent with the commercial zoning for the Napkin Ring property. The Planning Commission almost (3. to 4) - recommended making the General Plan designation consistent with the commercial zoning. However, Russ Crowther wanted to have the General Plan reflect residential and Louise Schaefer thought a compromise of professional /administra tive (PA) would be the appropriate designation. Finally, PA was recommended with a. companion amendment to the PA zoning ordinance, making catering business an activity subject to conditional use permit. Fortunately, the Commission did state that there should be no question that the Napkin Ring would receive a conditional use permit with no limitation as to time. Unfortunately, the PA decision of the Commission was not an option contained in the notice of the hearing. Thus, the Commission must hear this matter again on July 27. Further, if the Commission abides by its intent to place a PA designation on the parcel and amend the zoning ordinance, it has the prospect of placing my client in two Mayor Dave Moyles June 30, 1983 Page Two binds. First, the Napkin Ring must obtain a use permit. I do not believe it was the City Council's intent to put the Napkin Ring to any further expense in obtaining a Genetal Plan Amendment for what it otherwise legally has in the way of commercial zoning for the property. Nor do I think conditions of any type should be imposed on the Napkin Ring's commercial use. If PA is adopted, the Napkin Ring (and building) should be recognized as a legal pre- existing use. The second bind is that this designation will create further problems of commercial use of the property in the event that the Napkin Ring goes out of business. If anything should be clear in the history of this matter, it is that the property has consistently been zoned commercial. On February 15, 1959 the City Council of Saratoga zoned the rear 25 feet of the property C -2H to conform to the commercial zoning on the front of the property. My client informs me that the property was zoned commercial prior to the incorporation of the City. Further, the property is most appropriate for a small commercial operation, because of its location along Highway 9, its relationship to the Village and the Federated Church. Certainly, residential use is most inappropriate. Nonetheless, the four or five neighbors in opposition were encouraged by the Commission's confusion and pressed fora residential designation of the property, although they conceded that the Napkin Ring could obtain a use permit as a non - conforming use in a residential neighborhood. The neighborhood objections centered first around the potential restaurant use of a portion of the site and traffic and parking problems. In the latter regard, most of the objection was to the Federated Church use. But, the argument was then made that adding one more car to what exists because of the Federated Church use would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mayor Dave Moyles June 30, 1983 Page Three I fear because of the continued focus on what I believe should be a very simple issue, that the neighborhood opposition will push harder for the narrowest of uses on this property. In order to assure both the Commission and the neighborhood that the owners of the Napkin Ring would not immediately pursue a restaurant use, if the commercial General Plan designation were given, I volunteered to enter an agreement with the City that no application for restaurant use would be made.by my clients, pending the City's determination of. whether it wanted to amend the commercial district to control restaurants under a conditional use permit. That assurance was satisfactory to the City Attorney "and three of the Commissioners, but obviously not enough to carry the day. (Staff had - recommended that the General Plan Amendment.,; be delayed, until the Commercial zoning ordinance was amended -to make restaurants a conditional use; I did not want this delay.) I gave this point away too early, because some of the neighbors who spoke after this comment, changed their objection from restaurant use to most any other commercial use that might be added to the property. ,Still there never was an attack on the Napkin Ring itself. What is important to understand is that the total building area is 2100 square feet. There can be no major commercial activity in the building. There is currently only 750 square feet available to be leased to another tenant. The gourmet fish market operation will not happen because of the delays that have attached.to the resolving the Napkin Ring issue. According to my clients, because some of the building area is devoted to kitchen and refrigeration, there is only a total of 1700 square feet of usable space for the general public coming to any business located within the premises. The practical limitations guarantee a small low -key commercial operation. 1 e Mayor Dave Moyles June 30, 1983 Page Four After the hearing, I spoke to Hal Toppel and told him that I was most interested in getting out of the Planning Commission on July 27. I was concerned that, if the PA zoning amendment became controversial, the Commission might carry the item to yet another meeting. This would be grossly unfair. If the Commission cannot decide this issue, it should so inform the City Council that it- cannot recommend a commercial land use designation, and let us get back to the Council. Toppel appeared to agree. My clients should not have the ongoing expense and uncertainty of hearing after hearing, when they acted in good faith, were assured by the City before they purchased the property that it was available for commercial operation, and are engaged in a service business which has an excellent reputation in Saratoga. Although the Council will not see this matter for some time, my frustration needed a release. Please keep this letter for future reference. I hope that the. Council can be as practical as it was on June 1, when it reinstated the business license and directed the Planning Commission to hear a General Plan Amendment for a commercial designation for the property. NEM :sd cc: Sylvia deBenedetti very truly yours, NORMAN E.IMATTEONI 0 W. G. "BUD'' TOBIASON MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVE 14130 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 PHONE (408) 867.9515 Sept. 1, 1983 Saratoga City Council Linda Callon Marty Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Jack Mallory David Moyles 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council: S EP 0 2 1983 It is with much interest we have kept abreast with the Napkin Ring's application procedures to the Planning Com- mission. We would like to go on record as supporting this parcel of land for commercial purposes. Sincerely, 4. . /7-0� Dona & Bud Tobiason desert petroleum ine. LUBOMYR M. CARPIAC GENERAL COUNSEL September 1, 1983 City Council, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 Honorable Council Members: Our company owns and operates the Gasco service station situated at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknell, in the City of Saratoga. The service station is one of several properties which the City is re- zoning as the result of recent amendments to the General Plan. I attended and spoke at one previous City Council and two Planning Commission hearings concerning the General Plan amendment and the proposed re- zoning. At each of these hearings I registered our company's opposition and formal objection to the changes. Whereas our company desires to resolve its differences with the City amicably, I am compelled by legal considerations to state our objections formally herein in order to preserve our rights should this matter shift to the judicial forum. I emphasized on each of the previous occasions and repeat again here that we are not adopting a combative posture; we prefer to discuss the matter further in hopes of arriving at a solution which is fair and consistent with the City's planning goals. One of our concerns is rooted in the City's nonconforming ordinance. Several persons, including the City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Flores, and myself have interpreted the City's nonconforming ordinance differently with regards to its application in our case. The interpretations ranged from, on the one hand, requiring the immediate closure of the station to, on the other hand, allowing its continued use indefinitely. While we derive comfort from statements made by certain council members and commissioners to the effect that it is not the City's intention to drive the station out of town overnight, the vagueness and ambiguity of the nonconforming ordinance compels us to object formally so as not to prejudice any rights we may later seek to enforce. It is my understanding from the last Planning Commission hearing on this matter that the City is preparing a new nonconforming ordinance for consideration by the City Council. I am optimistic that this new ordinance will provide the City the mechanism re- quired to reach a fair and equitable solution in our case. I am prepared to defer any legal challenges pending the enactment of a POST OFFICE BOX 1601, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93032 • TELEPHONE (805) 485 -0430 September 1, 1983 Page 2 new ordinance and also pending its application to our case. This is done with the understanding that any delay is not intended to waive, relinquish or otherwise prejudice any right which we may now have or may hereafter acquire in connection with this matter. I personally still cling to the hope that the City may zone the property in a manner consistent with the present existing use. The station is on a major thoroughfare and is near the city limit. While we may not have done everything in the past that the City may have wished, our company has made efforts to respond responsibly to the local needs and desires. For example, we voluntarily ab- stained from renting or using the service bays for any type of automotive service or retail trade. This was done at a loss to us of approximately $1,500 per month. While we do not expect public praise for this, we had expected, perhaps naively, that it would not go unnoticed and that it would help develop a positive atmosphere. By contrast, other service stations in the city with nearby res- idential uses do not impose such voluntary restrictions on their operations. In discussions with the president of the Neighborhood Homeowners Association, I learned that the homeowners are not opposed to the service station. When the matter first came up for review by the Planning Commission last year, the Homeowners Association expressed their preference for a residential General Plan designation, as distinguished from a retail /commercial designation. In recent discussions with the Homeowners president I learned that their position was based on the mistaken belief that both the ajoining Teresi property and the service station property had to be des- ignated alike in the General Plan. Fearing that by allowing the Gasco station to obtain commercial /retail designation, the Teresi property would also follow suit, the Homeowners Association urged residential designation for the station in order to avoid expanding the commercial /retail onto the Teresi property. Knowing now that the two parcels can be treated differently, the Homeowners Association is not opposed to a designation for the service station which would allow it to continue as a conforming use, provided that other uses permitted in CN are subjected to review and approval by the City. Based on recent discussions with the Homeowners representative, I believe we can work with the City to address the concerns of the residents dealing with the landscaping, hours of operation and paint schemes. September 1, 1983 Page 3 In our experience with other cities, we have found that usually a use which became nonconforming by virtue of a change in the zoning ordinance is allowed to continue in its present scope indefinitely. I have not found a city requiring abatement of a use without offering an alternative mechanism to permit its continued use. This type of ordinance recognizes that while, on the one hand, a city should have the right to develop its property on the basis of long -term planning, the rights of a property owner in developed -real property must also be recognized and fairly dealt with. It is one thing to say "no" to a property owner with plans to construct a commercial /retail improvement on undeveloped land; it is quite a different matter to order the removal of an existing use immediately or within a short period of time such as three years, as has been suggested by some. Perhaps it will illustrate my point if the Council Members would apply the solution proposed in our case to their own businesses, professions, or jobs. For example, how would an attorney react if a public body or agency declared his or her law practice to be nonconforming in some regulatory respect and require him or her to either shift to another field of expertise in law or to move the practice physically to another location. I submit that the response would be similar to ours. Except that in the service station business, because of the nature of the physical assets involved and the importance of the location, the business is not as readily transferable without sustaining substantial loss. After reviewing the recent General Plan amendments and the proposed zoning changes, I found many instances where the change in the General Plan was intended to bring the General Plan into conformance with the existing uses. I believe our property was the only developed piece singled out for a General Plan amendment and zoning change which made a previously conforming use into a nonconforming use. The other instances where the City and property owners held divergent views in the recent General Plan Amendments involved only undeveloped land. Our company is not so big that it can easily absorb the economic impact of losing a service station, whether it is lost now or phased out over a short amortization period. There are other forces at work in the market place which aspire to reduce competition from small independent gasoline markerters in order to re- establish higher prices unhindered by price- conscious independents. I have not forgotten that the issue before you is one of planning. What I am attempting to do, however, is to point out planning decisions, as with other decisions made by city government, do have far reaching consequences. September 1, 1983 Page 4 In the last analysis, to the City the issue is one of planning, but to our company the issue is one of survival. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, L b • LUBOMYR f. CARPIAC a,4 �61�u�eu�ru� S�� xl�. -J-4� C7PA 03-z- -A -Zt.14� e� mezl� RECEIVED S E P 01.198. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1✓� u��tenr e�'9� ¢�ncn�rr..u�f�.,t J'•`w G� 2e �S�du1„� -✓ � f/�ojt �i rav ee�X -,o R'�- u� 0o�4 s 11 Q it, >'- c-L "'1. - .. '. � ; .'b .•' �.. Mrs. Charles MacLaren Hayes P. O. Box 532, Saratoga, California 95070" �U, r��E��y ��C�c•zr ��C'c . e � �� �ap� �i y We � y � �� �re,�� OLZ'y�,�rs. a ✓ ,/ , v . Syr ep�� -5�y 761A ei .� U�� �� `'�?�5 h fit 1a,-,,4 oil acclotev. a L'1-1n-e7l j 1 d Y�tti � M �65 ; L .A w� a., � '� /� _ - - '- 'Y'.� -• -- rte- - -_ �i je�li7D0� �� deserri`�y f eo ,nd r�'le a � � _T ex' h� ( � -� irr.�i i is owe o/ tp A4 hi4a-d ew, 71c kk D- K /704 --t ee! //40�'jyl 2 ",,t a T_ %5 —T am 6mQ,. � x- t, �5 e 05 5 f- CMa// z , Qv -lPD 'k.ra,C vj ... V t "a 4 f . 1, � �- .. _ = aA .' '�:.. �; ,. - - - - ;_� .'? � �S '�'�.�a.�•- ,.,.fir 1 ..�.�-. i�C9'���►� y�Z?i � �>� C de /l r i � ✓ Laq �J . r fx rf e)-b &)6� Lje'z�� -4e, /Z.s.o��l l OCT ILI 7-TC,° cell �� 62 3 -C PIAC4-1� CA>-P- L-o r Sept. 7, 1983 C'4y Cot4ile-i I Saratoga PI We strongly oppose the zoning change from Residential to P.A. for the property on the corner of Oak Place and Highway 9. Traffic and parking are difficult enough on Oak Place without adding two businesses on that corner. The already intensified use of that property means we have more delivery trucks driving up and down our street, unsightly garbage stacked up at the back of the Napkin Ring building, and dangerous traffic problems at the corner of Oak Place and Highway 9. Please halp preserve our picturesque neighborhood and leave the zoning Residential with a Use Permit required for the Napkin Ring. Sincerely yours, (q September 7, 1983 To The Saratoga City Council: We have already voiced our objections to the Planning Commission on rezoning the Napkin Ring property to either P.A. or Commercial and would like to summarize our reasons for you as well: OBJECTIONS: 1. Traffic on Oak Place will increase substantially. The corner of Oak Place /Highway 9 is already conjested. It will get worse with intensified use and thus make an exit on to Highway 9 from Oak Place more hazardous than it presently is. Also, Oak Place has several children and teenagers as residents and speeding through traffic is already a problem. 2. Parking on the Napkin Ring grounds is insufficient and therefore parking in front of residences will increase: Church parking is already a source of great aggravation on Sundays, Wednesdays, and anytime there is a wedding or other event at the church. We don't want more cars parked in front of our residences on a daily basis. 3. Changing zoning from Residential to Commercial or P.A. will devalue the homes on Oak Place as we have already had one Real Estate agent tell us "the cash and carry food business on the corner has devalued. your property." Changing zoni.T.;g from Residential to P.A. does not restrict the building enough and could allow an image degrading activity for the neighbor- hood. � -. We have invested time and money in our residences several magnitudes greater than the amounts claimed by the present owners of the Napkin Ring building. If you are an)Lious about the Napkin Ring investment and its payback, then you should be extremely concerned about the devaluation of the area's residential properties and the payback on those investments. At least a dozen homeowners have remodeled homes at substantially higher cost than the investment made by the Napkin Ring. . We realize the problem stems from an oversight by Town Hall and feel that a fair compromise should be reached. i SOLUTION: The Napkin Ring property should stay zoned as Residential and require a Use Permit. This would allow residents of Oak Place to have some influence on the type of activity that will take place so close to their homes and in their neighborhood. It seems to us that the most important people with whom you should be concerned are the residents in the neighborhood and not an investor from outside the area who has little interest in the residential aspects of a neighbor- hood and primarily wants to maximize the returns on an investment. Thank you for considering the above. We hope you treat the matter with serious and objective concern for the neigh- borhood and not for one investor. 1 September 2, 198 QXF9MCD S EP 021983 >. City of Saratoga - — — - — — — — Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: Parcel #APN 503 -25 -029 Dear Members of the Council: I received your notice re a Council Meeting on September 7, 1983 to discuss the change of zoning of our property.(APN 5031 -25 -029) from C -V to Multi - Family Residential. I object to.the proposed change. My husband and I purchased the subject property and the adjoining property at approximately the same time fourteen years ago with the intention to same ce� day develop the two parcels cmrcially. We still have the same intent to develop the two parcels canmrcially and to maintain ownership of the property after it is developed..,,., We will not develop either parcel.'. for condominiums solely. We treat the two pieces of property as one because they are side -by -side. Only one piece is up for consideration to change the zoning. Should this change be effected, this would create a problem for us from the standpoint of developing the property with two different zonings. The only explanation T have heard for changing the zoning was that this particular pienee of property, out of all of.tFie ccmTercial properties in a row on this = block,would act as a "buffer" for the residences in the hills above the Saratoga Oaks condoaium development. The Saratoga Oaks develoFxment, the creek with the flood control setback should be more than adequate to act as "buffers." We request that the present zoning of our property remain as visitor commercial. Yours truly, Ann Fitzs ns- t. f. . l #ABET ❑F INANCIAL ©ORPORATION 431 Monterey Ave. • Suite 5 • Los Gatos, CA 95030 -5390 • (408) 354 -0551 September 2, 1983 David Moyles Mayor CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mayor Moyles: SEP G 61983 I am writing to you in regard to the Napkin Ring property at One Oak Place. Until recently no one knew of any discrepency between the commercial zoning and the General Plan designation of residential. As you know, for many, many years the use has been commercial, and considering the location of the property in relationship to the highway that certainly seems to make sense. I would strongly urge you to keep the commercial zoning for this property consistent with its use. BBB: jc Sincerely, BRUCE B. BREIHOLZ DONALD P. BACCI, INC. Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Gentlemen: REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS September 2, 1983 o 61983 RE: The zoning of that parcel of land bounded by Oak Place and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road now occupied by The Napkin Ring I urge the Council to consider a permanent commercial zoning for this parcel. In order to keep Saratoga and its business community vibrant you must allow enough business areas to exist. This parcel is an ideal piece for that "Village commercial" feeling that we who live in Sara- toga love. e pectfully, Donal-d- Donal-d—P. Bacci DPB:dh POST OFFICE BOX 942 • LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95031 • (408) 354 -6016 City of Saratoga Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: Parcel #APN 503 -25 -029 Dear Members of the Council: September 2, 1983 RECEIVED S E P d 2 1983 f I received your notice re a Council Meeting on September 7, 1983 to discuss the change of zoning of our property (APN 503-25-029) from C -V to Multi - Family Residential. I object to the proposed change. My husband and I purchased the subject property and the adjoining property at approximately the same time fourteen years ago with the intention to some day develop the two parcels commercially. We still have the same intent to develop the two parcels commercially and to maintain ownership of the property after it is developed. We will not develop either parcel for condominiums solely. We treat the two pieces of property as one because they are side -by -side. Only one piece is up for consideration to change the zoning. Should this change be effected, this would create a problem for us from the standpoint of developing the property with two different zonings. The only explanation I have heard for changing the zoning was that this particular pienee of property,out of all of the commercial properties in a row on this block,would act as a "buffer" for the residences in the hills above the Saratoga Oaks condomium development. The Saratoga Oaks development, the creek with the flood control setback should be more than adequate to act as "buffers." We request that the present zoning of our property remain as visitor commercial. V Yours truly, Ann Fitzs ns ��� o�r� � SEP 061993 ,Pto� AA4 'a� J,,A.e Axe- a rm 7j 1 u- x -,ca.� e.e.a.e� -� per.✓ �.° C.w`a.c.L i �- �- eG�,K- afic.c2a/ �-s- -v- •�eti�( ��iLt��y B ABET �F INANCIAL �C ORPORATION 431 Monterey Ave. • Suite 5 • Los Gatos, CA 95030 -5390 • (408) 354 -0551 September 2, 1983 David Moyles Mayor CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mayor Moyles: ink r,ro0 V C S E a G 61983 I am writing to you in regard to the Napkin Ring property at One Oak Place. Until recently no one knew of any discrepency between the commercial zoning and the General Plan designation of residential. As you know, for many, many years the use has been commercial, and considering the location of the property in relationship to the highway that certainly seems to make sense. I would strongly urge you to keep the commercial zoning for this property consistent with its use. Sincerely, BRUCE B. BREIHOLZ BBB: jc DONALD P. BACCI, INC. Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Gentlemen: REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS September 2, 1983 0 61983 OL RE: The zoning of that parcel of land bounded by Oak Place and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road now occupied by The Napkin Ring I urge the Council to consider a permanent commercial zoning for this parcel. In order to keep Saratoga and its business community vibrant you must allow enough business areas to exist. This parcel is an ideal piece for that "Village commercial" feeling that we who live in Sara- toga love. pectfully, Dona d Bacci DPB:dh POST OFFICE BOX 942 • LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95031 • (408) 354 -6016 CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 5O7 Dept. Hd. DATE: August 26, 1983 (Sept. 7, 1983) DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Atty r—", ' C. Mgr. SUBJECT• C -20.3, Tom Lauer, Rezone a portion of a parcel from R- 1- 4K'000 to HC -RD and pre -zone two parcels in the County HC -RD (Peach Hills Road) Issue Summary 1. As a condition of subdivision approval (SDR -1509) the applicant was required to annex his County property to the City and have a lot line adjustment approved to preserve an •.existing residence which staddles the City /County boundary line. 2. The City Council has approved a resolution ordering annexation of the property. 3. The General Plan amendments under GPA 83 -2 -A ( #41) must be approved prior to approval of this rezoning. 4. The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments allow the applicant to pursue the required lot line adjustment to save the existing residence. Recommendation 1. Conduct public hearing and take testimony. 2. If General Plan amendments approved then: a. Negative Declaration approved first. b. Need first and second readings of ordinance <<.amehdi.ng the ­zo.hkng: ^m ,ap. 3. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning amendme.nt•to`.the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts Outlined under annexation requestjprobably not significant. Exhibits /Attachments Exhibit A - Staff Report dated 7/19/83 Exhibit B - Negative Declaration Exhibit C - Map of area to be rezoned Exhibit D - Resolution No. C -203 -1 Exhibit E - Planning Commission minutes dated 7/27/83 Exhibit F - Ordinance Amending Zoning Map Council Action 9/7: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to approve Negative Declaration. Passed 4 -0. Clevenger /Fanelli moved to introduce ordinance and make findings. Passed 4 -0. 9/21: Fanelli. / Clevenber moved to read ordinance by title only. Passed 5 -0. Fanelli /Clevenger moved to adopt Ord. NSC- ZC -89. Passed 4 -0 (Callon abstaining). 0 C. X ++t F3r( ,Ar REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/19/83 Commission Meeting: 7/27/83 SUBJECT C -203, Tom Lauer, Peach Hill load and the City Boundary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Rezone a 15,041 square feet ± portion of APN 517 -22 -30 from R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD and pre -zone 4.88 acres in the County, adjacent to the City, HC -RD. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared. PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by publishing in the Saratoga News. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: To be amended (See GPA 83 -2 -A, #41, also on this agenda) from Residential -Very Low Density Single Family to Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family (APN 517- 22 -30). APN 517 -23- 20;:,:21 in County to be Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family. ZONING: APN 517 -22 -30 - - -R -1- 40,000 APN 517 -23 -20,21 - -- County (pre -zoned HC -RD) SURROUNDING LAND USES: Site surrounded by single family residential use. SITE SIZE: APN 517 -22 -30 - 7+ acres APN 517 -23 -20,21 - 4.88 acres STAFF ANALYSIS: On March 23, 1983 the Planning Commission granted tentative subdivision approval for a three lot subdivision on APN 517 -22 -30 (SDR- 1509). Condition VIII.F of SDR -1509 states: F. Residence on Lot No. 1 shall be removed prior to Final Map Approval. If, however, adjacent lot is annexed to the City and lot line adjustment is approved, the existing residence shall be allowed to remain. Report to the Planni(j Commission �, 7/19/83 C -203, Tom Lauer Page 2 The applicant has applied to LAFCO for annexation of both County parcels under his ownership which is the first step to preserve the existing house per condition VIII. F. The General Plan amendment, which is part of GPA -.2 -A also on this agenda,..and the proposed rezoning under this application are the next steps. These steps are necessary to prevent split zoning on the lot that would contain the existing dwelling. The applicant proposes that about 15,041 square feet of Lot 1 (3.2 acres) approved under SDR-- 1509'be' attached to'APN 517 -23 -20 (2.96 acres). This transfer does not create a new building site since the existing residence will be contained wholly on a County lot not part of SDR -1509. It is the 15,041 square foot portion of Lot 1 that must be designated Resi- dential- Hillside Conservation Single Family and rezoned HC -RD so that its land use designations are consistent with the County lot. Both County lots will be pre -zoned HC -RD. Although the proposed rezoning is minor and is meant only to preserve gonsisten,cy in land use designations on individual lots, staff has a concern with the proposed lot line adjustment. A minimum 35' setback between.the existing dwelling and the new lot lines should be main- tained. Although it appears that the proposed lot lines will meet . this requirement this is only based on staff approximations of the building location. The applicant needs to submit a plot plan accurately showing the distance between the existing dwelling and the new lot lines. FINDINGS :� ----- - - - - -_ _ - - -- - - -- - - - -- -- 1. The proposed rezoning is required to ensure that a consistent development pattern is created for this parcel. 2. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objective of the-General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as described in Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the proposed rezoning per Exhibit "D ". COMMENT The applicant should submit a plot plan showing accurate dimensions and setbacks from the existing dwelling and the new lot lines. APPROVED MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 7/27/83 -4qz;�W,e�� Michael F1 r s Assistant Planner EIA -4 Saratoga File No: C -203 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTALxlQ IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED p v (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 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone a small (15,041 sq. ft.) portion of a property from R -1- 40,000 to HCRD. Property is located to the east of Peach Hill Road where it intersects the southern boundary of Saratoga. The purpose of the rezon- ing is to allow a lot line adjustment which would preserve an existing single family dwelling but would not create a new lot. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Tom Lauer Peach Hill Development 15803 Hidden NEGATIVE btCLARATION CA 9 5 0 30 The proposed rezoning will not ?have a significant effect on the environ- ment since the portion affected will be small and no new building site will be created. Executed at Saratoga, California this 18th day of Jul , 19 83 . ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CO T OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA A /I � � _ DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER Y M L� N •L � a VO nl ,A O m 0 n' r' i O 7 N V N o Al ° a° O N � J N O °/ a w OD U c6 M n cl- LLJ Q e ° e. n 1L7 �O^ a� N., N 0 p Al'tlL 3NII NOUD-S N n JLO J' e e UI �a W O Z \ O O n 1 a � b n N S O .00'01• L AREA To r r >z 1 -Yal 010 -ro I k R — Q +I J Wpr) UN < aQ W x Q I C 1 10--� w 2 2 O U w N 1 LaT LINt N w w 7� w w o LL W Z J O w n at U ' l Grit 0 u w a r / .ZI191' ALaxv. M e?° m O N n i H n O G- 203 �XI�1F317 C- a b ° � u a b E ° S[JNINV38 d0 SISVB -:_ J j 90c,avL - 4 3AV 13SNns e a�° 4 � O ° z w w 7� w w N LL a J O w n N w O O O in U ao e n w a O� OL O N n i H n O G- 203 �XI�1F317 C- a b ° � u a b E ° S[JNINV38 d0 SISVB -:_ J j 90c,avL - 4 3AV 13SNns e a�° 4 � O ° X41 Prr D RESOLUTION NO. C -203 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS,. the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following time and place, to wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 27th day of July, 1983, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of July, 1983, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT:None Chairman of the Planni g Commission AT 74e cr Planning Commission Page S Meeting Minutes 7/27/83 \ 1 �GPA- 83 -1 -C (cont.) x t Fwr �- 4 -3, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Fllava dissenting. Chairman Schaefer commented that the full intention of the recommendation is that there would be tight controls and noted that catering does not involve eating on the premises. It was clarified that the motion did not include adding catering to the P -A zone, but it is the intent to have Staff go forward and add catering as a conditional use to the P -A zone. The City Attorney indicated that this would be a separate amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 7. C -203 \ T. Lauer, Consideration to rezone a portion of a 7+ acre parcel ` (APN 517- 22 -30) at 15840 Peach Hill Road from R -1- 40,000 to HC -RD consistent with the General Plan and previous subdivision approval and pre -zone certain parcels (APN 517- 23 -20, 21) HC -RD that will be annexed to the City —� Staff explained the application. The public hearing was opened at 10:17 p.m. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend approval of C -203, per the Staff Report dated July 19, 1983, making the findings listed therein. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. 8. SDR -1540 - Floyd Gaines, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval, Design A -879 - Review Approval, and Variance Approval to construct six (6) V -616 - townhouses which maintain a front yard setback of 19 ft. where 2S ft. is required and a rear yard setback of 20 ft. where 2S ft. is required and an 11 ft. retaining wall in the RM -3,000 zoning district at the northerly corner of the Fourth Street Stairway and Oak Street Staff described the project, noting that they were recommending denial because of the inconsistency with the General Plan. Issues of concern were noted: (1) screening of the wall and placement of structure above it, (2) access, (3) setbacks, (4) appearance of retaining wall, (5) walkway and balconies, (6) on -site parking, (7) size of units, and (8) turnaround. The public hearing was opened at 10:23 p.m. Sergio Ramierez, project leader, gave a presentation on the proposal, discussing the wall. and landscaping. Pat Jenkins, Twin Oaks Condominiums, Oak Street, explained the difficulty in getting across Big Basin Way or turning left from 4th Street. She asked if it would be possible to have no parking in that area. She added that she felt this project would be an improvement over what is existing. Staff noted that there had been a proposal by Staff to the City Council sometime ago to eliminate park- ing on one side of the street and it was rejected. Joel Fitzpatrick, Twin Oaks Condominiums, stated that he was in total support of the Staff Report. He cited the lack of screening on the structure and its size. The setback in front was discussed. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he was anxious to clean up the slum but felt that this proposal was not adequate. He added that the setbacks should not be shortened and an adequate planting area in back is needed. The civil engineer for the project stated that they would be agreeable to no parking on 4th Street. He discussed the setbacks and turnaround. hie commented that the Fire Chief had stated that the elimination of a fire truck turnaround would be alleviated by installing sprinkled garages. The size of the structure and proper screening were discussed. There was a con- sensus that there was concern regarding the screening of the wall, the three - story structure and setbacks. The possibility of moving the building was dis- cussed. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on August 2, 1983 and the regular meeting of August 10, 1983, in order to discuss the options. 9. A -890 - John Poutre, 14360 Elva Ave., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second -story addition to an existing one - story, single family dwelling in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee, describing the proposal. He S - Exhibit "C" 15�xk+i FNT "ORDINANCE NO. NS -3 -ZC AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: A POR- TION OF APN 517 -22 -30 FROM R-1-40,000 to-HC-RD AND APN 517 -23 -20,21 PREZONING TO HC -RD. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Sectional District Map No. C -203 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section.1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together.with "any am endments'thereto, is hereby changed an amended by "substitut rig` 'the :'crosshatched area`on the foregoing sectional district map for that.portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within- adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within - adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 2: This Ordinance reclassifies certain property shown on the attached sectional map from R -1- 40,000 to HCRD for that portion of the parcel within the City limits and classifies that portion in the County HCRD. The reclassification of that portion of the pro - perty.within the City limits shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. The zoning classification of that portion of the property within the County shall become operative and take effect at the same time the annexation of that portion of the property takes effect. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of , 1983, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR -C�P� 1 1 1 i 1 1 / . 1 ♦ 1 1 I i .% 1i �\ i Ott Rva l Mosul 0 QQ� J �1 t M 7 D -C�P� 1 1 1 i 1 1 / . 1 ♦ 1 1 I i .% 1i C -203 Exhibit "B" FINDINGS: 1. The proposed rezoning is required to ensure that a corisiste.nt development pattern is created for this parcel,- - -- - . - - -- - - 2. The proposed re_ zoning is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1--of said ordinance. - -- 3. The proposed rezoning will -not have a significant impact on the �- - environment, or adversely affect public- healah;_�_.:s:afety --or -welfare: -- CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: September 1. 1983 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Agreement with Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence T. Sutton Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Mgr. �1 At its meeting on August 3, 1983, the council approved "in concept" the agreement between the city and Sutton for settlement of _ the pending lawsuit. The council also awarded a contract for repair of the Pierce Road slide. The final draft of the settlement agreement has now been prepared and approved as to form by the Suttons. We expect Mr. and Mrs. Sutton will have executed the agreement as of the time of your meeting. The final draft is identical to the document approved in concept, except for revised language in paragraph 6 which now reflects the amount of the contract as awarded by the city and the current cost.estimate of repair work to be performed by the Suttons. Recommendation Approve final agreement and authorize execution on behalf of city. i Fiscal Impacts No payment is being made by the city to the Suttons. The contract previously awarded for slide repair covers the work to be performed by the city under the settlement agreement. Exhibits /Attachments Settlement agreement. Council Action 9/7: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0. Recorded at the request of and after recordation return to: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and LAWRENCE T. SUTTON and MURIEL M. SUTTON (hereinafter referred to as "Property Owners ") , is entered into with reference to the following facts: A. City is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. B. Property Owners are the owners of a certain parcel of real property located within the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, bearing Assessor's Parcel No. 503 -13- 018 -00 and commonly referred to as 13905 Pierce Road (hereinafter referred to as "Property Owners' parcel of real property "). The term "Property Owners" as used herein shall include all successors in title or interest or both to the Prop- erty Owners' 'parcel of real property. C. A landslide (hereinafter referred to as "landslide ") exists in the vicinity of and upon the Property Owners' parcel of real property. Said landslide also affects a portion of Pierce Road, a public road. A more precise description of the boundaries -1- and extent of said landslide is set out hereinafter. D. Property Owners have not retained the services of a geotechnic consultant to provide Property Owners with information, opinion and advice with regard to the landslide and methods of controlling further movement of the landslide. E. . On April 20, 1983, Propertv Owners met with representa- tives of the City for the purpose of discussing alternative approaches to attempt to control further earth movement in the vicinity of the landslide. F. Wm. Cotton and Associates, geotechnical consultants, have prepared a report dated October 13, 1982, and entitled, "Slope Stability Investigation of the Pierce Road Landslide, Saratoga, California ", (hereinafter referred to as "Cotton Report ") which addresses itself to said landslide and also sets forth four alternatives which attempt to control further earth movement of said landslide. A copy of the Cotton Report was given to Property Owners on April 20, 1983, and it has been reviewed in its entirety by Property Owners and officials of City. G. Alternative No. 3 of the Cotton report recommends that the landslide be repaired by corrective grading which would extend beyond the Pierce Road right -of -way downslope onto Property Owners' parcel of real property. The corrective grading consists of overexcavation of slide debris below the slide plane and replacement of the excavated material as a compacted soil buttress. The plan also includes an extensive subdrain system both along the -2- inboard edge of Pierce Road and along the base of the compacted fill. (Alternative No. 3 contained in the Cotton Report is hereinafter referred to as the "the project ".) The parties believe that the project is likely to improve the stability of the landslide. The parties acknowledge that the project consisting of corrective grading and an internal drainage system which is a part thereof, may not be successful in stabilizing or controlling the landslide. In addition, the extraction of subsurface water from the landslide area may cause, tend to cause, or contribute to causing other unexpected or unforeseen problems on Property Owners' property or Pierce Road, City's public road. H. Since May of 1982, City has incurred certain costs in connection with geotechnic and engineering investigation of the landslide and City has taken certain action to assist in evalu- ating alternatives for controlling movement of the landslide. Such costs include, but are not limited to, fees for (1) the Cotton Report, (2) the topographic survev, (3) evaluation of repair alternatives, and (4) grading plan. City has also incurred additional costs in connection with emergency road repair on Pierce Road. I. On .January 21, 1983, Property Owners filed a lawsuit against City in Santa Clara County Superior Court being Action No. 515549, the subject matter of which is the landslide and the damages Property Owners have sustained.as a result of the land- slide (hereinafter referred to as "the lawsuit "). -3- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Construction of the project which includes corrective grading and the installation of the internal drainage system on the Property Owners' parcel of real property is of potential. benefit to both the City and Property Owners. 2. Property Owners and City agree to participate in the construction of the project which is a program to conduct cor- rective grading and install the internal drainage system on the Property Owners' parcel of real property and such other collateral work as may be required to deliver the drained water underground across the Property Owners' parcel of real property to a creek for the purpose of dewatering the landslide. As to that portion of the internal drainage system located on the Property Owners' parcel of real property, Property Owners agree to accept drainage water from Pierce Road, City's public road, into and through said drainage system and Property Owners' property. The respective participation by City and Property Owners in the project is set forth hereinafter. 3. With regard to the project, City will be responsible for contracting with appropriate independent contractors who would perform the work. City will also be responsible for providing, at City's sole expense, all civil engineering services, geologic and geotechnic services required in connection with the work performed on the project. With regard to costs -incurred by City to date as set out in Paragraph H hereinabove, City will be solely responsible -4- for said costs and shall seek no reimbursement therefor from Property Owners. 4. All work and construction of the project shall be done in a proper and workmanlike manner and City shall be responsible for the supervision of such work to ensure that it is so per- formed. Although City is responsible for the performance of the work on the project, City is not a guarantor that the construction of said project will prevent further earth movement on the City's public right -of -way or on the Property Owners' parcel of real property. Both Property Owners and City acknowledge that the said project may or may not sufficiently drain water as desired, and also that further earth movement could occur before, during or after the internal drainage system has been installed. Neither party has made any representations or warranties to the other with respect to the adequacy of the drainage system to prevent or control further earth movement, and all uarties expressly assume the risk that such drainage system may not be totally effective. 5. Property Owners consent to allow City, through its representatives, agents and authorized independent contractors to enter onto their parcel of real property as may be required for purpose of performing the work on the project. Said consent shall include the relocation of excavated material to another area on . Property Owners' parcel of real property and the removal of trees and brush as may be necessary to allow equipment onto the property and to perform the work required to construct the project. -5- 6. After compliance with the public bidding process, City has awarded a contract to Pacific General Engineering Corporation in the amount of $63,286.00, of which approximately $53,285.00 represents the cost of work applicble to the project and approxi- mately $10,000.00 rep.r_esents the cost of other repair work to Pierce Road which does not constitute a part of "the project" as defined in Paragraph G above. City shall pay all. amounts owed to Pacific General Engineering Corporation for construction of the project and other repair work to Pierce Road in accordance with said contract. In addition to the work to be done on the project, Property Owners have on -site repair_ work to be done to areas of their property Which have been damaged by the landslide (hereinafter referred to as "Property Owners' repair work "). This Property Owners' repair work consists of (1) replace concrete block wall, (2) .replace patio, (3) replace main water Line and water line to upper garden, (a) landscaping (replacing trees and shrubs), (5) replace concrete walk at end of house and (6) replace gate and short fence. Property Owners will be responsible for contracting with appropriate independent contractors who would perform Prop- erty Owners' repair work. The cost of such Property Owners' repair work is estimated to be approximately $17,200.00 and shall_ be paid by Property Owners directly to said independent con- tractors who perform Property Owners' repair work. City shall have no liability for payment of anv costs of Property Owners' ash repair_ work. In the event the actual cost of Property Owners' repair work is less than twenty percent (20%) of the actual cost of the project (presently esti.matec? to be $53,286.00), Property Owners agree to pay to City an amount equal to the difference between the actual cost of Property Owners' repair work and twenty percent (200) of the actual project cost. If the actual cost of Property Owners' repair work is in excess of twenty percent (20 %) of the actual project cost, no amounts shall: be owed by Property Owners to City, nor shall City be obligated to pay any portion of such excess cost to Property Owners. Each party hereby agrees to furnish to the other all documents evidencing the actual cost of the project and the actual cost of Property Owners' repair work. 7. After the project has been completed and the drainage system installed, Prope -rtv Owners agree to permanently maintain and monitor the operation of said drainage system at the sole expense of Property Owners, except that any maintenance which is caused by any act or omission on the part of City.relating to City's maintenance of Pierce Road shall be the City's responsi- bility and at City's sole expense. 8. Certain future expenses will or may occur in connection with the durabil_ityr of the drainage system on Property Owners' -7- parcel of real property, namely, replacement costs and /or addi- tions. Of such possible future expenses, Property Owners agree to pay eighty percent (80 %) and City agrees to pay twenty percent (20 %). Any replacement or additions caused by any act or omission of Property Owners or Citv shall be specifically excepted from the provisions of this paragraph and shall be covered by the provi- sions of Paragraph 12 hereinafter. 9. Property Owners agree that any charge incurred by or assessed to Property Owners.under Paragraphs 6. and 8 of this Agreement will be due and payable to City thirty (30) days after notice of such charge is mailed by City to Property Owners and until such time as said charge is paid in full, it shall be a lien and encumbrance on the property of Property Owners until paid, and immediately after payment, Property Owners will take all appro- priate steps necessary to remove said lien and encumbrance. 10. Property Owners agree to grant a slope easement to City generally covering that portion of the project located on the Property Owners' parcel of real property and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 11. Property Owners agree to grant a drainage easement to City for the delivery of both ground water and surface runoff water from Pierce Road and the project area northerly across the Property Owners' parcel of real property to a natural creek all as more particularly shown and described in Exhibit "B" attached SM hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 12. Property Owners and City agree not to make use of their respective properties in such a way so as to damage or adversely affect the corrective grading and fill, the drainage system or the effectiveness of its operation. If, however., Property Owners use their parcel of real property in such a manner so as to cause damage to or adversely affect the drainage system or its opera" tion, then Property Owners shall be obligated, on their own account and at their own expense, to forthwith repair the portion of said drainage system so affected. Similarly, if City uses its property in such a manner so as to cause damage to or adversely affect the drainage system or its operation, then Citv shall be obligated, on its own account and at its own expense, to forthwith repair the portion of said drainage system so affected. 13. City shall indemnify and hold Property Owners harmless and defend in court at City's.own cost and expense from all liability from loss, damage, injury, cost or expense, to persons or property in any manner arising out of, or incident to, the construction of the project except where such loss, damage, injury, cost or expense is caused, either directly or indirectly, by any act or omission of Property Owners, or either of them, or their agents or employees. 14. Property Owners shall indemnify and hold City harmless and defend in court at Property Owners' own cost and expense from all liability from loss, damage, injury, cost or expense to ME persons or property in any manner arising out of or incident to the construction of Property Owners' repair work except where such loss, damage, injury, cost or expense is caused, either directly or indirectly, by any act or omission of City, or its agents, officials or employees. 15. Property Owners, and each of them, and City hereby releases the other, its agents, officials and authorized repre- sentatives from any and all. claims, demands, liability, actions and /or causes of action which may exist between them, whether known, unknown, or suspected arising out of or in connection with the landslide or any investigation or geologic. testing thereof, or any measures hereafter taken in an attempt to stabilize said landslide, whether emergency or long term, including but not limited to the grading to occur on the Property Owners' parcel of real property or on City's right of way, installation of the drainage system and drainage of subsurface and surface runoff water. Within thirty (30) days from the date of completion of the construction of the project, Property Owners will file a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit referred to in Paragraph I, and said dismissal shall operate as a retraxit. 16. This agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing signed by Property Owners and by the City, through its authorized representative. Such amendment must specifically state that it is an amendment to this agreement. This agreement may not be amended orally or otherwise than as set forth in this paragraph. -10- 17. This agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties hereto and shall be for the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, beneficiaries, successors in interest, transferees and assigns and shall attach to and run with Property Owners.' parcel of real. property. The pa r. ties agree to execute this agreement in recordable form and the City may record such agreement at any time after the execution by all parties. Other than the parties hereto and their heirs, beneficiaries, successors in interest, transferees and assigns, no third person shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to base any claim or have any right arising from or related to this agreement. 18. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs which may be set by the Court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. 19. Property Owners, and each of them, shall not be deemed, nor act as, agents, representatives, officers or employees of the City. 20. All notices sent out under this agreement by one party to another party shall be sent by first class mail and by certi- fied mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the follow- ing addresses: -11- CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 LAWRENCE T. SUTTON and MURIEL M. SUTTON 13905 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 In the event the present Property Owners or any suc- cessors in title or interest or both to Property Owners' parcel of real property sell all or a portion of any interest in their property which is the subject of this agreement, such selling Property Owners shall notify City of said transfer of ownership within thirty (30) days after said transfer has been recorded in the Office of the Santa Clara County Recorder. 21. This agreement may be signed in one or more counter- parts, and when all parties have signed the original or a counter- part, such counterparts together shall constitute one original document. The effective date of this agreement shall be the date on which it is last signed by all parties. Dated: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation M J. Wavne Dernetz City Manager ATTEST: J. Wavne Dernetz City Clerk -12- APPROVED AS TO FORM: Saratoga City Attorney Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1983. Grace E. Cory . Deputy City Clerk Government Code §40814 Dated: Dated: LAWRENCE T. SUTTON MURIEL M. SUTTON STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On this day of , 1983, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally, appeared LAWRENCE T. SUTTON and MURIEL M. SUTTON, ( ) personally known to me, ( ) proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC -13- CITY OF i AGENDA BILL NO. 0 q Initial: Dept. Hd. _ DATE: 9 -2 -83 C. Att DEPARTMENT. Administrative Services C. M SUBJECT= PAUL AVENUE IMPROVE1 ENTS - CHANGE ORDER #1 Issue S Old (prior to city incorporation) storm drain line on-4th St. at the Paul Ave. connection (approx. 50 ft.) must be removed and replaced with new 18" concrete pipe in order to facilitate planned improvements on Paul Avenue. Recommendation Approve change order to Paul Avenue Improvements - Dorsa Paving Inc. Fiscal Impacts City Staff working with Contractor and Sub - Contractor to determine cost of Change Order prior to City Council meeting of 09- 07 -83. Exhibits /Attachments Council Action 9/7: Consensus to direct staff to work with current contractor or a new contractor to provide contract-at reasonable cost. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: 9 -2 -83 C. At DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services C. Mgr. AMENDMENTS TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS A VARIETY OF POTENTIAL FACILITY SITES Issue Summary State law requires amendments to the Solid Waste Management Plan be approved by more than half of the cities representing more than half of the population in incorporated areas, and must be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The County of Santa Clara has forwarded two amendments to all cities in the County for action, by Resolution prior to September 15, 1983. The first amendment deals with Kirby Canyon, a potential landfill site all within the City of San Jo.se. The second amendment is for five potential sites located throughout the North County Area. None of the proposed amendments have any known direct affect on the City of Saratoga. If the Council choses not to act either __affirmatively or negatively on the attached Resolutions, the County _ wi.11_.Jinterpret our non- response.as a positive response. Recommendation Adopt Resolutions attached approving the proposed amendments. Direct staff to send both Resolutions to the County with a cover letter indicating our concern that costs associated with reviewing the two amendments be borne by those jurisdictions requesting the amendments. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attachments Resolution No's. Memorandum from County Solid Waste Management Program. Council Action 9/7: Fanelli /Moyles moved to adopt resolutions, accompanying them with a letter requesting that City have no cost in connection with the amendments. Failed 2 -2. RESOLUTION NO.: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE FIVE FACILITY SITES OF THE NORTH COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AS POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SITES WHEREAS, the City Council has previously concurred in the principles and objectives of the Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County; and, WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Planning Committee for Santa Clara County has requested that this City consider amending Chapter 9 of the Plan to include the five prospective facility sites of the North County Solid Waste Management Authority, a copy of the amendment is attached hereto; 1. The attached amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County is approved. 2. Concurrence in the principles and objectives of the said Plan is reaffirmed. 3. The City Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Solid Waste Planning Committee for Santa Clara County, c/o Jane Decker, Director of County Relations, 70 West Hedding St., San Jose, CA 95110. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1983, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: _ by Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Attachment adlf6 rot /swmp /wst RESOLUTION NO.: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE KIRBY CANYON AS A POTENTIAL LAND FILL SITE WHEREAS, the City Council has previously concurred in the principles and objectives of the Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County; and, WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Planning Committee for Santa Clara County has requested that this City consider amending Chapter 9 of the Plan to include Kirby Canyon as a potential landfill site, a copy of the amendment is attached hereto; I. The attached amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County is approved. 2. Concurrence in the principles and objectives of the said Plan is reaffirmed. 3. The City Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Solid Waste Planning Committee for.Santa Clara County, c/o Jane Decker, Director of County Relations, 70 West Hedding St., San Jose, CA 95110. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of SARATOGA at a regular meeting held on the day of 1983, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: by Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Attachment ad #6 rol /swmp /wst2 f County of Santa Clara California June 16, 1983 MEMORANDUM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299 -2521 RECEIVED JUN 21 1983 CITY MANAGER TO: Each City Council FROM: E. Jack Schoop, ctor Director of Pla and Development SUBJECT: TWO AMENDME TS TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO INCLUDE A VARIETY OF POTENTIAL FACILITY SITES IN COMPLIANCE WITH NEW STATE REGULATIONS At its regular meeting of June 2, 1983, the Solid Waste Planning Committee (comprised of the Intergovernmental Council membership) decided, by majority vote to distribute the accompanying proposed amendments to the Solid Waste Management Plan to the Cities for their consideration. State law requires that amendments must be approved by more than half of the Cities representing more than half of the population in incorporated areas, and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Each City is required to act upon these amendments within 90 calender days (Title 14,\Division 7, Chapter 2, 17147 (a)) of receipt of this material or it is deemed to have approved the submittal. The 90 day period will end September 15, 1983. State law requires approval or denial by Resolution of the Council. A sample resolution is enclosed for each site. AMENDMENTS PROPOSED A. The San Jose Amendment The first amendment deals with Kirby Canyon, a potential landfill site, which is virtually all within the City of San Jose. It is proposed that the site will be developed and operated as a landfill by Waste Management, Inc. The land is leased from Oceanic Properties, Inc. The site will receive wastes principally from the City of San Jose. Information is not available regarding acceptance of wastes from outside of the City. ® An Equal Opportunity Employer B. The North County Solid Waste. Management Authority Amendment The second amendment presents five potential facility sites located throughout the North County Authority's jurisdiction. They provide potential sites for transfer /processing facilities, materials recovery facilities, energy recovery facilities and a landfill. These sites., represent essentially the entire proposed facilities development program for the r:aut iority: ACTIONS LEADING TO APPROVAL A. Conformance With The Solid Waste Management Plan Conformance with the Santa Clara County Countywide Solid Waste ,Management Plan is a prerequisite to obtaining the State permits for the solid waste facilities noted above. The Countywide Plan is about to undergo an extensive program of review and update, as required by the State Solid Waste Board. This activity has a deadline of June 6, 1984. Proponents of the two amendments anticipate requesting permits from the Solid Waste Management Board well before the June, 1984 date. They wish not to be held up by the latter stages of the Plan revision process, therefore, amendment to the current Solid Waste Plan is being sought. B. General Plan Compliance (applies only to San Jose, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and the County at this time Heretofore, general plan compliance of waste management facilities was essentially a local matter, not required by State Law. However, legislation (AB 3303 and 3433) which became effective on January 1, 1983 establishes a new State requirement for general plan review and compliance. Guidelines published by the. State Board are included for your information. The new legislation requires that the planning agency (Planning Commission) for the jurisdiction where a new or expanded facility is to be located must make a finding that the proposal is consistent with the appropriate General Plan. Guidelines from the State Solid Waste Management Board state that such a finding can be made if: "a. The site is designated in the appropriate General Plan; and b. Land use adjacent to or near the facility site are compatible with the facility ". The State Board does not have, nor do they intend to promulgate any standards for evaluating these two points. The Local Planning Agency, in this case the Cities of San Jose, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and the County, will be required by State Law to make the above findings of consistency two separate times. The first time is when the State Solid Waste Management Board votes on the Plan Amendment. If changes to the local General Plan are needed and the City concurs with the project, the General Plan Amendment should be begun as soon as possible. The State Board cannot act until it has the findings of compliance from affected local governments. K The second time is when the local use permit is issued. The findings of compliance must accompany that permit before the State Board can issue a Solid Waste Facility Permit. C. Sequence of Actions Assuming approval of the proposed amendments by more than half of the Cities representing more than half of the population in incorporated areas, the actions following are: I. The Solid Waste Planning Committee discusses the City resolutions of approval /denial and makes its own recommendation to the Board of Supervisors,. 2. The Board of Supervisors approves or denies the amendments (at the June 2, IGC meeting, I erred in stating Board approval was not required). 3. The Board of Supervisors, transmits the completed package, if approved, to the State Solid Waste Management Board. 4. The appropriate local jurisdiction transmits General Plan compliance findings, (see above) to the State Solid Waste Management Board at the earliest possible date, but prior.to the Boards adoption of the Plan Amendment. Staff Assistance If you require assistance in carrying out these matters, please contact: 1. Warren S. Terriberry, Staff Coordinator, Solid Waste Management Program, Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, (408) 299 -2521. 2. Gary B. Liss, Solid Waste Management Coordinator, City of San Jose, (408) 277 -5566. 3. Tom Henderson, General Manager, North County Solid Waste Management Authority, (408) 773 -9417. EJS: WST:ad Enclosures cc: Gary Liss Tom Henderson Board of Supervisors (for information) ad# 2 swmp /fac /reg 9 CITY OF SARATOGA Initial AGENDA BILL NO. 57/ Dept. H DATE: August 29, 1983 (Sept. 7, 1983) C. Atty DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.. SUBJECT: KITTERIDGE ROAD EMERGENCY ROAD REPAIR - FINAL ACCEPTANCE Issue Summary The project involved the construction of a retaining wall along the public portion of Kitteridge Road east of Bohlman Road. The Contractor, Soil-Engineering Construction, has completed the work for the contract price of $58,600. Recommendation Approve final acceptance and file Notice of Completion Fiscal Impacts $58,600 of which 75% ($43,950) is reimberseable by FEMA Exhibits /Attachments Notice of Completion 0 Council Action 9/7: Approved on Consent Calendar. vmic. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO F_ 7 Na m• $1r A;" I.. cl iv a L s,.,a SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE • NAfirr of (Implefinn Natirr is hereby given that .......2 .............. . the undersigned, J.... Wayne Dernetz ................................................................................................................................ ............................... .............................. !the agent of]* the owner....... of lh............. certain lot............ piece..............., or, parcel ............. of land .situated in the.......... City_, of.., Sarato. ga..,, ,............._................ County of $.an. a ... Gl. ar a ............. ............................... State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: KITTERIDGE ROAD EMERGENCY ROAD REPAIR That........The ................................................. ............................... ................................................ ............................... . as owner...... of said land, did, on the ..... 5.t........ day of .............. cM Y ...... ............................... 19 ... 83......... , enter into a contract with ...Soil............. Engineerin� .............................................................................................. ............................... for .. Kitteridge Road . . .............................................................................. ............................... ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ............................... upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the ......... ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, on the................. ............................... day of ................. ............................... 119 ............; That on the .......... 15th ............................. day of ....... J. qX Y. ................................. . 19 ....U... the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ................... Soi.l.. EngineerinS...Gonstru.G.t2 90 ............................................. ..............................: That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said properly are as follows: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................ ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ...................................... ............................... City of Saratoga (),user............ ST. -1 TL OF CALIPORNI s: By ............... ............................... Counts of.... Santa ... Clara ............................. Wayne Dernetz Agent ................................................................................................................................. ............................... beingduly . sworn . ........................................................................................... ............................... says: I ran agent /the agent ofd* the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice. 1 have read the foregoing notice and k'nou, the contents lhercof and the same is true of n,y own knoul,led- Subscribed and sworn to before me, this .......................... day of...................... 19....... City Clerk (per Govt. Code 408140) ` Delete words in brackets if owner signs. a xattcrorcrntrrcrrorrxrc>wwnrxYC t r s� rt rra a: CITY OF SARATOGA 4� AGENDA BILL NO. Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: August 29, 1983 (Sept. 7, .1983) C. Attyr ISEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: KITTERIDGE ROAD EMERGENCY ROAD REPAIR - FINAL ACCEPTANCE Issue Summary The project involved the construction of a retaining wall along the public portion of Kitteridge Road east of Bohlman Road. The Contractor, Soil Engineering Construction, has completed the work for the contract price of $58,600. Recommendation Approve final acceptance and file Notice of Completion • Fiscal Impacts $58,600 of which 75% ($43,950) is reimberseable by FEMA Exhibits /Attaclumnts Notice of Completion Council Action AGENDA BILL NO: S/ 2 CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Head: / DATE: September 8, 1983 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr SUBJECT: Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Donation of Koi Fish for Hakone Garden Issue Summar Mr. I. D. Allan of Saratoga has donated 21 koi fish for the pond at Hakone Garden. This donation has a retail value of $1,985. Recommendation Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. Fiscal Impact This donation is worth $1,985.00 Exhibits /Attachments Letter from Mr. Allan itemizing Koi fish donated. Council Action 9/21: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0. 14426 Black Walnut Ct Saratoga CAL 95070 September 5, 1983 Mr. Roy Swanson City of Saratoga Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Roy, It has taken longer than I expected to put together a letter to list the 21 Kai we placed in the pond at Hakone Gardens last month. Few pet stores carry Koi as large as some we released so ascertaining a retail price was not too easy. The two stores used as primary guides were Dolphin Pet and Living Specialties, both in Campbell. The prices are based mostly on size, but also on coloring. By using the average price and the number of Koi released, I calculate the total retail value to be $1,985. My calculations are shown below: 6- 8" $ 35- 45 Average `x+ 40 8 -10" $ 45- 55 Average $ 50 10 -12" $ 55 -125 Average $ 85 12 -18" $125 -175 Average $150 18 -24" $175 -225 Average $200 The following Koi were released at Hakone Gardens: Aka Bekko Asagi Doitsu German Scale Mirror Carp Ohgon Sanke Shiro Bekko Showa Shusui Retail Value 6 -8 8 -10 10 -12 12 -18 18 -24 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 5 2 4 $160 $300 $425 $300 $800 My wife is a regular visitor at Hakone Gardens, and we always take our guests up there to show them its beauty. It was her idea to offer our fish to complement those in your pond, and replace those taken by the herons - it was definitely one of her best ideas. It is quite a thrill to see "our" fish amongst your others. Yours sincerely, i I. D. Allan