HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACill".11 OF
AGE:\DA BILL NO. Initial:
Dept. 12.
DATE: Oct. 24, 1983 ( Nov. 2, 1933 )
C. Atty
Community Development C. Mgr.
SL7-- j7_'CT: Final Building Site Approval SDR 15'35
Michael Elder, Panorama Drive
Issue SL-- mary
1. This is over 50% addition to an existing dwelling
2. The SDR 153x:- is ready for Final pproval
3. All requirements for city departments and other agencies have
. been met
Reccrnendaticn
Adopt Resolution No. 153:5 7-02, attached, approving the building
site subject SDR
Fiscal Im=zcts
None
EXhibiis /Attztch.^, nis
1. Resolution No. 1535,• -02
2. Copy of tentative map
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Status report for building site approval
5. Location map
Ccuncil t %ction
1112% Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 15.4..'-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Michael Elder
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 1.06 Acre Parcel shown as Lot 23 on tract Los Haciendas
DeLa Rinconade recorded in Book W4 of Maps on Pages 16 -18, '
and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be
approved as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 2nd day of November 19 83
by the following vote: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
1 I
l 1 I
rI - l S I♦ ♦1 s'/ 240. T4 _
,• Y. Vii!
4d
i�
f
I (I I
oJI ! j {I71
I
I r qdo,
><
I
o ♦
I 1 11
I I I 1 II.
/ - FD .,
/ f
� ROLIR •((L� lM,l r
0. J79
I.
I
Li
N�
LL
Q
)r�
L
o_ •
Q
I
41
01•
A
ONI(ER: MR. # MRS. MICHAEL 6LDCR l
141.08 PANORAMA DI•.• SARAn*^, -1=70
' )SA -4704
5Vr•V2TOq: ROVRR C. DOOOQ
tz -1 MONTC LJMI, DRr CN^PDtLL, 41009
]79•)476
' UTYUTIES: NAT 6.LS_P [LCCTIV CI'hJJ' P.6.} !. (fN FR'OiJT�
!A N, JEw2'M1� IAIJITA'nON DI iT.YCAT RGR)
DomerTIC L4A76mj EXWW
PU14POSC OF TCNTATIVE M•AP_ h FACILITATE
APt ROVAL OF ^DOITIONAL DCVEL.O PMCr1T(ryn2
OF CAISTINa LOT; NO LoT OIVI 910 Af R6Que$r6D
AREA CP "IT1N0, LOT: / (.Cuo AC.'
STORM OAAIrlASC: SutFAC6,, twI1TIr1l- IL PROPOCCD
EIILTIo 4 PROPOtCD UCC: SINGLE MrAW -f RtLIOfHnAI.
AVFWW6 SLOPE_ S ••o Lt4 r L
,L.
.--j L • 2024
s•
LaI.
c•
co IN
PROPER;:; t ItlPTION' LOT tl OG "LAS 1AU6NDAS
DF LA ZINC. JAOA DE 1.01 4,A-,Vi) •W% MAPA It."
pL%opER-,r ADOAELI: 19206 PANORAMA DRjlARAT9iA
S S A SITC
1Rq fie,. +°
rod r, IY P
X CD
1
ca T
of
- N• lu,Lt 'QC
. LOCATION MAP
TENTP\TIVE MAP
. LANDS OP ELDER
Sfta^-r A, CAL.
DODGE- BHEPHEP.D ASSOC., SURVEYING
2241 MOKrULOAA, DR.
CAWb ELL,CAUF. tSWG
' 3742472 2sSJrol
¢,.. o e
�tE a8�"
3
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
0Y of Saratoga CJ
APPROVE -D BY:
DATE: - -3
DATE: 4/6/83
Commission Meeting: 4/13/83
SUBJECT' SDR -1535, A -862, Mr. & Mrs. Michael Elder, 19208 Panorama Dr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Building Site and Design Review Approval to construct a first
and second story addition to an existing single story dwelling which is
more than a 50% expansion.
OTHER APPROVALS: None
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 46,194 square feet
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
NOTICING: Notice of this project has been posted on site, mailed
to surrounding property owners and advertised in the Saratoga News.
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential
SITE SLOPE: 9.18%
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 5%
GRADING REQUIRED: CUT: 200 Cu. Yds.
CUT DEPTH: 3 Feet
SETBACKS: Front - 41 ft. Rear - 128 ft.
Left Side:- 33 ft.
HEIGHT: 28'6"
FILL: 200 Cu. Yds
FILL DEPTH: 3 Feet
Right Side - 20 ft.
C
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1535
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
FLOOR AREA:
4/6/83
Page 2,
First Floor Existing - 3,688 square feet
First Floor (New) - 1,980 suare feet
Second Floor (New) - 876 square feet
Total - 6,544 square feet
6,200 square feet is allowed by ordinance
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 31.3 %, 37% is allowed by ordinance
COLORS & MATERIALS: Brick veneer with white window shutters will be
used for the exterior. Roofing materials will be heavy shake.
SOLAR: None proposed
LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: No landscaping plans have been required with
this application.
PROJECT STATUS: Said Project complies with all ojectives of the 1974
General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been
balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available
fiscal and environmental resources.
A (Categorical Ememption) was preated and was to be f -led iAth the County
of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact
of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination
date: February 24, 1983
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1535
(Exhibit "B" filed February 24, 1983) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record
of Survey or parcel mapl payment of storm drainage fee and park
and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the
time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans
for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department
regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance
for further particulars. Site-.approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other
Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply
with.the folowing Specific Conditions which are hereby required
and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
C
Report to Planning Commission 4/6/83
SDR -1535 Page 3
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation
(Pay required checking and Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is
shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale
prints.)
C. Deferred Improvement Agreement (Improve Panorama to City
Standards.)
D. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master
Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineers, as
needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or
Watercourse.
E. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of
view as required at driveway and access road intersections.
F. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or precent flow.
G. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
H. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements marked "D.I.A."
III. DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed pro-
fessional
1. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for walls 3 feet or highter.
4. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan.
using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet
nos., owner's name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW
1. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits.
Report to the Planning Commission 4/6/83
SDR -1535 Page 4
FINDINGS:
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views & Privac
Staff noted no interference with the viewshed of neighboring
parcels. The dwellings across Panorama Drive are situated
at a higher elevation than the subject site so that there view
is not impaired. The views of the adjoining parcels to the
west and east have their view oriented toward the south so
that their view is also not impaired.
Staff also noted no significant privacy impacts to the adjacent
neighbors to the west and south. The property to the
is located at a lower elevation than the subject structure so
that their rear yard is already visable from the subject lot
Therefore, the second story does not significantly increase
the impact. Some screening to the property to the rear is
provided by existing fruit trees as well as vegetation on the
neighboring site. Similarly, the property to the west is also
situated at a lower elevation and is fairly well screened with
its own landscap *ng consisting of evergreen shrubbery and a
mature (60' tall -) evergreen oak.
2. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk and Compatible Bulk & Height
The structures immediately adjacent to the subject structure are
one story, however, there are four other two story dwellings on
Panorama Drive which put them in close proximity to the subject
structure. It appears to staff that the structure will be
compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk and design,
since there is a mix of one and two story homes. Staff has also
considered that the 2nd story addition is to be constructed over
a small portion of the existing structure and will have a relatively
low elevation.
3. Infills: Compatibility, Views, Privacy and Natural Features
Staff has noted no significant privacy or visual impacts to the
adjacent properties or the nighborhood. Staff also feels the
project is compatible in terms of design and bulk with the surrounding
homes.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff report dated 4/6/83 and Exhibits
"B & C" subject to the following conditions:
A. Prior to the issuance of building permits:
1. Minor modifications to the approved elevations require the
review and approval of the Permit Review Division.
2. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Division of Inspection Services
Report to the Planning Commission
SDR -1535, A -862
APPROVED
Sharon Lester
Planner
SL /bjc
P.C. Agenda 4/13/83
4/6/83
Page .5
* Comments: The recreational court indicated on the tentative map is
not approved with this application.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1535, Michael Elder
(have) () been met as approved by the PlanningJCommission on 4 -13 -83
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers fo-r all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N.A.
Record of Survey or Parcel Map
Storm Drainage Fee N.A.
All Required Improvement Bonds
All Required Inspection Fees
Building Site Approval Agreeme
Park and Recreation Fee N.A.
N.A.
Date Submitted
N.A. Date
150.00 Date
[it Date
Date
Date Submitted ---
Date Submitted
Receipt #
Submitted Receipt#
Submitted 10-20-87-- Receipt# 3290
Signed
Submitted -- Receipt# -
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Coa 0c) (Final) Building Site Approval for Michael Elder ,
SDR- 1535 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un7
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s)
I.
Reason for Non- Compliance
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
C1'1"_ Cdr
AGu%'DA BILL NO. 533
DATE: 10 -26 -83 (11- 02 -83)
Community Development
SU"BTECT: Abandon the existing offer of dedication of
------- ____ a storm drain- easement --.Longmeadow
Issue SL --=ary
The City Council, at their regular meeting of January 5, 1.983, approved
the final map for Longmeadow Development. The alignment for storm drain
was changed in the field to save some trees. Therefore, Longmeadow
Development wants to dedicate new storm drain easement and abandon the
existing storm drain easement.
Recc:m-,endaticn
Adopt Resolution No.' attached, to abandon the existing offer of
dedication of a storin—J—rain easement.
Fiscal Im=acts
None
E:<h i b i is /A ttcch^rs is
1. Resolution No.
2. Dedication of Storm Drain Easement
Ccuncil �%Ction
11/2,: Approved Resolution No. 2101 on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
A
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: Oct. 27, 1983 (November 2, 1983)
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUB=: SDR -1496, R. Araldi, Canyon View Drive
Issue Summary
In 1960 an offer of dedication was made providing for a forty.(401) foot
wide right -of -way for an eventual public street. During the recent
development of this area it was determined that a narrower width emer-
gency access was all that was required. Therefore, the applicant has
submitted a new offer of dedication for a twenty -five (2S') foot wide
right -of -way and the 40 foot width is no longer necessary.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. which vacates the original 40' right -of -way.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No.
2. Original Offer o De ication (401)
3. Current Offer of Dedication (2S')
4. Sketch
Council Action
11/2: Approved on Consnet Calendar 5 -0 (Resolution 2102).
.:.:- ......,•..•,..... SDR -120
:1
pis ice: OFFER TO DEDICATE - STREET
pp W. C. Noeggarath - Canyon View Drive
so
,J
a\ tb..x :t..-n2rf;
'
Cwii`., T — _ t7 ti:...
rrt: --:
;_ Ga
The u.�'.dar.,iga2c, uad.a : r�r:i that Lhx within eff cr can or-.IV be r.ccepted
b xaeelatir. t,.f r:,
Y ti;e ti;,t.z: (:cu -�ci of
tLC City C_ Sar ctUg nurt•aant to
alac, '.1�n�� }t. C'n5.: Jecticr if ^ = 1
rc�co at oa c.� tW, St0't , c: P ifcraia, and
BCCOIJ�C.T?.4C ... n
1,
r :
tht,
tO c . u
,i . r.d ; _. � CCRIItiLt;'.:� .
at , Tiil_E O!iCr mhali G: irravo^
Ck'01" B.M. t!:r:, l DC �' id'::i, ,; UMon Cur he' -ra, T:era, ,-,Ll reprassn ativez,
Vcic�sccr� a3oti as'AjF7k::_ The plur..-L as Mach. arein snail inci.tde tac
aur')V-v �.a:,. �r;,.. 4he : i �t>;lsz" nhai.l includc tho'
plural.
'*Zde of fdttlifurnin
Santa 91 AM �ss
r
nol.4850 Pori :�5
— ACKNOWLEDGMENT— General —
Mn this...... 8th........ day of ................. July ............................ A. D. 19.60.. before me.
.". .• ................Asher...I.... Roberts.--- .....................a Notary Public in and for the said
County and State, residing therein. duly commissioned and sworn, personally ap-
peared ........ Wolf gang..C... Noegg erath ........................................... .....................................
known to me to be the person whose name ............ .....................subscribed to the
within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
�Jn Oitness 'Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affi dm official seal
the day and year in this Certificate first above written.
Notar lie in aH ounty and State of California
MY Commi,eioa Expires .......... �`1.Y.CV _... sioo Expic.. a..$. CpaCmber j..L91i7.__....^a_ati4t_�. RobeQS
............ ..............
Form GA — Sam HoA:ar, Legal Focra, Printing Service. 2728 Fruitvale Ave., Oakland, Calif.
A strip of land 40 ft. wide located southerly
along the
north line of that
certain parcel of land conveyed by Lorrill A.
Palm et ux. to Devisees of the
Estate of Hedwig Johanna Noeggerath, deceased,
by Deed
dated January
12, 1959, -
and recorded February 5, 1959, in Book 4314 of
cf ficial
records, page 5690 Recorder
file No. 1582863, Santa Clara County Records,
and being
a portion of
the South
one -half of the South east one - quarter of Section
2, Township 8 South Range 2 tiNest,
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
m
� o
0
c�
r 1-� C l
vo
r, c:
-,
C_ O C..: C
J
J
The u.�'.dar.,iga2c, uad.a : r�r:i that Lhx within eff cr can or-.IV be r.ccepted
b xaeelatir. t,.f r:,
Y ti;e ti;,t.z: (:cu -�ci of
tLC City C_ Sar ctUg nurt•aant to
alac, '.1�n�� }t. C'n5.: Jecticr if ^ = 1
rc�co at oa c.� tW, St0't , c: P ifcraia, and
BCCOIJ�C.T?.4C ... n
1,
r :
tht,
tO c . u
,i . r.d ; _. � CCRIItiLt;'.:� .
at , Tiil_E O!iCr mhali G: irravo^
Ck'01" B.M. t!:r:, l DC �' id'::i, ,; UMon Cur he' -ra, T:era, ,-,Ll reprassn ativez,
Vcic�sccr� a3oti as'AjF7k::_ The plur..-L as Mach. arein snail inci.tde tac
aur')V-v �.a:,. �r;,.. 4he : i �t>;lsz" nhai.l includc tho'
plural.
'*Zde of fdttlifurnin
Santa 91 AM �ss
r
nol.4850 Pori :�5
— ACKNOWLEDGMENT— General —
Mn this...... 8th........ day of ................. July ............................ A. D. 19.60.. before me.
.". .• ................Asher...I.... Roberts.--- .....................a Notary Public in and for the said
County and State, residing therein. duly commissioned and sworn, personally ap-
peared ........ Wolf gang..C... Noegg erath ........................................... .....................................
known to me to be the person whose name ............ .....................subscribed to the
within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
�Jn Oitness 'Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affi dm official seal
the day and year in this Certificate first above written.
Notar lie in aH ounty and State of California
MY Commi,eioa Expires .......... �`1.Y.CV _... sioo Expic.. a..$. CpaCmber j..L91i7.__....^a_ati4t_�. RobeQS
............ ..............
Form GA — Sam HoA:ar, Legal Focra, Printing Service. 2728 Fruitvale Ave., Oakland, Calif.
"',.
I
ENKRSED COSY
C
7746958
OFFER TO DEDICATE PROPERTY FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS
For valuable consideration, the undersigned owners of the here-
CD inafter described real property, hereby warranting that they
o�� constitute all of the owners thereof, for themselves, their heirs,
<.� successors and.assigns, hereby irrevocably offer to dedicate to
o the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, an easement and
right -of -way for a public emergency access (including all trees or
° ° growth presently growing or as may be grown within said right -of -way)
upon, under, over and across that certain real property situated in the
m a City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and
more particularly described as follows:
I
A non - exclusive right -of -way for a public emergency access road over and along
the northerly 25 feet of land extending from the westerly line of track no. 1318
Wildwood Heights to the easterly line of the parcel of land herein described as
A PN #503 -28 -92 and is Parcel 1 as shown on the Record of Survey recorded
9/7/62 in Book 151 of Maps page 50.
0 D R - ti .
r-1'
63
-
i.:.1 '4 c7
LJ .
t ✓'
1:
ILA C•:, [ "1
LL wa,.
The undersigned understand that the within offer can only be accepted
by resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga pursuant
to Streets and Highways Code Section 1806 of the State of California,
and recordation-of this instrument shall not and will m t constitute
acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. This offer shall be
irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal- representa-
tives, successors and assigns. The plural as used herein shall in-
clude the singular, and the singular include the plural. L
Executed this 22 day of ApriZ 19 83
Robert Jl AraZdi
i
(All Signatures must be ack— u'led.ged! before Notary Public - attach
eit er orporate, in i.t ax,or partnership notary form.)
I
1
- � 1
Mc6AN s
G I t qo
l
` % t
/ � J
A
10' WIDE STRIP OFFERED TO THE CITY FOR PUBLIC
` .. STREET T/II160, IT IS ASSUMED THIS OFFER IS REJE
/MARTIN I `d I'I'�� °F (� �'I�\ a.' SINCE NQ ?UBUC STREET "TEN SOON IS PR IED BY TH CITY
CAST 395.31' I \ 1 w''v.'.'c'�••°'"� -�wa.. ..., '� ..gym -e.- ,.,ter,_ .r
jo
SIP
. i 7.7
L 0.16 Q
r
S M,yA �� 1
• R2r I T
F-0 - Rp_. - ---L-
S"LfLO F n• OED" %- / �3�/Il s �1Ve I i i Q
WEST 1,5—
i
� F
� I
..... E l—
YARIANC[ NOT[
"W4
WRIARCE APPLICATION HAS KEN PILED FOR THIS
d PROPDSAL. WITH VARIANCE A LARGE OAR TREE
IS SAVED AND THERE IV[MAT I! L[!S 011AOIM0, MALL
OR
AND LDA REQUIRE D DUE TO 20'LE3S
.
NOT[
F TITLE REPORT FOR !lY[ NOTE! 9A19M9RT!
1 4 RECOM OED IN BOOR 871 DR. 191, SOOR 4314
OR. 569 AND BOOR SOTOO.R.191 FOR ACCESS
AN UTILITIES WHERFLOCATION IS NOT
I' DEFI WAS OR MAVE NO EFFECT ON SITE
V /C /N /TY Mi9P I TRCE TO 5E RENDVED
.9YiDGE / =JW' O -W DENOTE WALL ANDHEIGHT
I
I. APPLICANT: ROBERT ARALOI
354 MATTSON AVENUE
LOS C.A T01. :A. 95050 I ,
7. OWF:EAS: MEREDITH [. SUNG C/0 LEONARD WADE
KI ALKIN TO Wit D -112
LOS GAIOS. CI. 9S050
556 -1246
5. CIVIL ENGINEERS t LAND I ANNERS: JENNI2:GS- MCDERMOTT- MEISS, INC.
925 PEG FIT STREET
SAN JOSE, CA. 95110
286 -4555
4. LOT SIZE: 16,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS
5. EA IS T II;G AND PROPOSED .-'-NO USE: VACANT S SINGLE FAMILY 'MOM[
6. E %1St II:G ZOM ING P -1 40.000
PROPOSED ZCr:I NG I 1-1 40,000
/. S— ITAP.Y SEVER 10 CC"" SANITATION DISTRICT 44 LINE IN ADJACENT STREETS.
R. EA SE.MEF TS FOR OR IMAGE, SEVAGE AND PUBLIC UT IL I r IES TO BE PR UV IDED A5
REQUIRED BY THE CIIY •II SARATOGA AID AIEFCTED PUBLIC UTILITIES.
9. WATER SYSTEM TO BF P-1 1DFD BY SAN JCS, WATER WORKS FROM EXISTINC
FAFIIITIFS ADJACENT - SITE.
10. EI. ECTRICITY AND GAS 51 P.G.t E. 10 FACII]TIES ADJACENT TO SITE.
11. STDRM ORA IMAGE SNZII OF 10 CANYON VIEW DRIVE. AS REQQIPID BY Ir,E City OF
SA RA TCI,A,
12. STPFE• TREE P]ANTINI. TO BE PROVIDED AS R(,QUIRFD BY TI,L CITY OF SAPAIOGA.
15. SITE AVERAGE `J 0, IS 18.1 I TEAR 1 OUT CIINTO,,W III;C 1580
14, TINE AREA IS NT SIIB.IECS 10 INIINUATIOI.,
15. SITE IS APII 4505 -28 -92 AND 15 PARCEI. I AS SHOWN ON RECORD OE SURVEY
PFCOPCI'D 9/2:(.2 IN BOOK 151 OF MAP$ IAF,] SIN.
V
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL N0: 536-
DATE: October 24, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: Muscular Dystrophy Association - "Saratoga Six" Running Race
Initial:
Dept. Hea
City Atty
City Mgr
Issue Summary
The City has been contacted by the Muscular Dystrophy Association for permission to
hold a running race on City streets. The race is scheduled for December 18, 1983, to
begin at 9:00 a.m. The race will begin and end at E1 Paseo de Saratoga shopping center.
Recommendation
Authorize race to be held on December 18th with the stipulation that the sponsors of
the race will provide the City with proof of liability insurance naming the City as an
additional insured, will coordinate reserve officer, if needed, at their expense, and
will be responsible for clean -up of all race related debris along the entire race course.
Fiscal Impact
None
Exhibits /Attachments
Race request letter.
Map of race course.
Council Action
11/2: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION
Fighting 40 Neuromuscular Diseases
Active Member, National Health Council
JERRY LEWIS
Board of Directors
National Chairman
S. MOUCHLY SMALL, M.D.
EDWARD W. BARRETT
President
ROBERT M. BENNETT
SYLVESTER L. WEAVER, JR.
LOUIS R. BENZAK
Chairman, Executive Committee
MICHAEL E. DeBAKEY, M.D.
HENRY M. WATTS, JR.
THOMAS R. DONAHUE
Vice Chairman,
JOHN A. GANNON
Executive Committee
JOHN J. GARDINER
STEWART G. WOLF, JR., M.D.
ALVIN HAMPEL
Chairman,
JACK HARRIS
Scientific Advisory Committee
MRS. JOHN T. MASTERS
LEON I. CHARASH, M.D.
FREDERICK O'NEAL
Chairman,
ROBERT G. SAMPSON
Medical Advisory Committee
GEORGE J. SIMKO
ROBERT ROSS
S. MOUCHLY SMALL, M.D.
Vice - President and
HENRY M. WATTS, JR.
Executive Director
SYLVESTER L. WEAVER, JR.
MRS. JOHN C. WEST
Please Reply To: SHARON BUILDING, 1140 PEDRO STREET, SUITE 3, SAN JOSE, CA 95126, (408) 275 -1133
October 20, 1983
Mr. Dan Trinidad
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Dan:
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me the other day. Your
input was most helpful and I look forward to your continued cooperation
on this project.
I would first like to offer some background on the Muscular Dystrophy
Association. We are a national voluntary health agency with an annual
budget of $77 million, MDA operates over 240 patient services clinics
and 10 major research clinics. Over 75% of all monies raised goes into
program services with management less than 5 %. Locally, the Mission
Counties District serves the four counties of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz,
Monterey and San Benito. The local chapter provides patient services,
orthopedic equipment, therapy and other care for over 320 clients
at clinics located at Valley Medical Center and Stanford University.
Stanford medical personnel also received over $280,000 in research grants
this year. MDA also operates a summer camp program for clients at Walden
West in Saratoga. This year over 120 clients were able to spend a week
in the natural splendor of the local mountains. All monies raised in this
area are utilized here and determine the quality and structure of our
services.
Getting back to the project we discussed, the "Saratoga Six" road race
starting and finishing at E1 Paseo de Saratoga. Our proposed date for the
event is Sunday, December 18. Start would be 9:00 A.M. with projected
finish for last runners at 10:00 a.m. I' alter"_B_
the- -rlther ufi .
Continued....
NATIONAL OFFICE: 810 SEVENTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10019 212 586 -0808
.4w® MDA sponsors basic and applied research into neuromuscular disorders, including the muscular dystrophies; the myosites; Friedreich's ataxia,
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other spinal muscular atrophies; and myasthenia gravis, and provides services to those afflicted by these diseases.
KAREEM ABDUL- JABBAR
Los Angeles, Cal.
RICHARD A.ABEND,ESQ.
Utica, N. Y.
JOHN ASTIN
Beverly Hills, Cal.
PEARL BAILEY
Northridge, Cal.
BETTY Q. BANKER, M.D.
Shaker Heights, Ohio
ALAN J. BELL
Oakland. Cal.
BRADFORD R. BOSS
Barrington. R. I.
BOB BOWERMAN
Joplin, Mo.
HON. WILLIAM H.BRIARE
Las Vegas, Nev.
HON. JACK H. BRIER
Topeka, Kan.
LOIS BURNS
Clarks Summit, Pa.
CLARENCE H.CARLANDER
Honolulu. Hawaii
LOUIS J. CARUSO
Ringwood, N. J.
SHELDON COOPER
Chicago, III.
S. JAMES COPPERSMITH
New York, N. Y.
HON. ALFRED B.DeIBELLO
Waccabuc, N. Y.
R. MAX ETTER, JR., ESQ.
Spokane. Wash.
Treasurer
LOUIS R.BENZAK
Rye, N. Y.
PATTY DUKE ASTIN
Beverly Hills, Cal,
MRS. CARL F. AXELROD
New Rochelle, N. Y.
`EDWARD W.BARRETT
Greenwich. Conn.
KEN T. BEMENT
Portland. Ore.
ADAM N. BENDER. M.D.
New York. N. Y.
*ROBERT M.BENNETT
Wellesley Hills. Mass.
'LOUIS R.BENZAK
Rye. N. Y.
DAVID S. BOWMAN. SR.
Arlington, Va.
JOHN B. BRANCHE, M
Hempstead, N. Y.
WILLIAM R. BRAllIL
Coral Gables, Fla.
DONALD E.BRECKENRIDGE
St. Louis, Mo.
VIRGINIA CAPERS
Los Angeles, Cal.
JON P. COATES
Englewood. Colo.
DOROTHY COLLINS
Vero Beach, Fla.
A. PHILIP CORVO
San Diego, Cal.
BETTY Q. BANKER, M.D.
Case Western Reserve Univ.
Cleveland. Ohio
ANDREW G. ENGEL, M.D.
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.
MICHAEL H. BROOKE, M.D.
Washington Univ.
St. Louis, Mo.
MARVIN L.FACHER
Short Hills, N. J.
GILBERT L.GARROW
Tulsa. Okla.
LARRY GATLIN
Brentwood, Tenn.
ROSEMARY GERNETTE
Milwaukee, Wisc.
MRS. FREDERIC E. GIERSCH, JR.
Pasadena, Cal.
THOMAS L.GOODGAME
Pittsburgh, Pa.
LEON GREENSPAN, M.D.
New Rochelle, N. Y.
BOB GRI ESE
Coral Gables, Fla.
DAVID HARTMAN
New York, N. Y.
DAVID E.HENDERSON
East Greenwich, R. I.
RAY F.HERNDON
Midland, Texas
MRS. GIL HODGES
Brooklyn, N. Y.
HARRY HUBBARD
Austin, Texas
JAMES A. JACKSON
Prairie Village, Kan.
RAY A.KARPOWICZ
St. Louis, Mo.
HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY
Washington, D. C.
REAR ADMIRAL THOMAS A. KING
Kings Point, N. Y.
Vice Presidents
LANE KIRKLAND
Washington, D. C.
RALPH H. KRESS, ESQ.
Floral Park, N. Y.
MRS. FIORELLO H. LaGUARDIA
Riverdale, N. Y.
JULIUS LaROSA
Irvington, N. Y.
GEORGE W.LEHR
Kansas City, Mo.
LORNA LOFT
New York, N. Y.
HERBERT H.MABRY
Atlanta, Ga.
TONY C. MALARA
Bronxville, N. Y.
STEWART H.MASENHEIMER
Silver Spring, Md.
DOYLE V. MATHIA
Las Vegas, Nev.
TUG McGRAW
Media, Pa.
ED McMAHON
Beverly Hills, Cal.
JOAQUIN MONSERRAT
Santurce, P. R.
HON. EDGAR G. MOUTON, JR.
Lafayette. La.
STAN MUSIAL
Ladue, Mo.
ROBERT E. NEDERLANDER, ESQ.
Birmingham, Mich.
LOUIS P. NEEB
Miami, Fla.
Assistant Treasurer Secretary
JOHN J. GARDINER FREDERICK O'NEAL
Lansdowne, Pa. New York, N. Y.
HAROLD C. CRUMP
Houston, Texas
PETER C. DAD, M.D
San Francisco. Cal.
'MICHAEL E. DeBAKEY, M.D.
Houston, Texas
MRS. MUCIO F.DELGADO
New York. N. Y
ROBERT G. DiVITA. ESQ
Williamsville. N. Y.
*THOMAS R.DONAHUE
Washington. D. C
MRS. RUTH DUDLEY
Bethesda, Md.
CHAD EVERETT
Chatsworth, Cal
HON JAMES E. FITZMORRIS, JR
New Orleans, La
LAWRENCE P.FRAIBERG
New York, N. Y.
MICHAEL T. GAFFNEY-_
Milwaukee. Wisc.
`JOHN A.GANNON
North Olmsted, Ohio
"JOHN J.GARDINER
Lansdowne, Pa.
MRS A.G GASTON
Birmingham. Ala.
HOWARD GERNETTE
Milwaukee, Wisc.
MAX K. NEWMAN, M.D.
Fountain Hills, Ariz.
EDWARD M.NIGRO
Las Vegas, Nev.
THOMAS R. ODISHO
Phoenix, Ariz.
JOSEPH D. O'GARA
Shamokin, Pa.
FRANKLIN J. PONICK
Avon Lake, Ohio
BERNARD G.PREHM
Worthington, Ohio
BOB D. PRICE
Casper, Wyo.
RICHARD K. RANSOM
Sylvania, Ohio
PAUL RAYMON
Atlanta, Ga.
DAVID P. REYNOLDS
Richmond, Va.
JOAN RIDDLES
Dallas, Texas
DAVE ROBERTS
Villanova, Pa.
CLIFF ROBERTSON
New York, N. Y.
HON. GUSTAVE G.ROSENBERG
New York, N. Y.
ROBERT ROSS
New York, N. Y.
BERNARD J. RUDO
Highland Park, III,
JOEL W.SARRETT
Meridian, Miss.
Assistant Secretary
MRS. JANET FRIEDLANDER
Brooklyn. N. Y.
Members of the Corporation
WILLIAM C. GIBSON. M.D
Vancouver, B. C., Canada
FLOYD V.GISH
Dallas. Texas
THOMAS J.GORMAN
Binghamton, N Y.
*ALVIN HAMPEL
Chicago, III.
'JACK HARRIS
Houston, Texas
JOHN L. HILL, ESQ.
Austin, Texas
ADELBERT M JAKEMAN.JR
Ocean Park. Maine
HERBERT KAMM
Cleveland, Ohio
YOUSUF KARSH
Ottawa, Ont.. Canada
MRS FRANK LANGFELDER
Belmont. Cal.
KERLEYLeBOEUF'
Tampa, Fla.
TERRY LEE
Miami Shores, Fla.
"JERRY LEWIS
Las Vegas, Nev.
1 LEONARD LOVDAHL
Brookfield, Wisc.
'MRS. JOHN T. MASTERS
Beverly Hills. Cal.
Scientific Advisory Committee
STEWART G. WOLF, JR., M.D., Chairman
HENRY F. EPSTEIN, M.D.
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, Texas
EDMOND H. FISCHER, D.Sc.
Univ. of Washington
Seattle
JOSEPH GOODGOLD, M.D.
New York Univ., N.Y.C.
R. RODNEY HOWELL, M.D.
Univ. of Texas Medical School
Houston
Temple Univ. Philadelphia, Pa.
PAUL HOROWICZ, Ph.D.
Univ. of Rochester
Rochester, N. Y.
JON M. LINDSTROM, Ph.D.
Salk Institute
San Diego, Cal.
Medical Advisory Committee
LEON I. CHARASH, M.D., Chairman
Cornell Univ., New York, N. Y.
AIDE T. MILHORAT, M.D.
Consultant. MDA
Pelham, N. Y.
W HOWARD McCLENNAN
Falls Church. Va
ED McMAHON
Beverly Hills, Cal.
HON.TOM MOODY
Worthington, Ohio
OLIN F MORRIS
Germantown, Tenn
PATRICK W MURPHY
Mountlake Terrace. Wash
'FREDERICK 0 N1 AL
New York, N Y -
LARRY PRIGOZEN
New York. N Y
MRS E MORGAN PRYSE
Washington. D C
FRANK J ROBINSON.
Whitehall, Ohio
LEO ROSE
San Antonio. Texas
HOWARD A RUSK. M D.
New York. N. Y.
'ROBERT G. SAMPSON
Arlington Heights, III.
MRS NORMA JEAN SANDERS
Ft. Lauderdale. Fla
MRS.TEDDE SCHARF
Greeley. Colo.
JOHN A SHANAHAN.
Little Neck. N. Y
GEORGE M. LING, Ph.D.
U.N. Vienna International Centre
Vienna, Austria
ANTHONY N. MARTONOSI, M.D.
State Univ. of N, Y.
Syracuse
LEWIS P. ROWLAND. M.D.
Columbia Univ., N.Y.C.
HENRY A. PETERS, M.D.
Univ, of Wisconsin, Madison
FREDERICK 1. SAMAHA, M.D.
Univ. of Cincinnati
Ohio
PAUL D.SCHRAGE
Wheaton. III.
BUDDSCHULBERG
Westhampton Beach, N. Y
HON. TED SCHWINDEN
Helena, Mont.
JACK E.SHAFER
San Diego, Cal.
LAWRENCE Z. STERN, M.D.
Tucson, Ariz,
LELAND N.SUNDET
Excelsior, Minn.
G. G. SWEET
Eau Claire, Wisc.
WILLIAM G. SWIFT
Cottage Grove, Ore.
JOHN P. THOMPSON
Dallas, Texas
MEL TORME
Beverly Hills, Cal.
MANUELTORRES MARQUEZ
Guaynabo, P. R.
LAWRENCE A.TREGER
Crownsville, Md.
L. SCOTT WATSON
Cartersville, Ga.
NORMAN W. WILLIAMS
Omaha, Nebr.
ROY L. WILLIAMS
Kansas City, Mo.
HAROLD WOOLLEY
Salt Lake City, Utah
WILLIAM H. WYNN
Alexandria, Va.
CHUCK ZINK
. Miami, Fla.
Comptroller
ROBERT LINDER, CPA
New York, N. Y.
`GEORGE J. SIMKO
Oyster Bay, N. Y.
"S, MOUCHLY SMALL, M.D.
Buffalo, N. Y.
VINCENT R. SOMBROTTO
Washington. D. C
YASUMORI TOME
Honolulu, Hawaii
JOHN K WALLACE' JR
St Loms. Mo
`HENRY M WATTS JR
Philadelphia. Pa
*SYLVESTER L WEAVER JR.
Santa Barbara. Cal
ANDREW W. WENDLING. M.D.
New York, N. Y.
`MRS JOHN C WEST
Hilton Head Island, S C.
MRS. ELIZABETH R WILSON
Stamford, Conn.
WILLIAM E. WINTER
St. Louis. Mo.
STEWART G. WOLF, 1R . M D
Bangor. Pa.
HARRY ZIMMERMAN
Nashville, Tenn.
BARRY ZORTHIAN
Washington, D C.
'Member, Board of Directors
"Honordry Member. Board of Directors
DONALD L. SCHOTLAND, M.D.
Univ. of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
RICHARD C. STROHMAN, Ph.D.
Univ of Cahfornia
Berkeley
ANDREW G. SZENT- GYORGYI. M.D.
Brandeis Univ.
Waltham, Mass.
LAWRENCE Z. STERN, M.D.
Univ. of Arizona
Tucson
C
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION
PAGE #2
We are proposing an entry fee of $8.00 which will include commemorative
T- Shirt, refreshments, prizes and awards for the runners.
As you can see, we need to move quickly on this matter. I am seeking city
approval of request for Toad use /closure as soon as possible, hopefully
at the City Council Meeting on November 2. I will be leaving for Eugene
on 10/25 and will return 10/18. Please feel free to contact me prior to
departure or my office during my absence.
Again, thank you for your cooperation and anticipated support of our vitally
needed services.
Sincerely,
JO�AUAA-
Scott C
MacTavish
Program Coordinator
SM;cr
"THE"
TELETHON
Extra Special SPECIAL
Labor Day Weekend
'* I
z,
Please Reply To:
SHARON BUILDING
1140 PEDRO ST.
SUITE #7
SAN JOSE, CA 95126
(408) 275 -1133
iE()
ZA lbe o
Muscular Dystrophy Association, 810 Seventh Ave., New York, N.Y. 10019, (212) 586 -0808 �y
CITY OF SA IC GA
Initial:
AcaNDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: October 19, 1983 ev-
C. A y.
DEPARTMENT: City Manager C. Mgr.
SUBJECT. Agreement with Live Oak Adult Day Care Center for Revenue Sharing Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Summary: In the 1983 -84 fiscal year budget, the City council approved a Revenue Sharing
Appropriation of $1,500 for the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center. This approval
was conditional upon a report.and recommendation from the Saratoga Area Senior
Coordinating Council. The attached June 13-, 1983, letter from Mildred Gordon,
President of SASCC, recommends distribution of the allocated $1,500 to'Live
Oak Adult Day Care Center. Based upon this recommendation, the attached
agreement has been drafted. m
Recotnlendation : Approve the Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the Live Oak Adult
Day Care Center, and authorize the Mayor to sign Agreement.
n _
l
l�
Fiscal Impacts : Council has previously approved the $1.,500 allocation of Revenue Sharing Funds,
with the adoption of the 1983/84 budget.
Exhibits /Attacht-cents ; 1. 6/13/83 letter from SASCC President
2. 7/19/83 letter from Live Oak Adult Day Care Center requesting
funds
3. Draft Agreement
Council Action
11/2: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
I
Saratoga Area
SIAsc SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
C P. O. Box 123 • Saratoga, California 95070
June 13, 1983
Mr. Wayne Dernitz, City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Dernitz:
RECEIVED
'JUN 13 1983
CITY MANAGER
At its work session on June 7, the City Council requested through Mr. Beverett that the
Senior Coordinating Council provide information it may have on the Live Oak Adult Day
Care Center in Los Gatos and the prospective need by senior Saratogans of services
provided by the Center. It is my understanding that the Council wanted this channeled
directly to you, Mr. Dernitz,
SASCC has not made a detailed study of the Live Oak Center. On the basis of discussions
with its representatives, we believe its aims are worthy. We further believe that a
need for day care services for elderly citizens definitely exists in the Los Gatos -
Saratoga area. However, no surveys have been made to provide quantitative information
on the extent of this need. In addition, we have reached no definite conclusions on
the structure, location and affiliation of the organization or organizations that in
the long run can best meet the needs of Saratoga seniors.
Therefore, on the basis of what we know now, we would concur in the feeling expressed
by City Council members that the $1,500.00 tentative allocation made by the Council to
the Live Oak Center is appropriate.
An appropriation of this magnitude would have a number of advantages.
1. It would be a symbolic gesture of support to a worthy undertaking.
2. It would permit some outreach activity toward Saratoga by the Live Oak Center.
Experience gained over a year's time would provide further helpful information on
the suitability of the facility in meeting Saratogans needs.
3. It would preclude a large -scale commitment by the City (such as that which would be
reflected in granting the Center's $16,000.00 appropriation request), until further
determinations can be made on matters such as:
a. Whether the Live Oak Center can Adopt an organizational structure that will
make it eligible for funds from the Council for the Aging. We understand that
the Center is not now eligible for a grant from the Council on Aging because
the Center is not organizationally separate from its sponsoring Church.
b. Whether a significant portion of Saratogans needs for senior day care services
can be met by a center now operating in Cupertino.
tv
Page 2 SASCC letter to Mr, Wayne Dernitz, City Manager June 13, 1983
c. Whether it would be feasible for Saratoga's Senior Coordinating Council
to coordinate the establishment and operation of a senior day care center
for Saratogans, as opposed to combining forces with a neighboring
community for a jointly supported center. By the end of the forthcoming
fiscal year, we hope to have more definitive information on this matter.
Respectfully,
Mildred Gordon
President, 1983,1984
�e Oaf
A�lutt 'ley Care
Wexler
President
Jeanette McNeely
Vice President
19 High School Court • Los Gatos, California 95030 • [408] 354 -4782
Bobbye Gorenberg
July 19, 1983
Treasurer
RECEIVED
Judy Smith
Secretary
Ann Williams
JUL �j it i983
Dwight Bissell
/�
CITY '�l A M
Carol Corner
A�ER
Mary Ellen Heising
Barbara Nichols
Marta Pardo
Wayne Dernetz
Doris Sayles
City Manager
Margery Vernon
Anita Wolf
1377 Fruitvale
Saratoga, Calif.
Dear Mr. Dernetz,
On behalf of the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center, I
would like to request information on how to receive the
Federal Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of $1,500.00
for the fiscal year of 1983 -1984.
The Live Oak Adult Day Care Center provides day
care services for a maximum of twenty -five frail elderly
persons. At present there are ten participants enrolled for a
socialization program for two days a week, with an ex-
pectation to phase in fifteen more participants for ser-
vice, four days a week by the end of fiscal year, 1983-
1984. The funding provided by the City of Saratoga will
help pay a part time worker to do outreach in Saratoga,
although at this time outreach will be limited. This
part time worker also recruits and trains volunteers.
If you need forms to be filled out by this office,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
Marion Kohn, Director
MK /md
"Major funding provided by Town of Los Gatos through the Housing and Community Development Act"
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AND THE LIVE OAK ADULT DAY CARE CENTER
This is an agreement between the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center, a
non - profit organization (hereinafter referred to as Grantee) and the
City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California
(herein referred to as City).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center operates an adult
day care service at 19 High School Court, Los Gatos, CA 95030, and
has requested financial support of Federal Revenue Sharing monies
from the City for operating support and outreach efforts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Saratoga has determined that the
activity of the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center is an appropriate
community program eligible for receipt of Federal Revenue Sharing
monies.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the conditions contained
herein, the parties agree to as follows:
1. Grantee shall operate and maintain an Adult Day Care Center
known as the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center open to frail -
elderly persons, including Saratoga residents.
2. Grantee shall provide a part -time outreach worker to assist
in the recruitment and training of volunteers,and to do
outreach work within Saratoga in order to identify the need
among Saratoga residents for Adult Day Care services for the
frail elderly.
3. Grantee shall maintain a liaison with the Saratoga Area
Senior Coordinating Council regarding identification of
needs and provision of services for the frail elderly
population in Saratoga.
4. Grantee agrees to provide the City of Saratoga with a
report prior to June 30, 1984 concerning the nature of
contacts with and services provided to Saratoga residents.
If available, statistics regarding the number and service
needs of Saratoga's frail elderly population will be
included.
5. For providing the above services, City agrees to pay
Grantee $1500 from its available Federal Revenue Sharing
funds, upon execution of this agreement.
6. Grantee agrees to save harmless, defend and indemnify the
the City of Saratoga and its officers and employees from
any and all claims, losses, damage to property or injury
to or death of any person or persons resulting in any
manner, directly or indirectly, by reason of any activities,
use, maintenance or repairs by the Grantee, to this
agreement.
7. Grantee agrees to comply with all regulations and require-
ments set forth for recipients of Federal Revenue Sharing
monies. The City has provided a copy of these regulations
for Federal Revenue Sharing to Grantee.
8. The period of this agreement pertains to the 1983 -84 fiscal
year starting July 1, 1983, and ending June 30, 1984.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement
as of
Live Oak Adult Day Care Center
Executive Director
Board President
BY:
Attest:
-2-
City of Saratoga
Mayor
City Clerk
4'
401:1
¶401 Summary Of Restrictions And Limitations On The Use Of Revenue
Sharing Funds
There are specific restrictions and limitations on the uses of revenue sharing funds. Under
the revenue sharing law and regulations, recipients must:
• comply with state and local laws applicable to the expenditure of their own revenues
when spending revenue sharing funds ( ¶405);
• not discriminate against the protected classes in programs or activities funded with
revenue sharing funds ( ¶440);
• assure that any construction project funded 25 percent or more with revenue sharing
funds complies with the Davis -Bacon Act requirements ( ¶420);
• follow specific hearing procedures before spending, obligating or appropriating revenue
sharing funds ( ¶320);
• assure that, under certain circumstances, their own employees are paid the prevailing
wage ( ¶435);
• follow specific procedures if they invest revenue sharing funds ( ¶507);
• spend or obligate revenue sharing funds within specific timeframes ( ¶508); and
• make sure that revenue sharing funds are not used for lobbying or other activities
intended to influence revenue sharing legislation ( ¶415).
To date, the courts have held that no other federal laws apply to revenue sharing funds.
Specific instances in which several federal statutes were found to be inapplicable to revenue
sharing funds are detailed in ¶480.
Letter rulings
In response to inquiries on specific permissable uses of revenue funds, the Office of Revenue
Sharing (ORS) has issued the following letter rulings:
Competitive bids: Recipients are not required to take competitive bids on revenue sharing
financed projects, unless such bids are required for the expenditure of the recipient's own
revenues.
If a recipient government, or its secondary recipient, is required under state or local law to
competitively bid construction projects funded with local funds (its own source revenues) then it -
must also do so with respect to a construction project funded with revenue sharing funds. This is the
only circumstance under which competitive bidding is required of the revenue sharing act. (ORS
Letter Ruling 2/24/77)
Reimbursement from federal programs: Recipients may charge depreciation on a revenue
sharing financed facility for purposes of reimbursement from a federal program.
This is in response to your letter ... in which you ask whether the county may be reimbursed by HEW for
depreciation charges on a building purchased with revenue sharing funds.
A program under which HEW reimburses a recipient government for depreciation charges on a
recently purchased building does not constitute a matching program, as a recipient government is not
required to raise a certain amount of funds in order to receive a corresponding grant. Accordingly, a
recipient government may claim reimbursement for depreciation charges from HEW on the building
purchased with revenue sharing funds, regardless of when the building was purchased by the county.
(ORS Letter Ruling 6/8/77)
,DRevenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981 Revenue Sharing Handbook— Second Edition
I�
h
a u
401:2
Recipients may also claim reimbursement provided for under a federal program for salaries
financed with revenue sharing.
You asked whether a revenue sharing recipient government can claim reimbursement for the amount
of revenue sharing funds used to finance salaries with regard to a federal program (such as HEW) in
absence of matching requirements. It is our understanding that the concerned salaries are totally
financed with revenue sharing funds. However, a portion of the employee's time is spent on various
other federal programs in addition to the general revenue sharing program. Since revenue sharing
funds are considered to be the recipient government's own funds, and since sec. 104 of the Revenue
Sharing Act of 1972 has been repealed, we see no problem with a recipient government claiming
reimbursement (provided for under a federal program) for salaries actually financed with revenue '
sharing funds. (ORS Letter Ruling 5117/79)
gRevenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981
Revenue Sharing Handbook— Second Edition
L
.. y
i�
405:1
1405 Compliance With State And Local Law
Recipient governments shall expend revenue sharing funds only in accordance with state
and local laws and procedures that are applicable to the expenditure of their own revenues to
the extent that those laws and procedures do not conflict with the revenue sharing act or
regulations (31 C.F.R. §51.45). If a government does not have'the authority to spend its own
funds for a particular activity, it may not spend revenue sharing funds for that purpose, even if
that activity is permissible under the revenue sharing act.
Revenue sharing funds may be transferred to a public or private secondary recipient for use
by that secondary recipient in connection with a permissible expenditure under the revenue
sharing act, but only if such transfers are allowable with respect to non - revenue sharing funds.
For example, if state law prohibits local funds from being used to subsidize private business
enterprises, revenue sharing funds may not be used for that purpose.
If a recipient government has any doubt that it has authority to spend its own funds for an
activity that is permissible under the revenue sharing act, it should request an opinion from its
own legal counsel or from the state's attorney general. It is the responsibility of the recipient
government to enforce its own local fiscal law. However, the fact that a recipient government
had not, prior to receiving revenue sharing funds, expended its local revenues on certain
programs, does not preclude expenditure of revenue sharing funds for such programs so long as
there would be no violation of state and local law in so doing.
In an action by the state treasurer to compel the governor to transfer to the state treasury
all revenue sharing, funds received by him, the Supreme Court of West Virginia held that federal
revenue sharing funds received by the state constitute monies received or collected on behalf of
the state, which must under state statute be promptly deposited with the state treasurer rather
than being deposited by the governor in any depository other than the state treasury. The
governor had contended that he should not be required to relinquish complete control over the
revenue sharing funds prior to provision for expenditure of such funds by the state legislature.
Moore v. Kelly, 197 S. E. 2d 106 (W. Va.), cert. denied, 42 U.S.L.W. 3385 (January 7, 1975).
In some cases, local governments can only spend their own revenues for programs explicitly
permitted by state or local law. This limitation on the recipient's own revenues would govern the
use of revenue sharing funds as well.
. the state or a local government recipient of revenue sharing funds may transfer all or part of its
funds to a secondary recipient, such as a special interest group. However, under §123(a)(4) of the
revenue sharing act, any such transfer must be a legal use of the governnment's own source revenues.
Therefore, the condition that must be met is that the Board [of Township Trustees] be able to legally
transfer your government's own source revenues to the County Council on Aging. Since you state
the authority of the Board of Township Trustees is expressly limited to that granted by statute under
the laws of the State of Ohio, and since no statutory authority exists concerning donations or
contributions by that body to any private, non - profit organization, it seems clear that the Board does
not have the authority to transfer your government's own source revenues to the Council.
Consequently, revenue sharing funds may not be used for this purpose. (ORS Letter Ruling 7/25/78)
Revenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981
Revenue Sharing Handbook — Second Edition
i
415:1
¶415 Prohibition Of Use For Lobbying Purposes
The Act (sec. 123(e)) states that revenue sharing funds may not be used for lobbying or
other activities intended to influence revenue sharing legislation or any provisions of the Act.
Dues to national or state associations are exempt from this provision.
The revenue sharing regulations (31 C.F.R. §51.43) provide that activities prohibited include
but are not limited to:
• personal solicitation of individual members of a legislative body to influence legislation
regarding the revenue sharing program by personal interview, letter, financial contributions, and
other means;
• employment of a lobbyist to engage in proscribed activities.
However, under the regulations, revenue sharing funds may be used to "attempt to influence
public opinion or to convey opinions and judgments to the public regarding provisions of the
Act, by publications, distribution of books, pamphlets and other writings."
'Revenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981
Revenue Sharing Handbook — Second Edition
c
ti
..
i
¶416 Restrictions On Debt Retirement With Revenue Sharing Funds
416:1
Under the original revenue sharing act, revenue sharing funds obligated to retire bonded
indebtedness were restricted by several requirements. From January 1, 1972, through December
31, 1976, revenue sharing funds could be used to retire debt only if:
• entitlement funds were not used to pay any interest incurred because of the debt;
•. the debt was originally incurred for a priority expenditure;
• the actual expenditure from the proceeds of the indebtedness (i.e. for materials,
contractors, etc.) was made on or after January 1, 1972 (the beginning of the first entitlement
period); and
• the actual expenditure from the proceeds of the indebtedness were not in violation of any
restrictions on the use of funds or the nondiscrimination provisions (Subparts D and E of the
revenue sharing regulations).
There were no restrictions on the use of revenue sharing for short -term debt, installment payments or
interest costs which were part of lease payments.
The 1976 amendments to the revenue sharing act eliminated many of these provisions, but
the use of revenue sharing funds to retire bonded indebtedness after January 1, 1977, was still
restricted, depending upon (1) when the proceeds of the debt were expended and (2) when the
revenue sharing funds were obligated.
Therefore, after January 1, 1977:
` • If the proceeds of the indebtedness were expended prior to January I, 1972, there were no
restrictions on the use of revenue sharing funds for debt retirement.
• If the proceeds of indebtedness were expended after January 1, 1972, and the debt was
retired on or before December 31, 1976, then recipients were subject to the restrictions under the
original_ revenue sharing act.
• If the proceeds of indebtedness were expended after January I, 1972, and the debt was
retired on or after January 1, 1977, then recipients were only subject to the restrictions on the
use of funds and the nondiscrimination provisions.
Also, after January 1, 1977, recipients could use revenue sharing funds to pay the interest in
bonded indebtedness. According to the ORS Audit Guide, which was issued in December 1977,
"interest on debt is a permissable expenditure without restriction."
Final regulations, effective on October 30, 1981, clarified ORS' position that the restrictions
on. the use of entitlement funds for debt retirement had been eliminated, except that the proceeds
of the indebtedness must be spent in accordance with the requirements on the use of funds and
the nondiscrimination provisions, which are contained in Subparts D and E of the revenue
sharing regulations (31 C.F.R. §51.44).
gRevenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981 Revenue Sharing Handbook — Second Edition
t�
L
I
N,
435: 1
¶435 Wage Rates Required For Recipient Government Employees
If 25 percent or more of the wages of all government employees in similar public
occupations are paid with revenue sharing funds, then a recipient government must pay the
employees "wages which are not lower than the prevailing rates of pay for persons employed in
similar public occupations by the same employer" (31 C.F.R. §51.42(c)). This provision of the
revenue sharing act (sec. 123(a)(7)) would override any state or local statute governing the
salaries of state or local government employees, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
�4?venue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981
Revenue Sharing Handbook — Second E:i: cn
440:1
¶440 Nondiscrimination Provisions—Generally
Nondiscrimination requirements that may govern the use of revenue sharing funds stem
from a number of sources. First, the revenue sharing act specifically prohibits discriminatory
practices on the part of recipients of revenue sharing funds. Section 122(a) of the revenue
sharing act now codified as 31 U.S.C. §1242 (Cum. Supp. 1981), provides that:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, or sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity of a state government or unit of local government, which government or units
receives (revenue sharing] funds
The 1976 amendments to the law added new nondiscrimination requirements, by applying
the "prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of
1975 or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped individual as provided in section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973" to any program or activity financed with revenue sharing
funds. The 1976 amendments also applied to such program or activity "any prohibition against
discrimination on the basis of religion, or any exemption from such prohibition, as provided in
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title VIII of ... Civil Rights Act of 1968." The 1976
amendments were effective January 1, 1977, for all funds obligated after that date (see ¶315).
The handicap provisions have a separate effective date (see ¶448). The 1980 amendments to the
f revenue sharing act did not change the nondiscrimination provisions.
In addition, a number of other federal constitutional and statutory provisions and judicial
decisions apply duties of nondiscriminatory conduct to states and localities ( ¶469).
For example, the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws
implementing it prohibit states and localities from denying citizens the equal protection of the
law. No state or locality may deny a person the equal protection of the law, just as it may not
abridge freedom of speech, establish an official religion, arrest without probable cause or deny
due process of law. The equal protection clause of the Constitution and implementing federal
statutes are addressed primarily to racial discrimination.
In 1972, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e) was extended to cover
discrimination in employment on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin or sex on the
part of state and local governments, who were previously specifically exempt from that act.
Public employment, whether or not it is financed with revenue sharing funds, is accordingly now
subject to Title VII.
Section 122 of the revenue sharing act was originally patterned on the nondiscrimination
requirements and the fund termination authority and procedures of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d). Title VI generally reflects the policy that federal grants should
not subsidize discriminatory conduct on the part of federal grantees, and it was enacted when
federal grants were primarily categorical in nature. In this sense, the revenue sharing act does
not add to existing substantive requirements of law. It rather reflects a public policy prohibiting
the federal government from subsidizing programs that violate an array of civil rights laws
having independent force. The special procedures for compliance under Title VI, on which the
®Revenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981 Revenue Sharing Handbook— Second Edition
440:2
original revenue sharing nondiscrimination provision was modeled, are no longer relevant to the
revenue sharing program as a result of the unique procedure under the 1976 amendments to the
revenue sharing act.
As a result of these 1976 amendments and other federal nondiscrimination laws, revenue
sharing funds are now subject to a broad nondiscrimination policy affecting discrimination on
the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, handicapped status and religion. The
procedural provisions for assuring compliance with that policy are unique to revenue sharing. It
should be noted, further, that injunctive and other relief is available to both the Attorney
General and to private parties challenging discriminatory action by a grantee under laws that
exist apart from the revenue sharing act. Procedures and sanctions under the Act are therefore
not exclusive (see ¶469).
On April 6, 1977, ORS published interim regulations revising and expanding former
nondiscrimination regulations in order to implement 1976 amendments to sec. 122 of the revenue
sharing act. On September 30, 1981, final regulations were published, which again expanded and
revised the nondiscrimination provisions. These regulations may be found in Appendix II and
are effective October 30, 1981. At that time, however, rules governing nondiscrimination on the
basis of age were not included and the provisions regarding handicap -based discrimination were
issued in interim form.
Employment discrimination
More attention is likely to be paid to the employment practices of recipients than to any
other program or activity in regard to claims of discrimination. State and local governments are
directly covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, dealing with equal employment
opportunity. A decision that a recipient has violated Title VII can imperil revenue sharing funds.
Effect of other litigation or administrative action
Under the 1976 amendments to the revenue sharing act, whenever a recipient state or local
government has been found by a federal or state court or a federal administrative law judge, to
have engaged in discriminatory conduct in any program or activity, the holding is conclusive on
the issue of discrimination, and the recipient may be heard before ORS only on the issue of
whether the program or activity was funded in whole or in part by entitlement funds. As stated
below, the burden of showing that a program or activity has not been so funded is a heavy one
(see ¶461).
Age discrimination
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) prohibits "unreasonable
discrimination on the basis or age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance,"
specifically including the revenue sharing program. The Secretary of the former Department of
Health, Education and Welfare promulgated government -wide regulations to carry out the
purposes of the Act as it applies to all federal assistance programs.
Handicapped status discrimination
Section 504 of, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) provides that "no otherwise
qualified handicapped individual ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from
-eRevenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981
Revenue Sharing Handbook— Second Edition
440:3
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under anv r ro
p gam
or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Under the Act (29 U.S.C. 706(6)), a
handicapped individual is any person "who (a) has a physical or mental impairment which
substantially limits one or more or such person's major life activities, (b) has a record of such
impairment, or (c) is regarded as hal..ing such an impairment." The Act is now explicitly applicable
to the revenue sharing program (see ¶448).
Religious discrimination
The 1976 amendments prohibit religious discrimination by recipients in any program or
activity as provided under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a -h) or Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968. The exemptions under such laws also apply for certain religious
activities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination or segregation in places of
public accommodation, in public facilities and in employment. The statute's employment
discrimination ban does not affect a religious corporation with respect to the employment of
individuals of a particular religion (42 U.S.C. 2000e -1).
Title VIII, the Fair Housing Law, exempts from its purview the sale, rental, or occupancy
of dwellings owned or operated (for other than commercial purposes) by a religious
organization, to persons of the same religion unless membership in such religion is restricted on
account of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. 3607) (see ¶446).
j Functions affected
The 1972 revenue sharing act prohibited discrimination "under any program or activity
funded in whole or in part" with entitlement funds. The 1976 amendments substantially revised
this language to prohibit discrimination "under any program or activity of a state government or
unit of local government, which government or unit receives" revenue sharing funds. It further
provided that, unless the recipient government can show by "clear and convincing evidence" that
the program or activity as to which an allegation of discrimination is made is not funded "in
whole or in part," it is presumed that the program or activity has been funded by entitlement
funds.
Thus, the definitions of "program or activity" and "funded" are key in determining whether
the revenue sharing nondiscrimination provisions apply.
On April 6, 1977, ORS published interim regulations to implement the 1976 amendments.
Those regulations contained the following definitions for the words "funded" and "program or
activity ":
51.51(e) "funded" means funds have been made available for expenditure in a designated program or
activity through legislative action.
51.51(i) "program or activity" means any function conducted by an agency or department of the
recipient government which government has received or is receiving entitlement funds, or by any
other unit of government or private contractor which has received or is receiving funds from the
recipient government.
Effective April 2, 1979, ORS amended its interim regulations and changed the definitions of
the words "funded" and "program or activity." ORS eliminated the definition of "funded"
CRevenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981 Revenue Sharing Handbook — Second Edition
440:4
entirely and changed the definition of "program or activity" to read:
51.51(i) "program or activity" means the operations of the agency or organizational
government receiving or substantially benefiting from entitlement funds, e.g., a unit a the
department of corrections; health department. g a police department;
In doing so ORS explained that several courts have required the federal government to
enforce federal laws over an entire department of a recipient, not just "discrimination which may
occur in the individually funded projects under the particular agency." In other words, ORS has
jurisdiction over the entire department or agency in which the revenue sharing funds are spent,
not just the program, project or subagency of that unit. On the other hand, ORS jurisdiction
appears to be limited to the department in which the revenue sharing funds are spent or
benefited, not the entire recipient government. No explanation was offered by ORS regarding
the elimination of the reference to private contractors receiving funds from a recipient
government.
When is a particular program or activity funded with revenue sharing and when is it not?
ORS regulations issued in 1973 had defined the phrase "funded" more narrowly as meaning the
"entitlement funds in any amount have been transferred from the recipient government's trust
fund to an identifiable administrative unit and disbursed in a program or activity" (emphasis
supplied).
The April 6, 1977, regulations expanded this definition. They provided that a program or
activity would become subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of the revenue sharing act
and the regulations at an earlier time when "funds have been made available for expenditure .. .
through legislative action" even before there has been any actual disbursement or transfer of
funds or report on the use of funds. In other words, when a recipient's governing body approved
its revenue sharing budget, the designation of those funds for expenditure in particular programs
or activities would determine when a project or program is "funded."
The April 2, 1979, regulations, however, completely eliminated the definition of "funded,"
thus leaving a void. Moreover, those 1.979 regulations clouded the issue even more inasmuch as
they used a new formulation that "a program or activity means the operations of the agency or
organizational unit of the government receiving or substantially benefiting from financial
assistance awarded" (emphasis added). The concept of receiving perhaps could easily be
documented by vouchers, payrolls and other evidence in an audit of revenue sharing funds. The
concept of "substantially benefiting" is less clear.
ORS tried to clarify this issue in final regulations published in the September 30, 1981,
Federal Register, by again adding a definition of "funded" and revising the term "program or
activity." Under the final regulations, which became effective on October 30, 1981, the term
"funded" and "program or activity" have been defined in the following manner.
51.1(8) "Funded" menas entitlement funds have been or are being made available for expenditure in
or substantially benefited a program or activity of a recipient government or a secondary recipient.
51.1(k) "Program or activity" means the operations of the agency or organizational unit of a
recipient government or the operations or organizational unit of 'a secondary recipient funded with
entitlement funds (examples include, but are not limited to, a police department, department of _
corrections, health department, or a division of a public or private corporation). _
Revenue Sharing Advisory Service November 1981
Revenue Sharing Handbook— Second F,!;!?on
0
A
AGENDA BILL NO. 5-3-7
DATE: 10/24/83 (11/2/83)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty,
C. Mgr.
SDR -1508 and A -793, Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Appeal of Pi'arming
SUBJECT: Commission Decision Denying Amendment /Extension to SDR -1508 & Modification to A -793
Issue Sunmary
The applicant had requested an extension of the subject building site approval during the
hearings at the Council level on the appeal of the Use Permit. Staff held the request until
a decision was reached. With the modification to the Use Permit, not only was the extension
required, but both the site approval and design review needed to first be amended. The Planning
Commission denied the modifications and extension on a tie vote, after determining that their
votes were discretionary.
Recommendation:
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny the extension for SDR -1508 and con-
current modification of SDR -1508 and A -793.
2. Staff recommended approval of the extension and concurrent modification to SDR -1508 and
A -793.
Fiscal Impacts N/A
Exhibits /Attachmnts
1. Appeal letter
2. Staff Reports for SDR -1508, A -793 & UP -531
3. Minutes dated 10/12/83
4. Exhibits
5. Correspondence received on project
Council Action
11/2: Fanelli /Moyles moved to approve SDR 1508and extension as updated to.reflect use permit.
Passed 3 -2 (Callon, Clevenger opposed).
Fanelli /Moyles moved to approve A 793 as amended. Passed 3 -2 (Callon, Clevenger opposed).
iiacu t:%ceivecl: - `' -
Hearing Date: /-
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
The Planning Commission voted 3 -3 for this extension and modification, which then
was a denial because of the tie vote. The application was identical to that approved
by the'City Council on September 7, 1983 as Use Permit UP -531. Three members of the
Commission agreed with the City Council decision and voted for the applications, while
the three other members felt that they had to stay with their previous denial decision
even though they knew of the City Council's approval of the Use Permit. Because of
the previous approval by the City Council for this project as modified to three units
and a lowered 'roof line I request approval of the SDK -1508 extension and modified
design for A -793. (and amended SDR -1508)
pe l l4nt/' s Signature
Martin /J. Oudewaal
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE- DATE OF THE DECISION.
i
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of
Appellant:
Martin J. Oudewaal
'RECEIVED
Address •
14375 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga,
Ca. 95070
C CU 20 i4�
Telephone:
741 -1420
t�J;�iMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Name of
Applicant.
Martin J. Oudewaal
Project
File No.:
Extension SDR -1508 and Modified
A -793 and SDR -1508
Project
Address:
14629 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, California
Project
Description:
Three unit condominium
Decision
Being One ear extension of SDR -1508 and Modification
Baled: y
and SDR -App
1598
of A- 793 /denied at Planning
Commission of October 12, 1983
(Consent Calendar)
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
The Planning Commission voted 3 -3 for this extension and modification, which then
was a denial because of the tie vote. The application was identical to that approved
by the'City Council on September 7, 1983 as Use Permit UP -531. Three members of the
Commission agreed with the City Council decision and voted for the applications, while
the three other members felt that they had to stay with their previous denial decision
even though they knew of the City Council's approval of the Use Permit. Because of
the previous approval by the City Council for this project as modified to three units
and a lowered 'roof line I request approval of the SDK -1508 extension and modified
design for A -793. (and amended SDR -1508)
pe l l4nt/' s Signature
Martin /J. Oudewaal
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE- DATE OF THE DECISION.
r
I
TIEA7111 rGMA-
0.10 �
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
** Amended (9/27/83)
* Amended (10/28/81)
DATE: 10 /22/81
Commission Meeting: 10/21/81
SUBJECT SDR -1508, Martin Oudewaal (Saratoga Real II)
14629 Big Basin Way
__________ Tentative_ Building_ Site_ Ap2roval_ 1 lot___________'_______
** (Commercial -3 Condominiums)
** REQUEST: Amendment to previously approved Tentative Building
Site Approval to reflect 3 condominium units as approved
by the City Council on appeal and request for a one -
year extension.
** PROJECT DESCRIPTION & HISTORY:
Please see UP -531, attached, for the basic data on this project.
Other details of the project are described in the Design Review
application A -793.
The original Use Permit (UP -500) for 4 condominium units expired.
The City Council, on appeal, granted UP -531 for 3 units on September
7, 1983. Staff has requested the applicant amend the site approval
to conform to this approval prior to action on his request for a
one year extension.
** PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of
the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Sub-
division Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1508, Oudewaal
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
10/22/81
Page 2
A Negative Declaration was prepared and filed with the County
of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental
impact of this project. Said determination date: June 8, 1981.
** The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1508 (Exhibit B filed September 23, 1983) subject to the
following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the sub-
mission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established
by Ordinance in effect at the time of final-approval;.sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street
work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and re-
quirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site ap-
proval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning
and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of
the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with
the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required
and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No.
60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES
A. Construct standard driveway approach.
B. Provide adequate sight- distance and remove obstructions
of view as required.
C. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow.
D. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or water-
course as approved by the Director of Community Development.
E. Obtain encroachment permit from CAL TRANS for work done
within State right of way.
F. Install one (1) Big Basin Way style street light on
Big Basin Way.
G. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit
grading and drainage plans to CAL TRANS for review and
approval.
III.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1508, Oudewaal
1
10/22/81
Page 3
H. Replace existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk
along Big Basin Way as directed by the Director of
Community Development.
I. All access ways to be a minimum of 18 ft. wide.
J. All access ways, parking areas, and other quasi- public
paved areas are to be surfaced using a minimum of
2z" A.C. on 6" aggregate base.
K. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval
L. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation
(Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three.(3)
to -scale prints).
M. Obtain encroachment permit from Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
1. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed
professional
a. Geology
b. Soils
C. Foundation
2. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior
to building permit being issued.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits detailed on -site
improvement plans showing the following shall be sub-
mitted to the Department of Community Development for
review and approval:
a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall,
location, etc.)
C. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or
R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher.
Report to Planning Commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 4
d. Erosion control measures
e. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service is available to this project from Big
Basin Way.
B. The sewer within the complex must be a public one with the
necessary grant of a sanitary sewer easement.
C. Applicant's engineer shall submit a grading plan showing a suitable
location for the sewer within the complex for district review and
approval.
D. Upon receipt of the grading plan necessary fees will be determined
and paid to the district.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
1. Install an automatic fire sprinkler system for the parking garage
and storage rooms in accordance with NFPA pamphlet #13.
2. Provide a 1 hour self closing door for the Parking Garage level
stairway.
3. Provide one portable fire extinguisher with a minimum UL rating of
2- A /10 -B:C for each level. The specific locaticn on each level will
be designated by the Fire Chief. It is recommended that said ex-
tinguishers be installed in break glass cabinets.
4. Provide a fire department hose connection for each level. Hose
connections shall be supplied from the street main and controlled
with an approved shutoff valve. The size and type of thread for
the hose connection will be designated by the Fire Chief. The
specific location for each hose connection will be designated by the
Fire Chief.
** S. The entire building shall have an early warning smoke & heat
detection system throughout. The signal is to be transmitted
by a telephone dialer to the Fire.Station and to be designed
so as to operate 24 hours on standby power. All plans to be
approved by Fire Chief prior to issuance of building permit.
6. Provide emergency lighting.for hallways and stairways on
each level as well as the Parking Garage. Said lighting
shall be illuminated when power to the building is dis-
connected.
Report to Planning Commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 5
7. Fire places shall be maintained with spark arrestors constructed
with heavy wire mesh or other non - combustible material with
opening not to exceed one half inch (z').
8. All electric gates shall be approved by the Fire Chief prior to
installation.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. Sewage disposal to be
provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer
to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District
No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with
said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Erosion protection of the bank shall be provided by the owner prior
to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Right -of -way along creek to be dedicated as shown on map to Santa
Clara Valley Water District and /or City of Saratoga. Owner shall
contact the Real Estate Division regarding transfer of right -of-
way.
C. Owner shall accept all liability for the proposed concrete pad in
the right -of -way.
D. Incorporate site drainage into an existing storm drain system.
Design any new outfall into the creek to serve the general area
to minimize the number of future outfalls. Outfall structure
details shall be submitted to the District for review and issuance
of a permit to advertising for construction.
E. Owner shall show any existing well(s) on the plans and inform the
District of their proposed use.
F. A fence at least 4a inches high shall be installed between the
development and top of creek bank. Show details of any fencing in
the improvement plans.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall
be reviewed by the Permit Review Department to evaluate the potential
for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni-
ties on /in the subdivision /building site.
Report to Planning commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 6
C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -
of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation
plans shall be submitted to the Permit Review Department for review
and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be
installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -
of -way improvements.
D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -
of -way. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a
minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall
be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas.
E. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a
homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all
landscaped areas within the public right -of -way. The C.C. $ R's
of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by
the Permit Review Department, prior to final approval.
F. C.C. & R's shall state that the City has the right but not the
duty to enforce the C.C. 8, R's. The C.C. & R's shall not be
amended without written consent from the City of Saratoga.
* G. A Geotechnical Investigation shall be conducted as described
in the City Geologist's letter dated October 22, 1981. The
results of the investigation shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer and City Geologist prior to issuance
of a building permit.
IX. COMMENTS
- Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Approved:
MF:jd
P.C. Agenda: 10/28/81
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
*As amended 10/28/81 Planning Commission Meeting
ME NRJ. ArAl I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised 9/27/83
DATE: 10/21/81
Commission Meeting: 10/28/81
SUBJECT' A -793 Martin Oudewaal (Saratoga Real II)
14629 Big Basin Way
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Design Review Approval for a 3 unit condominium structure
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project
was prepared under UP -500.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised already under
UP -531. A public hearing is not required for this application.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: "C -V" (Vistor- Commercial)
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Multi - family residential to the north and
east; commercial and residential to the south; single- family re-
sidential to the west.
SITE SIZE: 15,952
SITE SLOPE: 130±
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 20'; 26' to peak of "tower ".
SETBACKS: Rear 83' Left Side: 10' Right Side: 10'
Front 30'
BUILDING SIZE: Garage Level /First Floor: 4,559 square feet
Second Floor: 3,920 square feet
SITE COVERAGE BY STRUCTURE: 35.6 %±
REPORT TO PLANNING ANrISSION
A -793 - Oudewaal l
EXTERIOR FACADE: Materials:
10/21/81
Page 2
Plaster, used brick, and wood trim
Color:. Off- white, red (earthtone), and dark
brown
ROOF MATERIALS: Wood Shake
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 176 cu. yds. Fill: 0 cu. yds.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Please see UP -531 for recent actions on the project
attached. On August 12, 1981 the Planning Commission approved UP -500
(attached) which allowed the subject property to be occupied by
condominiums. The issue of density and structure design were to be
dealt with at Tentative Building Site Approval and Design Review.
The issue of density is dealt, with in SDR -1508, also on this agenda.
The design of the structure is the subject of this report.
The elevations of the proposed structure are essentially the same
as those presented to the Commission.. during the use permit hearing.
The roof of the main portion of the structure a mansard roof with
height measured to the highest point.
The applicant considers the higher portion of the roof as a tower.
Towers are allowed to be 25' higher (a Maximum of 45' in this case)
than. normal zoning district limits per Section 14.9 of the Ordinance
if not more than 100 of the ground area of the structure is covered
by the towers. This allows the one tower to exceed the 20' limit.
The proposed trash enclosure will be adequately screened by vegetation
but details of the enclosure itself have not been submitted.
A total of 6 parking spaces (4 covered & 2 uncovered) will be pro-
vided on site. This complies with Ordinance requirements, but pro-
vides no guest parking.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per the revised Staff Report dated
October 21, 1981 and Exhibits "B -1" and "C -1" subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits:
A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department. Only
these approved plans shall be implemented during construction.
B. Any modifications to the proposed Site Development Plan or
elevations shall require Community Development Department
review and approval.
C. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans illustrating how
the privacy of adjacent properties will be protected shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development
Department.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 10/21/81
A -793 - Oudewaal Page 3
D. Design details of the proposed trash enclosure and deck
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development Department.
APPROVED:
Kathy Kerdus
Planner
KK /bjc
Attachment: Approved Staff Report - UP -531
P. C. Agenda 10/28/81
C. (
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised: 9/7/83
DATE: 3/10/83
Commission Meeting: 3/23/83
SUBJECT: UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way
*
REQUEST: Use Permit Approval to construct three (3)condominium units in the C -V
zoning district.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None. Design Review and Building Site Approval have been
previously granted.
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 15,952 sq.ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: C -V NOTICE: Notice of this site has been mailed to
property owners within 500',posted on site and
advertised in the Saratoga News.
CTTG nATA
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Multi- family residential to the north and east;
commercial and residential to the south; single family residential to the
west.
SITE SLOPE: 13%
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Saratoga Creek runs through the northern end of
the parcel. Large oaks and bay trees are located on the creek banks, which will
not be affected by this proposal. As was recommended with design review, large
box sized evergreen trees were to be added in front of the second story windows
to protect privacy of adjacent properties to the west and east. These trees are
not illustrated on the landscape plan submitted with this application, thus, staff
recommends Condition #6.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: This project has previously received design review, building site and
use permit approvals. However, the use permit was allowed to expire, so the appli-
cants have reapplied. The plans have been modified from the originally approved
• � J � l
Report to Planning Commission 3/10/83
-UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, Big Basin Way Page 2
use permit to comply with the plans later approved with design review. This
involves the redesign of the parking area underneath the structure and removal
of the "tower" at the rear of the structure and reducing the height of the "tower"
at the front.
GRADING REQUIRED: CUT: 900 Cu. Yds. FILL: None
CUT DEPTH: 5 Ft. FILL DEPTH: None
*SETBACKS: Front: 30' Right Side: 10' Left Side: 10' Rear: 83'
*HEIGHT: 20' and 26' at tower.
*SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
Garage/First Floor: 4,559 sq. ft. (excluding decks)
Second Floor: 3,920 sq. ft.
COLORS & MATERIALS: The exterior of the structure would utilize brick, off -white
plaster, and brown stained timber. Wood shakes would be used for the roof.
REFUSE: Garbage will be contained behind a fenced and landscaped enclosure at the
front of the property.
LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which indicates
various evergreen groundcover, shrubs and small, fast growing trees around the front
and sides of the proposed structure. The rear portion of the lot will be left largely
natural.
SOLAR:
Existing structures to the east and west are about 21' from the edge of the property.
*Portions of the property to the east will be shaded by the proposed structure from
1:00 p.m. in the winter and.from 3.:00 p.m. in the summer. However, the orientation
of the buildings to the east - indicates that they would be unable to adequately utilize
solar energy even if the structure were not built.
PRIVACY IMPACTS /RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES
The structure would be about 13' higher (from flat portion of roof) than the existing
single - family dwelling on the site and adjacent structures. The architectural style
of the structure would be compatible with the Village and similar in height to other
condominium projects approved by the Commission.
The project may have an adverse impact on the privacy of adjacent properties due to
second story window and balcony locations. These impacts can be mitigated by land-
scaping and removal of the balconies. It is suggested that evergreen trees be used
to protect privacy.
*PARKING: The applicant proposes to have 4 covered and 2 uncovered parking spaces as
was,approved with the design review. Six (6) spaces are required for the project
and no guest spaces are provided.
FINDINGS:
I. The proposed location of the four condominium units is in accord with the objectives
t 7 -
Report to Planning Commi sr�
.._. �' y
_ 3/10/83
P 5'1 Martin Oudewaal, Big Basin Way Page 3
of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
2. The proposed location of the four condominiums and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity if the conditions under recommended action are complied with.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply with the General Plan but will not comply
with each of the provisions of the ordinance in that 10' sideyards will be pro-
vided where 18' is required. However, the Commission should approve these variations
if the project is modified to reduce potential adverse impacts.
*RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff Report dated 3/10/83 and Exhibits "B-2 & C -2" subject
to the following conditions:
A. Prior to issuance of building permits:
I. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department. Only these approved plans shall be im-
plemented during construction.
2. Any minor modifications to the proposed elevations shall require Community
Development Department review and approval.
3. Design details of the proposed trash enclosure and deck shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Community Development Department.
4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Department of Transportation shall
review grading and drainage plans for the site to evaluate the effect on
State Highway drainage,coriditions.
5. Applicant shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Water District in terms of
required easements and the location of the proposed deck near the creek area.
6. The landscape plan shall be modified to include 24" box -size evergreen trees
to be placed adjacent to the second story windows to mitigate privacy impacts.
*7. App -1 i�a+�t Ala- �bm- iceo-#- P�r�r►a- ei�ia�- i�ion,- firheax= r.ea s#,ud_y
ter}- �� ��.� '�a��- �- f-- �a- r�Ca�►g- �e� -#8:-
Approved: ► �i
Sharon Lester
Planner
SL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 3/23/83
-C
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, October 12, 1983 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and
Siegfried
Absent: None
Minutes
Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the minutes of September 28, 1983 and
approve as distributed. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7 The One -Year Extension for SDR -1508, M. Oudewaal (and concurrent modification
of SDR -1508 and Design Review A -793) was removed for discussion. Commissioner
Hlava moved to approve the remaining item listed below. Commissioner Crowther
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
1. SDR -1486 - Tor Larsen, Pierce Road, Request for One -Year Extension
Discussion followed on SDR -1508. Lynn Lindsey, of Pine Stone Condominiums,
indicated that they are opposed to the project, and this opposition has been
based on the intense coverage of the useable portion of the lot, massiveness
of the structure, the fact that the geological report has never been updated,
and an EIR is needed on the project. Discussion followed on the noticing of
the project.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that as a matter of course the Commission
has granted these extensions. Staff noted that the amendment to the SDR and
Design Review also need approval at this time for 3 units, as amended by the
City Council.
In answer to Commissioner Nellis, the City Attorney explained that if the
Commission were to deny the extension, the applicant can make an appeal to
the City Council. He reminded the Commission that they are dealing here
with the SDR; the use permit was on appeal before the City Council and during
the course of that proceeding the applicant revised the plan from 4 to 3 units.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he had previously voted against this
project and would have to vote against it at this time. He indicated that
he thinks it is a much too intense use of the site and the setbacks are not
adequate.
Commissioner Nellis stated that he was not in favor of this project, but he
feels that the City Council has made the decision. He added that they have
the Commission's comments and have had an opportunity to hear the feeling of
the residents on this matter, and he feels that the Commission would just be
delaying the inevitable process. He explained that, even though he does not
favor this, he will be voting in favor of it.
Commissioner Siegfried agreed, stating that he feels the matter was reduced
to a ministerial act. The City Attorney commented that it is ministerial in
the sense that the Commission cannot impose new conditions now for an exten-
sion to the SDR. He explained that the only reason this matter is before the
Commission is that under the ordinances the time periods applicable to a site
development are different from the time periods applicable to a use permit.
He indicated that the Commission can vote to deny the extension but cannot
impose new conditions.
Commissioner Hlava stated that the major reason she had voted against the
use permit was because she did not like the design. She asked how completely
is the design of this project itself tied to the use permit. The City Attor-
ney clarified that the use permit the City Council approved is based on this
design. He added that the vote is also on the modification of the SDR to
IRIK
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10/12/83
SDR -1508 (cont.)
Page 2
reflect the change in the structure from the use permit proceedings.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he does not believe the matter would be
before the Commission if it were a ministerial act, and he would like to give
the City Council a chance to reconsider the matter.
Warren Heid, architect, stated that this matter is academic because it is
an extension of the tentative map. He explained the changes that had been
made to the design, including the reduction of height and number of units.
Chairman Schaefer stated that she did not believe this Planning Commission
has ever assumed that when something is returned to them for review, that
they are simply doing an academic vote. Therefore, she asked that everyone
vote the way they feel is appropriate and fair on this matter.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she does not feel that she can approve
this, and since the applicant has an appeal before the City Council she would
have to vote no on the matter.
It was clarified that if this item were approved, it would be approving the
design, in addition to the SDR. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny SDR -1508
as amended in the Staff Report dated September 27, 1983. Commissioner
cGol ric seconded the motion.
The recent creek damage to the site was discussed. Staff clarified that this
would not change the geology report on the site, nor would it change the
useable portion of the property.
The vote was taken on the motion to deny the amendment to SDR - 1508. The motion
failed 3 -3, with Commissioners Nellis, Siegfried and Scha__eT_er___J-1ssenting.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny the modification to the design and extension
of SDR -1508, per the amendments in the Staff Report dated September 27, 1983.
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which failed 3 -3, with Commis-
sioners Nellis, Schaefer, and Siegfried dissenting.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR -1508 as amended, the modification
to the design review, and the extension of SDR -1508. Commissioner Nellis
secon e tEl e motionic�faile 3 -3, with Commissioners McGoldrick, Crowther
and Hlava dissenting.
Commissioner Hlava stated that she is sorry for the applicant in this case
because she realizes that this vote extends the time. However, since she voted
against the project originally, she cannot vote for the design, with which
she doesn't agree, or the extension.
The 10 -day appeal period was noted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. GF -344 - City of Sar toga, Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
second unit to occupy certain single family lots by obtaining
a use oermit
It was noted that this item will be continued to the Committee -of- the -Whole on
October 18, 1983 and the re ular meeting of October 26, 1983. However, public
testimony will be taken ton- ht. Chairman Schaefer noted some changes that
were discussed: (1) accessory structures would be allowed in areas where a
person had twice the amount o land as required in that zoning district,
(2) whether the size of a unit is going to be 640 sq. ft. or 800 sq. ft. of
living space, (3) that there wi 1 be a limit of two people living in a place
regardless of their age, (4) any new additions would be reviewed by the
appropriate fire district for sa y, (5) the building in which an attached
unit would be is to be brought up o code, and (6) looking at potential for
fines and legal fees if a use permi't, were not obtained and followed.
The public hearing was opened at 7:241\p.m.
Barbara Simner, President of the Leaguc��of Women Voters of Los Gatos- Saratoga,
submitted a letter and read it into the\\Iecord regarding the ordinance. She
stated that they support the following: (\1) zoning changes as long as the
neighborhood character is preserved and any parking and traffic impacts are
2 -
C
C
J ,
STONE PINE CONDOMINIUMS
14605 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 85070
October 12, 1983
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Calif. -95070
Subject: SDR -1508 one (1) year extension
M. Oudewaal
Big Basin Way
Dear Members of the Commission,
As you know, the Stone Pine Condominiums Association has steadfastly
oppossed the.Oudewaal project on Big Basin Way. Our opposition is
based upon the following considerations:
(1) Intense coverage of useable portion of lot.
Coverage allowances should be scaled down
to percentage of useable portion of land.
(2) Massive unbroken design of the structure is
incongruous with the surrounding properties
and the country atmosphere of the Villages
(as referenced in the General Plan).
(3) The Geotechnical Report of October 2, 1981
was not updated to reflect damage to property
and surrounding area of the past two (2)
winters.
(4) Failure of reconsideration of Negative Declara-
tion by R. S. Robinson Jr. of June 8, 1981.
The Association strongly requests an Environmental
Impact Study with current requirements of the
Energy Conservation Development Commission, such
as Title 24 and Light and Air Act.
(5) Prior approval of Site and Design Review was the
result of procedure error. Property owners were
not notified of the application despite personal
knowledge to City and Applicant.
STONE PINE CONDOMINIUMS
14605 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
-2-
The members of the Association request the project be removed from the
consent calendar for a period of no longer than three (3) weeks for the:
purpose of review of all Documents relating to this project by the
association's legal council.
The members of the Association sincerely hope the commission will
agree to a postponement of the consideration of consent on this
project. We trust thejcommission will give sincere and conscientious
thought to our request..
Sincerely,
L.S. Lindsey
Secretary
NO Y- B oscoe
President
STONE PINE CONDOMINIUMS
14605 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 85070
October 27, 1983
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
SUBJECT: Appeal of Denial of Design Review
SDR -1508 Oudewaal, Big Basin Way
Dear Council Members,
The above referenced project has once again been presented to you for a
decision. The decision you make will have a long term affect on the
Village of Saratoga.
The issue of opposition to this project has been the design of the proposed
structure and coverage of the lot. The time has come for you, the members
of the City Council, to take a very hard look at the proposed design and to
make a conscientious decision.. In the process of making that decision, the
members of Stone Pine Condominium Homeowner Association once again urge you
to take into consideration the following points:
1) The massive unbroken design of the proposed structure is
imcompatible and incongruous with the surrounding properties
and the country atmosphere of the Village (as referenced in
the General Plan.
2) The coverage allowances have not been adjusted to a percentage
of the usable portion of the lot in question. The result has
been an intensive coverage of the lot.
3) There has been no formal update of the Geotechnical Report of
October 2, 1981 to reflect the effect of two (2) winters to
the property since the original report.
STONE PINE CONDOMINIUMS
14605 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Page 2
4) There has been no reconsideration of the Negative Declaration
by R.S. Robinson of June 8, 1981, An Environmental Impact
Study with current requirements of the Energy Conservation
Development Commission, such as Title 24 and the Light and Air
Act should be undertaken.
5) The Planning Commission of the City has investigated the
project and its impact to the surrounding properties and
have unanimously advised against the approval of the design.
The council is asked to protect the concerns of six (6) property owners
and taxpayers against the pressures exerted by a real estate developer for
the sole purpose of personal financial gain.
The members of the Association urges the council to give thorough and
conscientious thought to its decision on the request for approval of the
design of the proposed project. We urge the Council to deny the appeal
of SDR -1508.
Sincerely,
L.S. Lindsey
Secretary
1�
l A m'DA BILL NO. 5
DATE: 10 -24 -83
DDpAr<jMWr: Admin. Services
gU7ECT: Saratoga Court
CITY OI' slyzNroc
Initial:
Dept_ Hd.
C. Atty.-
C. Mgr.
Issue Sumnary
At their study session on October 11th the City Council directed Staff to proceed with
the allocation of $50,000 in FY 1984 -85 HCDA monies to the Mid - Peninsula Coalition Housing
Fund for the purpose of assisting in the acquisition and operation of Saratoga Court.
Recc endation
Adopt Resolution # allocating the sum of fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars of FY
1984 -85 HCDA funds to the Mid - Peninsula Coalition Housing Fund for the purpose of assisting
in the acquisition of Saratoga Court, a 20 -unit, subsidized Senior Citizen Housing
Development.
Fiscal Imoacts
This allocation will reduce by $50,000 the estimated $175,000 to be received by the City
in HCDA funding during'FY 1984 -85.
= xhibits /Attachments
Resolution #
Council Action _
11/2: Clevenger /Mallory moved to adopt Resolution 2103. Passed 5 -0.
P:,111A
ACJAq
EJEU
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Re: Saratoga Court
American Association of University Women
20910 Canyon View Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
October 19, 1983
Dear Mayor Mr. Moyles and Members of the City Council,
The Board of Directors of the Los Gatos- Saratoga Branch of the
American Association of University Women urges you to take the steps
necessary to maintain Saratoga Court as a viable, low -cost housing
facility for qualified persons.
The California State Division of the AAUW has long supported
"accessibility of housing for the elderly." We know from study and
from the experiences of several of our members that as an established,
functioning, low -cost, subsidized housing project,'Saratoga Court is
filling a great need for some of our older residents. Further, there
is an extensive waiting list of those who hope to live there. It would
be a shame to let this opportunity slip away.
We understand that the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition, which
would continue this program of low rents subsidized under Section 8 to
qualified persons, has developed a financial program which meets the
requirements of the sellers. However, $50,000 is needed from Saratoga
to complete the project.
We further understand that�by careful scheduling of qualified•
projects, the City could use $50,000 of its Community Development
Block Grant monies for this purpose. Housing, incidently, is the
number one priority for the use of these funds.
Therefore we urge you to commit the needed $50,000 to this
project, making it available in the most useful fashion possible.
LD
Sincerely,
Marjorie Foote President
Los Gatos - Saratoga Branch
American Association of University Women
` (get,
Y
h - o c i i 1983
f
lztU6
� r �
�S�'y
110,_
4n
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
San- =o s
A
--- -�
(D t C_6th (� 1,9_3'�j
OCT 7
RE: SARATOGA COURT APARTMENTS- Cox Ave.
It has come to our attention that you
will be deciding the future status of
Saratoga Court Apartments.
We wish to advise you that these apart-
ments have been serving a very vital
need as HUD housing.
We are acquainted with many of the
present tenants and feel much concern
that they may be forced.from their homes.
The location is so suitable for them since
they have access within walking distance
to shopping and bus service.
Please give this matter your CAREful
consideration.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 3 �%
Dept. Hd.
11/2/83
DATE: C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
C. Mgr.
5UBJ= Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described Property to be a
Public Nuisance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's annual weed abataTke_,nt program
administered by the County Building Official. The County has determined that 283 parcels
in Saratoga this year have excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious
or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the date for a public hearing
on weed abatement, December 7 this year. The County then sends the owners of the 283 parcels
notices informing them that the weeds must be abated by the County if they do not abate them
themselves; when County abatement will commence; and how they may present objections at the
December 7 public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspaper as well. After that
public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on properties whose
owners did not object or whose objections the Council felt were invalid. The final steps take
place -next summer, when the County presents the Council with a list of properties whose abate-
ment bil]s have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections, passes a resolution
declaring liens on those properties. These procedures are the same as those followed last
year.
Recommendation
Adopt attached resolution.
Fiscal Impacts
None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution.
List of parcels requiring weed abatement (available at City Clerk's office).
Council Action
11/2: Fanelli /Mallory moved to adopt Resolution 2104. Passed 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. •
RESOLUTION DECLARING WEEDS GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC
NUISANCE
WHEREAS, weeds are growing in the City of Saratoga upon certain streets, sidewalks,
highways, roads and private property; and
WHEREAS, said weeds attain such growth as to become a fire menace or which are
otherwise noxious or dangerous; and
WHEREAS, said weeds constitute a public nuisance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as
fo l lows :
1. That weeds do now constitute a public nuisance;
2. That said nuisance exists upon all the streets, sidewalks, highways,
roads and private property, more particularly described by common name
or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area and parcel number
on the report prepared by the County Building Official and attached hereto;
3. That it is ordered that Wednesday, the 7th day of December, 1983, at
a public hearing during a regular meeting which will begin at 7:00 p.m., •
in the Saratoga Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, is hereby fixed
as the time and place when objections to the proposed destruction or
removal of said weeds shall be heard and given due consideration;
4. That the County Building Official is hereby designated as the person
to cause notice of the adoption of this resolution to be given in the
manner and form provided in Article II, Chapter 6 of the Saratoga Muni-
cipal Code, and as the person to hereafter cause abatement of such seasonal
and recurring nuisance.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City
Council at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of November, 1983, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor •
J"
i'. CITY OF SARATOGA
A=A BILL NO.
DATE:
11/2/83
'
W
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described Property to be a
Public Nuisance
Issue Summary
The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's annual weed abatement program
administered by the County Building Official. The County has determined that 283 parcels
in Saratoga this year have excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious
or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the date for a public hearing
on weed abatement, December 7 this year. The County then sends the owners of the 283 parcels
notices informing them that the weeds must be abated by the County if they do not abate them
themselves; when County abatement will commence; and how they may present objections at the
December 7 public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspaper as well. After that
public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on properties whose
owners did not object or whose objections the Council felt were invalid. The final steps take
place next summer,-.when the County presents the Council with a list of properties whose abate -
pment._bi.11s -have. not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections, passes a resolution
declaring liens on those properties. These procedures are the same as those followed last
year.
Recommendation
apt attached resolution.
Fiscal Impacts
None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged-
Exhibits/Attachments
Resolution.
List of parcels requiring weed abatement (available at City Clerk's office).
Council Action
•
i
AGENDA BILL NO. 5-40
DATE: 10/28/83
DEPAFT,M=: Finance
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.. C. Mgr.
SUB .7 : Business License Tax Ordinance Revisions
Issue Summary
The City's Business License Ordinance, first enacted in 1964, has not had
a general fee revision since 1974 (the "cost -of- living index" has risen
by more than 128% since then). In light of this, and the City's need
for additional revenue, we are proposing that the fees be revised by
adoption of the attached Ordinance.
To mitigate the impact on small business' the new fees are tiered based
.on the number of employeess. Additionally, those under, eighteen
and over 65 who earn less than $500.00 are exempt from paying the license fee.
To simplify the administration and enforcement of the ordinance the previous
fee schedules have all been consolidated into one general schedule
with the exception of Peddlers and- Solicitors. Also,
provisions relating to proration were eliminated. .
Recommendation
To adopt the attached ordinance.
Fiscal Impacts
The new fee structure is expected to increase the annual collectionsin this
area from around $36,000 to over $100,000.
Exhibits /Attachments
Ordinance No. (to be distributed when received from City Attorney)
Council Action
11/2: Continued to public hearing 11/16.
AGENDA BILL NO. s
DATE: 10/28/83
D ARTIMU` T: Finance
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO.
Issue Summary
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd. i
C. Atty
-------------------------- - - -C -- Mgr - -- -- - - - - --
ESTABLISHING A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
71% of California Cities and 73% of cities within Santa Clara County
maintain a Transient Occupancy Tax. State Revenue and Taxation Code
7280 allows General Law Cities the right to apply such a tax. Currently,
18 units at the Saratoga Motel and 40 potential units at the proposed
Country Inn would fall under the provisions of this ordinance. Assuming
an 8% tax and a 3/40 occupancy level, such an ordinance would generate
$100,806 annually, based on a total of 58 units.
Recommendation
Adopt the attached ordinance adding Article VI to Chapter 14 of the Saratoga
City Code, establishing a Transient Occupancy Tax.-
• ..
Fiscal Impacts
Tie estimate the tax will generate over $100,000.00 annually once the new
inn is operational.
Exhibits /Attachments
Ordinance No.
Council Action
11/2: Continued to public hearing 11/16.
11/16: Mallory /Clevenger moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 4 -0.
• Mallory /Clevenger moved to introduce. Passed 4 -0.
Public hearing set for 12/7.
12/7: Clevenger /Moyles moved to continue public hearing to 1/4. Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed)
1/4: Fanelli/Moyles moved to continue public hearing to 1/18. Passed 5 -0.
1/18: Continued public hearing to 3%7. Passed.5 -0.
3/7: Fanelli /Moyles moved to table until after June election. Passed 5-0.
/U
5/l1/83
ORDINANCE H0.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING
• ARTICLE VI TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE SARATOGA CITY
CODE, ESTABLISHING A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 14 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby
amended by the addition of Article VI to read as follows:
Article VI. Transient Occupancy Tax
Sec. 14 -60. Short Title and Adoption Authorit .
This article shall be known as the "Uniform Transient
Occupancy Tax Ordinance" of the City, and is adopted pursuant
to the authorization contained in Chapter I, Part 1.7, of
Division 2, commencing at Section 7280, of the Revenue and
Taxation Code of the State of California.
Sec. 14 -61.
Definitions.
Except where the context otherwise requires, the defini-
tions given in this section govern the construction of this
article.
(a) "Hotel" means any structure, or any portion of any
structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for
.occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping
purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house,
motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming
house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club,
mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other
similar structure or portion thereof.
(b) "Occupancy" means the use or possession, or the
right to the use or possession of any room or rooms or
portion thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging or
sleeping purposes.
(c) "Operator" means the person who is proprietor of
the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sub-
lessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee or any other
capacity. Where the operator performs his functions through
a managing agent of any type or character other than an
employee, the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator
for the purposes of this article and shall have the same
duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the
• provisions of this article by either the principal or the
-1-
managing agent shall, however, be considered to be compliance
by both.
(d) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership,
joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organiza- •
tion, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust,
business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate or any other
group or combination acting as a unit.
(e) "Rent" means the consideration charged, whether or
not received, for the occupancy of space in a hotel valued in
money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or
otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property
and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction
therefrom whatsoever.
(f) "Tax administrator" means the director of finance
of the City.
(g) "Transient" means any person who exercises occupancy
or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit,
right of access, license or other agreement for a period of
thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less counting
portions of calendar days as full days.. Any such person so
occupying space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient
until the period of thirty (30) days has expired. In deter-
mining whether a person is a transient, uninterrupted periods
of time extending both prior and subsequent to the effective
date of the ordinance codified in this article may be con-
sidered. 9
Sec. 14 -62. Tax Imposed.
For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each
transieyit.is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of
8 ! percent of the rent charged by the operator. The
tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City
which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to
the City. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of
the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid
in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be
paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon
the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for
any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the
hotel, the tax administrator may require that such tax shall
be paid directly to the tax administrator.
Sec. 14 -63. Exemptions.
No tax shall be imposed upon:
(a) Any person as to whom, or any occupancy as to
which, it is beyond the power of the City to impose the tax •
herein provided;
-2-
(b) Any officer or employee of the Federal or State
Government, or any political subdivision thereof, when on
official business;
(c) Any officer or employee of a foreign government who
is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or
international treaty.
No exemption shall be granted except under a claim
therefor made at the time rent is collected and under penalty
of perjury upon a form prescribed by the tax administrator.
Sec. 14 -64. Operator's Duties.
Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this
article to the same extent and at the same time as the rent
is collected from every transient. The amount of tax shall
be separately stated from the amount of rent charged, and
each transient• shall receive a receipt for payment from the
operator. No operator of a hotel shall advertise or state in
any manner, whether directly or indirectly, that the tax or
any part thereof will be assumed or absorbed by the operator,
or that it will not be added to the rent, or that, if added,
any part will be refunded except in the manner hereinafter
provided.
• Sec. 14 -65. Registration.
Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of. the
ordinance codified in this article, or within thirty (30)
days after commencing business, whichever is later, each
operator of any hotel renting occupancy to transients shall
register the hotel with the tax administrator and obtain from
him a "transient occupancy registration certificate" to be at
all times posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. The
certificate shall, among other things, state the following:
(1) The name of the operator;
(2) The address of the hotel;
(3) The date upon which the certificate was issued;
(4) "This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate
signifies that the person named on the face hereof has
fulfilled the requirements of the Uniform Transient Occupancy
Tax Ordinance.by registering with the tax administrator for
the purpose of collecting from transients the Transient
Occupancy Tax and remitting said tax to the tax administra-
tor. This certificate does not authorize any person to
conduct any unlawful business or to conduct any lawful
business in any unlawful manner, nor to operate a hotel
•
-3-
without strictly complying with all local applicable laws,
including but not limited to those requiring a permit from
any board, commission, department or office of this City.
This certificate does not constitute a 'permit. "'
Sec. 14 -66. Reporting and Remittinq.
Each operator shall, on or before the last day of the
month following the close of each calendar quarter, or at the
close of any shorter reporting period which may be established
by the tax administrator, make a return to the tax administra-
tor, on forms provided by him, of the total rents charged and
received and the amount of tax collected: for transient
occupancies. At the time the return is filed, the full
amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the tax
administrator. The tax administrator may establish shorter
reporting periods for any certificate holder if he deems it
necessary in order to insure collection of the tax and he may
require further information in the.-return. Returns and
payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for
any reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to
this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the
City until payment thereof is made to the tax administrator.
Sec. 14 -67. Penalties and Interest
•
(a) Original Delinctuency. Any operator who fails to
remit any tax imposed by this article within the time required •
shall pay a penalty of ten percent (10 %) of the amount of the
tax in addition to the amount of the tax.
(b) Continued Delinquency. Any operator who fails to
_remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of
thirty (30) days following the date on which the remittance
_first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency
penalty of ten percent . (10 %) of the amount of the tax in
addition to the amount of the tax and the ten percent (10%)
penalty first imposed.
(c) Fraud. If the tax administrator determines that
the nonpayment of any remittance due under this article is
due to fraud, a penalty of twenty -five percent (25%) of the
amount of the tax shall be added thereto in addition to the
penalties stated in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Interest. In addition to the penalties imposed,
any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this
article shall pay interest at the rate of one -half (1/2) of
one percent (1 %) per month or fraction thereof on the amount
of the tax, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which
the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
-4-
•
•
•
•
(e)' Penalties Merqed with Tax. Every penalty imposed
and such interest as accrued under the provisions of this
section shall become a part of the tax herein required to be
paid.
Sec. 14 -68.
Failure to Collect and R
Determination of Tax by
port T dmax --
ax Ainistrator.
If any operator fails or refuses to collect the tax and
to make, within the time provided in this article, any report
and remittance of the tax or any portion thereof-required by
this article, the tax administrator shall proceed in such
manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on
which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the
tax administrator procures such facts and information as he
is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any
tax imposed by this article and payable by any operator who
has failed or refused to collect the same and to make such
report and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and
assess against such operator the tax, interest and penalties
provided for by this article. In case such determination is
made, the tax administrator shall give a notice of the amount
so assessed by serving it personally or by depositing it in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the
operator so assessed at his last known place of address.
Such operator may within ten (10) days after the serving or
mailing of such notice make application in writing to the tax
administrator for a hearing on the amount assessed. If the
.application by the operator for a hearing is not made within
the time prescribed, the tax, interest and penalties, if any,
determined by the tax administrator shall become final and
conclusive and immediately due and payable. If such applica-
tion is made, the tax administrator shall give not less than
- -five (5) days' written notice in the manner prescribed herein
to the operator to show cause at a time and placed fixed in
the notice why the amount specified therein should not be
fixed for such tax, interest and penalties. At such hearing,
the operator may appear and offer evidence why such specified
tax, interest and penalties should not be so fixed. After
such hearing the tax administrator shall determine the proper
tax to be remitted and shall thereafter give written notice
to the person in the manner prescribed herein of such deter-
mination and the amount of such tax, interest and penalties.
The amount determined to be due shall be payable after
fifteen (15) days unless an appeal is taken as provided in
Section 14 -69.
Sec. 14 -69. Appeal.
Any operator aggrieved by any
administrator with respect to the
and penalties, if any, may appeal
filing a notice of appeal with the
-5-
decision of the tax
amount of such tax, interest
to the City Council by
City Clerk within fifteen
(15) days of the serving or mailing of the determination of
tax due. The City Council shall fix a time and place for
hearing such appeal, and the City Clerk shall give notice in
writing to such operator at his last known place of address.
The findings of the City Council shall be final and conclusiv •
and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed
above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to
be due shall be . immediately due and payable upon the service
of notice.
Sec. 14 -70. Records. -
It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the
collection and payment to the City of any tax imposed by this
article to keep and preserve, for a period of three (3)
years, all records as may be necessary to determine the
amount of such tax as he may have been liable for the collec-
tion for the collection of and payment to the City, which
records the tax administrator shall have the right to inspect
at.all reasonable times.
Sec. 14 -71. Refunds.
(a) Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty
Pas been overpaid or paid more than once or has been
erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City
under this article, it may be refunded as provided in subsec- •
'tions (b) and (c) of this section provided a claim in writing
therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific
grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the
tax administrator within three (3) years of the date of
payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the tax
administrator.
(b) An operator may.claim a refund or take as credit
against taxes collected and remitted the amount overpaid,
paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or
received when it is established in a manner prescribed by the
tax administrator that the person from whom the tax has been
collected was not a transient; provided, however, that
neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed unless the
amount of the tax so collected has either been refunded to
the transient or credited to rent subsequently payable by the
transient to the operator.
(c) A transient may obtain a refund of taxes overpaid
or paid mor -e than once or erroneously or illegally collected
or received by the City by filing a claim in the manner
provided by subsection (a) of this section, but only when the
tax was paid by the transient directly to the tax administra-
tor, or when the transient having paid the tax to the operator,
establishes to the satisfaction of the tax administrator that •
aM.
the transient has been unable to obtain a refund from the
operator who collected the tax.
(d) No refund shall be paid under the provisions of
this section unless the claimant establishes his right
thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto.
Sec. 14 -72. Actions to Collect.
Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the
provisions of this article shall be deemed a debt owed by the
transient to the City. Any such tax collected by an operator
which has not been paid to the City shall be deemed.a debt
owed by the operator to the City. Any person owing money to
the City under the provisions of this article shall be liable
to an action brought in the name of the City for the recovery
of such amount.
Sec. 14 -73. Proceeds to General Fund.
The proceeds derived from the transient occupancy tax
shall be deposited in the City's general fund and shall be
expended for general operating expenses incurred by the City.
Sec. 14 -74. Violations; Misdemeanor.
• Any operator or other person who violates any of the
provisions of this article or who fails or refuses to register
as required herein, or to furnish any return required to be
made, or who fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental
return or other data required by the tax administrator, or
who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, and is punishable as provided in this Code.
ILI
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional.
-7-
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
• passage and adoption.
•
L�
F3
The above and foregoing 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: J
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
f
�'. CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 5 Y o2i
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: 10/26/83 C. Atty. -�
DEPT: City Clerk
C. Mgr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- I- --- - - - - --
SUBJECT. Possible Change of Election Date
Issue Summary
In considering changing the date of the municipal election from June of even - numbered years,
the Council has several options which are explained in detail in the attached memo.
In addition, Charles Robbins of the Good Government Group has pointed out to me that it would
in fact-be possible to change to November of odd- numbered years if one election were held in
June 1984 and another in November 1985. This schedule would shorten Councilmembers' terms by
seven months, which is permissible under current law. It would consolidate local issues
(school board and municipal) at one election, probably concentrating citizens' attention and
media coverage on local issues. However, an election on this schedule would be more costly
than elections consolidated with statewide elections - -up to 85� per registered voter as opposed
to 8� per registered voter in the June 1982 election. Moreover, voter turnout.in school.board
elections--has -been quite low (about 17% in the November 1981 Saratoga Union School District
— election-) -, so- turnout' for a municipal election consolidated with the school board election
could be expected to be about the same as for the April elections of previous years - -about
50% in April 1980. Schedule with respect to the budget would be desirable from the staff's
viewpoint in any November election.
Recommendation
Adopt attached ordinance setting date of election in November of even - numbered years.
Fiscal Impacts
Recommended option has no impact except one -time notification cost of up to $2500.
Exhibits /Attachments
Ordinance
Staff Report dated 10/7/83
Letter from Good Government Group
Council Action
11/2: Mallory / Moyles moved to read. ordinance. Failed 2 -3 (Callon, Clevenger, Fanelli opposed).
Callon /Clevenger moved not to move election date to Nov. 84. Passed 3 -1 -1 (Mallory
opposed, Moyles abstaining).
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONSOLIDATING THE GENERAL MUNICIpAL
ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WITH THE GENERAL, ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 1984
AND IN NOVEMBER OF EACH EVEN- NUMBERED YEAR THEREAFTER
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance to achieve a more efficient
schedule with respect to adoption of the City budget and greater voter participation
through consolidation with the Statewide general election. This ordinance is
adopted pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 36503.5.
Section 2. Repeal of Previous Ordinance.
Ordinance 67 consolidating the general municipal elections of the City of
Saratoga with the June Statewide primary elections is hereby repealed.
Section 3. Consolidation.
The general municipal elections of the City of Saratoga shall be consolidated
with the Statewide general election in November of 1984 and in November of each
even - numbered year thereafter.
Section 4. Approval by Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County
The City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this ordinance, upon its
adoption, to the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County for their approval.
Section 5. Notice to Registered Voters'
The City Clerk is directed, within thirty (30) days of approval by the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors, to cause a notice to be mailed to all
registered voters informing the voters of the change in the date of the general
municipal election, and that as a result of the change in the date of the general
municipal election, elected City officeholders'terms in office will be extended
by five months.
The above and foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting
period required by law was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga held on the day of by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
F g t r z'3�@�§�j5§ S rs%z •s rc�e �6E� r
g W .
Qq
s �� W
p¢ �z
€ Ia i@ i `s iaf IEtta gis, x W,
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE :10 /7/83
COUNCIL MEETING: 10/11/83
SUBJECT: Possible Change in Election Dates
It is my understanding that the City Council wishes to consider changing.the.date of the
Saratoga municipal election. State laws have changed somewhat since the last election in
June 1982, so this memo differs from my memo to you on the same subject dated November
24, 1981.
The Council has three options: return to our previous election date, April of even -
numbered years; consolidate with the Statewide primary election in June of even - numbered
years, which is our current procedure; or consolidate with the Statewide general election
in November of even - numbered years.
The law also makes it possible to consolidate with the school district elections in
November of odd - numbered years, but in Saratoga's case that would lengthen two terms
by 17 months. This is now illegal because the law prohibits lengthening or shortening
terms by more than 10 months; that option will therefore not be considered in this report.
Below is a chart listing the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
Election Effect on
Date Terms Advantages
Disadvantages
I. 4/84 All terms More attention for local Very high cost of election.
shortened candidates. Cost of voter notification.
by 2 mos. Nominations in early spring. Poor schedule with respect
Non - partisan ballot. to budget.
Lower voter turnout.
II. 6/84 No effect. Low cost.
Higher voter turnout.
Nominations in spring.
III. 11/84 All terms Lowest cost.
emtended Highest voter turnout.
by 5 mos. Good schedule with respect
to budget.
Non - partisan ballot.
Long ballot.
Partisan ballot.
Poor schedule with respect
to budget.
Least attention for local
candidates.
Possible politicization.
Cost of voter notification.
Less attention for local
candidates.
Nominations in summer.
I. Detailed Discussion of Setting Election in April of Even - numbered Years
An election on April 3 would involve no candidates for Saratogans to vote on other than
the local local candidates. The local press would presumably give Saratoga candidates
and issues more coverage at this time than at any other. Since the nomination period
would take place in early spring, there would be little likelihood of candidates being
out of the area during the nomination period. The ballot would be non - partisan, which
would avoid any flavor of paritisanship or politicization. On the negative side, this
type of election has been very costly and would be even more costly now because most
cities in the County have consolidated with Statewide elections, leaving few with which
we could consolidate to lower cost. Cost of such an election was estimated at $16,000
in 1980. An additional cost of perhaps $2500 would result from the need to notify the
voters of the change in election date. Moreover, this schedule results in a recently
elected Council's adopting the new budget, which is probably an undesirable predicament.
Based on past trends, this option would also result in the lowest voter turnout of the
three options being considered; turnout at the last such election in April of 1980 was
49.7 %.
II. Detailed Discussion of Keeping Election in June of Even - Numbered Years
An election on June 5 would involve the longest ballot of any of the three options
(up to 40 pages long), and it would be a partisan ballot. The cost of such an election
would be relatively low, perhaps $1800. Voter participation should be somewhat better
than in an April election; turnout of Saratoga voters for the last such election in
June of 1982 was 58.1 %. This date results in the poorest schedule with respect to the
budget, since the new Council would be elected just before the budget is adopted.
With candidates from all political parties vying for attention, the local candidates
probably receive the least press coverage at this time. The nomination period would be
in spring.
III. Detailed Discussion of Setting Election in November of Even - Numbered Years
An election on November 6 would involve a fairly long ballot, but it would not be a
partisan ballot. The cost would be comparable to that of a June election. Voter
participation could be expected to be highest of any of the three options. According
to the Registrar of Voters, County voters in general turned out at the rate of 66.9%
at the last such election, and Saratoga voters traditionally vote at a rate several
percentage points above the County. This date also results in the most favorable
schedule with respect to the budget; the new Council would be elected several months
after the adoption of the budget. Local candidates would have some competition for
press coverage at this time, and there may be felt to be some pressure toward politic-
ization. The nomination period would be for 32 weeks in late July and early August,
when some residents are out of the area. The cost of voter notification of change in _
the election date would also need to be considered.
Procedure -- -
In order to change the date of the election, the City must pass an ordinance repealing
the last ordinance dealing with election dates and setting the new date. The ordinance
becomes operative upon approval by the Board of Supervisors. (The - Supervisors favor
consolidation, because they lower the County's.costs as well as_cities�. costs).
Within 30 days of the ordinance's becoming operative, the registered voters are sent
notification of the change in dates.
Recommendation
Considering the probability of highest voter participation, low cost, and favorable
schedule with respect to the City budget, adopt attached ordinance setting date of
election in November of even - numbered years.
TEE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUP
of Saratoga, California, Inc.
P. O. Box 371
Saratoga, California 95070
October 27, 1983
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Res City Council Election Date
Dear Council Members,
The Board of Directors of the Good Government Group feel strongly
that the Council elections should remain with the Primary in June of
even numbered years and should not be changed to the November General
Election. This was the unanimous vote of the Board at its meeting
on October 25.
We feel that the Council election would receive substantially
less attention from the voters if it were moved to the time of a
General Election. Council candidates would tend to get lost in the
shuffle surrounding the.presidential and other elections taking place
in November. Voter attention is far more concentrated toward state and
national issues in the General Election than in the Primary Election.
A corollary issue has to do with fund raising for the campaigns.
It would be much easier for Council candidates to raise appropriate
campaign funds for a June election than for a November election.
Although there is some difficulty with newly elected Council members
dealing with the City budget, we feel this is less important than the
loss of voter attention resulting from a change to November of even
years. Greater effort by the City to educate all candidates about the
budget could reduce this problem.
The Board also discussed but did not seriously consider a
possible change of election dates to November of odd numbered years
to coincide with local school board elections. This could be done by
holding the election as scheduled in June 1984 but then scheduling
future elections for November of 1985, 1987, etc. It would require
shortening some terms of office by seven months. The cost of elections
to the City would be substantially more for the odd year November
time as compared with hither the Primary or General Election dates.
Sincerely,
0/" 90
Charles H. Robbins, President
Good Government Group
Saratogans in action since 1957.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 543 Dept. Hd.
DATE: October 24, 1983 (Novembe.r 2, 1983) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT:
C. Mgr.
UP -543, Amiee Chambre (Crocker Bank), 14417 Big Basin Way, Appeal by the Saratoga
SUBJECT: Village Assoc. of Planning Commission Approval of UP -543, Appeal by Crocker Bank
Issue Summary - The applicant requested Use Permit Approval for a banking facility on Big
Basin Way. The Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission, subject to a condition
requiring participation in the formation of a Parking Assessment District. The Saratoga
Village Association is appealing the Use Permit approval, citing General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Objectives and suggesting a retail use as more appropriate at this location. Crocker
Bank is appealing Condition #3 which requires Parking District participation and has indicated
concern with the unspecified cost to the property owner and the resulting delay to their pro-
ject.
Recommendation
1. Conduct public hearings simultaneously.
2.' Determine Appeal #1.
3. Depending on outcome of Appeal #1, determine Appeal #2.
4. Staff had recommended denial of the use permit.
Fiscal Impacts N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal letters
2. Staff Report for UP -531 and Resolution UP- 543 -1
3. Minutes dated 9/28/83
4. Exhibit "B"
5. Correspondence received on project
Council Action
11/2: Moylea /Callon moved to sustain Village Assoc. appeal. Passed 3 -1 -1 (Fanelli opposed,
Clevenger abstaining). Note: Crocker Bank appeal thus becomes moot.
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
RECEIVED
OCT 07198?
CO- MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received:
Hearing Date: _ ?
Fee 0?�0
CITY USE ONLY
Saratoga Village Association
Donald F. Eagleston . President
P.O. BOX 725 Saratoga, CA 95071
867 -0358
Name of Applicant: Amice Chambre(crocker bank) 14417 Big Basin Way
Project File No.: UP -543
Project Address: 14417 Big Basin Way
Project Description: Crocker Bank ( Use permit approval for a financial
institution located in a C -C zoning
Decision Being Appealed: Approval of conditional use permit
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
See Attached letter
Appellant's Sig ture
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
LSara"nW14eA7oaarjon
PQ Box 725 Saral4a,CA. 95071
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECiIV/ D
OCT 0 7198;
GO.'JMJNITY DE'iELOPMENT
Ground for Appeal
Subjects UP -543, Amice Chambre(Crocker Bank) 14417 Big Basil
Below are several sets of criteria supporting our appeal
to the use permit approval for a branch banking facility
located in a C -C zoning district.
A retail business at the above location is essential to
the success and progress of the Village Plan. An over-
_ saturation of any business in any area will prove to be
detrimental to the economic success of the Village,
and the City of Saratoga. The City of Saratoga has
established guidelines specifically designed to protect
the Village and the City of Saratoga from being over-
saturated, especially by banking institutions and
real estate offices.
I quote from Resolution no. 430.2, Resolution
of the City Council of Saratoga, Adopting the General Plan.
Chapter 2; Land Use:Element
LU.7.0 Promote the long -term economic soundness of the City
government through careful analysis of land use decisions
and fiscal practices.
LU.7.1 The City shall consider the economic impacts
of all land use decisions on the City.
Chapter 4; Area Plans
Area J- The Village ..... 4 -29 to 4 -32
Area J- Guidelines _For Area Development
Item #8• Encourage commercial uses that generate sales tax
revenue in the Village.
Saratoga Village Association would also like to
direct your attention to the zoning regulations from the
Code of Saratoga, California.
Ordanance no. NS -3, Article 1 In General.
Section 1.1 Objectives of the Zoning Ordinance.
The zoning ordanance is adopted to protect and
promote...prosperity and general welfare.
reason for appeal (cont.)
Section 1.1 d. To ensure public and private lands are
ultimately used for the purposes which are most appropriate
and most beneficial from the standpoint of the city as
a whole.
Article 7. C Commercial Districts
Section 7.1 Purposes.
In addition to the objectives prescribed in section 1.1,
the C commercial districts are included in the zoning
ordinance to achieve the following purposes:
a. To provide appropriately located areas for retail
stores, offices and services required by the residents
of the city.
Section 7.2 Permitted uses in C -C Community Commercial
District.
1) All uses permitted in the C -N district, except real
estate offices and financial institutions.
Section 7.3 Conditional uses
b. in C -C Community Commercial District
Real estate offices and financial institutions as a
conditional use, subject to the provisions of article
16 of the zoning regulations.
Section 16.1
Conditional uses require special consideration so they may
be located properly with respect to the objectives of the
zoning ordinance and with their effects on surrounding
properties.
Parking and circulation should also be considered. The
traffic flow of financial is greatly increased at noon
time and especially of the afternoons of thursday and
friday. Bank are generally accessed by automobile. Retail
use is more in keeping with the desired pedestrian scale of
the Village and could have have additional benefits for
the community and the surrounding stores. A retail use
would be consistent with promoting the Village as a
commercial district which helps secure the welfare of
the community by providing essential retail establishments
and by generating essential sales tax revenue.
There are currently two financial institutions close to
and on the same side of the street as the subject site.
The allowing of a financial institution at this location
is not mutually beneficial to adjoining retail stores or to the
community. It will also concentrate too many banks in one
small area-
Sincerely,
Donald F. Eagleston
President, Saratoga Village Assoc.
M
The following are recommended uses for the area which
would be beneficial to the area and the communityi
Artist supply store
Exercise and fitness studio
Furniture store
Hobby shop
Household appliance store
Leather good store
Luggage store
Locksmith
Musical instrument store
Office and bisiness machine store
Paint and wallpaper store
Camera store
Printer
Sporting good store
Stamp and coin store
Variety store
Watch repair and Clock shop
Dance studio
Music 'tudio
Television store
Bookstore
Fine China and Glassware store
Fur shop
Photography studio
RECEIVED
OCT 0 71983
c0;�JVU NIT Y DEVELOPh9ENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received: 0"
Hearing Date:
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
Name of Appellant:
Address: S`�S M ° C I 1Q'` FL;
Telephone: 477- GJ 4 -3:3
Name of Applicant: 5A
Project File No.: 134-�j
Project Address: 14-4+7 AsjH u1,4 Cpl G�
Project Description: l)P"L, LE EX f S T I 15, � F�
Decision Being Appealed: COMP DIM 8117iCdf-D
10 USE f?:-:'P M t 1" - �'�'c.i Cr�TI Ui� (�,�}(2 � t f� � r) I S-I La L,-- i
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
*
T
Appellant's S gnature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
r
I.. I ` (GA,
e Crocker Bank
RECEi VED
O G T O r 1083
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
October 7, 1983
City of Saratoga
City Council
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Council Members:
Re: 10.7.83
UP -543
Crocker Bank is requesting that the City Council of Saratoga approve our
appeal of the third condition attached to our use permit granted by the
Planning Commission. Specifically, this condition requires our landlord,
Amice Chambre, to "enter into a recorded agreement with the City of Saratoga
to participate in the formation of a parking assessment district with parking
to be provided at the ratio of one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of gross
floor area.
It is our belief at Crocker Bank that this condition puts undue hardship on
both us and the landlord for the following reasons:
1. Preliminary discussions with the staff at the Planning Department prior to
our submittal for the use permit did at no time mention the possibility of
the parking assessment district as a related issue to this use permit.
2. Crocker Bank first heard of this condition on September 27, 1983, one day
before the presentation of this matter before the Planning Commission.
This short notice did not give us or the landlord enough time to
investigate and discuss this issue.
Crocker National Bank
Clocker Properties Department
595 Marker Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
The Crocker Bank
Page 2
October 7, 1983
3. Subsequent conversation with Crocker Bank and members of the Planning
Department after the granting of our use permit, brought out the fact that
not enough information concerning parking district is known currently by
the Planning Department to even present the owner with potential costs and
time frames associated with this issue.
4. The Planning Department has stated to Crocker Bank that the only way we
could proceed with our project (gaining a building permit) was to have our
landlord sign a document with the City of Saratoga, which basically leaves
this agreement completely open -ended for costs incurred to the owner.
Both the landlord and Crocker Bank feel that this is an unreasonable
request on the part of the City.
5. Waiting for the Planning Department to complete all the studies necessary
to provide adequate information concerning the financial obligations to
the owner in this matter will substantially delay our ability to plan and
open our facility in Saratoga. Moreover, Crocker Bank and the property
owner in this matter have a lease agreement which brings on forthright
governmental approval. This "Catch 22" situation has caused a situation
where we are currently paying rent for this space without the clear
understanding that we in fact may construct a branch facility in this
location. The landlord, on the other hand, may lose her lease with
Crocker Bank if governmental approval is not feasible.
our suggestion in this matter would be the following:
1. Applicant will agree to Conditions Cne and Two, i.e., we will provide
evidence to the Planning Department showing the availability of 11
parking spaces for Crocker Bank use and we will also agree to design
review approval.
2. The third condition for the use permit be waived for the Crocker Bank
use permit and presented at a later time to the landowner when the
Planning Department is prepared to present the issue in a tangible
fashion.
Thank you, 12 d
,n Z..
CYI
Michael C. Smith, AIA
Arch /Sr. Project Manager
MCS /mp
cc: Amice Chambre
Project File CP #12133
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
C�'Y �s �a►7toga
ixF ?;sJVED
DA. E: �vZ-�� DATE: 9/23/83
Commission Meeting: 9/28/83
SUBJECT UP -543, Amiee Chambre (Crocker Bank) 14417 Big Basin Way
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST: Use Permit approval for a branch banking facility located
in a C -C zoning district.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Design Review Approval is required by a
condition of approval for this application.
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 1.51 acres
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: C -C
SITE DATA!
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Commercial
SITE SLOPE: level
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
2,157 square feet
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
HISTORY: The subject site was previously occupied by Imperial
Savings and Loan which received Use Permit approval on November 17,
1981 to relocate at 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.
During the Public Hearings on the Imperial Savings application
several Planning Commission and City Council members were con-
cerned about losing sales tax revenue by allowing expansion of
banking facilities. Staff noted that a benefit to approving
the relocation of Imperial Savings was the potential use of the
vacated site for retail use in the Village.
Report to the PlanniAO) Commission 9/23/83
UP -543, Amice Chambre Page 2
DESIGN REVIEW:
The applicant is proposing a slight modification to the doorway
fronting Big Basin Way, which does not require Design Review. Other-
wise, no modification to the size or exterior is proposed.
Staff is recommending formal Design Review as a condition of approval
in order to assess signs, parking, ingress /egress and potential
landscaping which will require additional information from the owner
of the subject site.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
The parking requirement for banking use is 1 space /200 sq. ft. of
gross floor area, resulting in 11 spaces required for the 2,157 sq.
ft. floor area proposed.
The applicant is entitled, through a leasing agreement, to use a
large common parking lot located on the site in back of the building.
Staff is requesting additional information for design review on the
number of parking spaces available and the number of legal users of
this parking lot. Because there is insufficient information to assess
parking at this time, the applicant will be required to submit evidence
of parking availability prior to issuance of building permits.
APPROPRIATE USE
There are currently two other Savings and Loans close to and on the
same side of the street as the subject site. There is also a depart-
ment store and bar adjacent to the site and a drug store and hardware
store close by.
Staff suggests that a retail use is better suited for this site for
several reasons:
1) Banks are generally accessed by automobile. Retail use is more
in keeping with the pedestrian scale of The Village and could
have additional benefit for adjacent stores.
2) Retail use of the site is consistent with promoting The Village
as a viable commercial district which helps secure the welfare
of the community by generated essential sales tax revenues.
3) There would be too great a concentration of banking facilities
in this area with an additional banking use.
FINDINGS
1) Consistency with Zoninq Ordinance Objectives
The establishment of a bank facility at this location will not
be mutually beneficial to adjoining retail stores, as it will
concentrate too many banking facilities in this area. Additionally
it is not expected to generate the foot traffic which might
benefit adjoining stores and reinforce the attractive pedestrian
scale of The Village.
Report to the Planning Commission 9/23/83
UP -543, Amice Chambre Page 3
2) Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, as there are no changes proposed to the
building and the hours of operation are reasonable.
3) Compliance with Ordinance Provision
The proposed use complies with other provisions of the zoning
ordinance and as a condition -of approval the proposal must-comply
with parking standards prior to issuance of the building permits.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make
finding #1. If the Commission wishes to approve this application
they must make the appropriate findings and staff would recommend
the following conditions.
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
1) The applicant shall submit evidence that there is sufficient
parking available on site for the proposed use.
2) Design Review approval is required. For this review the appicant
shall submit signage and a site plan indicating parking, ingress/
egress to the common lot and the location, type of use and square
footage of all tenant space on the site.
3) The owner of the subject property shall enter into a recorded
agreement with the City of Saratoga to participate in the forma-
tion of a parking assessment district with parking to be provided
at the ratio of one parking space per 380 sq. ft. of gross floor
area.
APPROVED
Li d Lauz
Planner
LL /bjc
P.C. Agenda 9/28/83
1
............. �� �Sdmmm - --
7�J(RXXX�� /1
USE PERMIT '
RESOLUTION NO. UP -S43 -1
FILE- "NO'.: UP -543
i
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of MS. CHABRE (CROCKER BANK) for a Use Permit
for a banking facility in a C -C zoning district at 14417 Big >- Bas.in Way;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (hc� X=g) met the burdenjof�.proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for.the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby
(granted) (d=kooi) subject to the following conditions:
Per the conditions in the Staff Report dated September 231
1983.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted) MAXaOCtXICDX=t
n *NXXzKkkX9JXXWC�X79M* =XftX C , and the Secretary be, and is
s .•
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 28th day of September 19 83
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Crowther,
Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES:
Commissioners
McGoldrick
and Nellis
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hlava
ATTES
_6,6C,
Secretary, a—n—n—1 —n.--C o m m 1 s i son
C airman�'4lanning Comission
File No. UP -543
r r A T TI r A T el CI .
1. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance Obiectives
Banking use at the proposed location is consistent with
Zoning Ordinance objectives as the historic use of this
site has been for banking activities.
2. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, as there are no changes proposed
to the building and the hours of operation are reasonable.
3. Compliance with Ordinance Provisions
The proposed use complies with other provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance and as a condition of approval the
proposal must comply with parking standards prior to
issuance of the building permits.
Planning Commission Page 8
Meeting Minutes 9/28/33
A -911 (coat.)
settlement of the carport situation.
The public hearing was opened at 10:44 p.m.
The applicant explained hat he thought he had a large sized lot and did not
understand the requireme is ;therefore, he went ahead with the project. He
stated that he wanted to rrect whatever problems that exist, and his first
preference is to straighte out the lot line. He agreed to a condition
regarding the bond, to enab e him to build before the rains.
The Citv Attorney suggested t e condition "The applicant shall submit a cash
bond or a letter of credit in n amount equal to the estimated cost to remove
the carport in the event a variance is not obtained or is not required by
reason of lot line adjust men ts,\ nd the carport is not removed within a
reasonable period of time."
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to ose the public hearing. Commissioner
Hlava seconded the motion, which -s carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to app�pve A -911 per the Staff Report dated
September 21, 1983 and Exhibits "B ", \ C" and "D ", with Condition 2 amended
to indicate that the applicant post a bond judged appropriate to take care
of the costs of demolition of the carport and associated administrative
City costs should he not be able to obthin a variance or property line adjust-
ment six months, or the carport s all be removed. Commissioner Hlava
sec rd
e H q motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
UP -543 -IMs. Chambre (Crocker Bank), 14417 Big Basin Way, Request for
/Use Permit Approval for a banking facility in a C -C zoning
district
Commissioner Hlava abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter
because of possible conflict of interest. Staff described the proposal,
recommending denial. discussion followed on consistency with the Zoning
Ordinance. The City Attorney stated that Staff is also relying on the
General Plan policy and the action program for the Village regarding their
inability to make the findings. He indicated that these state that uses
should be encouraged which would generate sales tax to produce revenue for
the City. The conditions regarding landscaping and joining the Parking
Assessment District were noted as pluses for the City.
The public hearing was opened at 11:00 p.m.
William Dunn, Michael Smith, and Mike Little, of Crocker Bank, gave a pre -
sentation on the proposed use, discussing the analysis of customer base and
the location.
Doug Adams, attorney for the property owner, discussed the conditions of the
Staff Report, noting that there is no evidence that his client would support
Condition 3 regarding joining the Parking District.
Chairman Schaefer noted that, if approved, she would like the bank to con-
tribute something to the City. Mr. Dunn commented that their business is run
by the branches and perhaps the manager has the right to commit to do that.
Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick commented that the General Plan Committee wanted this
to be retail and she feels the City should be consistent. Commissioner
Nellis stated that he agrees with the Staff Report. He added thatthe City does
not see many opportunities to have retail coming in downtown, and he would
like to see a retail use which would generate revenue.
The findings of the Staff Report were discussed. Commissioner Siegfried
moved to approve UP -543, per the conditions in the Staff Report, making the
finding that there is consistency; that the historical use of the site has
heen financial institutions, and it seems to be the most reasonable use of
the site. It will generate some revenue to the City and generate traffic
coming into the Village. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which
was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Nellis and McGoldrick dissenting and
Commissioner Illava abstaining.
6'ttC','L. *'3 - 8
0
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 9/28/83
UP -S43 (cont.)
Page 9
Chairman Schaefer questioned having an automatic teller on site, and Commis-
sioner Siegfried agreed. Mr. Dunn stated that a teller would increase foot
traffic. It was noted that there will be design review on this matter.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he voted for the use permit because of
Condition No. 3, requiring participation in the creation of the Parking
Assessment District. It was clarified that approval of the use permit is
subject to that condition.
MISCELLANEOUS
12. Tracts 6526 and 6528, Bla %well Homes, Inc., Parker Ranch, Modification
to Site Development Plan tt allow pools on six (6) additional lots
Commissioner Crowther abstaineA from the discussion and voting on this matter
because of pending litigation. Staff described the proposal. Commissioner
Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, agreeing that the rest of the lots
except No. 7S have substantial sites for pools.
Russell Crowther, Norada Court, Atated that the Site Development Plan for
this project was tied to the tent tive map. He commented that there was
a public hearing, the EIR was based on the site development plan that was
approved, and therewas a lot of ctincern about scenic impacts from things
like tennis courts and swimming po'als, since it is a hillside site. He
indicated that he strongly believe that this should not come up under Mis-
cellaneous as it has, but should b put up for a rehearing if there is going
to be any modification to the Site evelopment Plan.
Commissioner Hlava commented that t ey had looked at where the possible swimm-
ing pool sites were so there would not be any visual impact, and for the most
part there were no visibility problems on any of the lots.
The City Attorney stated that this is•,just a consent for amendment to the
CC£,Rs at this time. Staff noted that1any site development plan would go
through design review, which would be�a public hearing. Mr. Crowther ques-
tioned whether the tentative map would be modified by changing the site
development plan. The City Attorney indicated that there would be a public
hearing in connection with a development proposal. Ile added that the fact
that the restriction is being removed doesn't necessarily mean that the
City is bound at that point to approve the proposal when it comes in. He
noted that the engineer has indicated that Lot No. 43 should be added to the
list of restrictions.
Bill Heiss, engineer, stated that he understands that the pools are not
being approved and must go through the design review process. He discussed
the original delineation of pools and the criteria used. He noted that the
City Geologist has looked at the lots on which approval is being requested
but has stated that lie wants to review the specific site plans.
The City Attorney stated that the amendment to the CCgRs would not only be
for the removal of the restriction, but alAo the imposition of a restriction
with respect to Lot 43. He added the condikion "Applicant will prepare the
proposed amendment to the CCF,Rs and furnish`a draft of the same to the City
Attorney for approval as to form at least ten days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the consent to the amendment is being requested.
Mr. Crowther commented that he feels modifying the CCF,Rs before the Site
Development Plan and the tentative map is putting the cart before the horse,
since the site development requires that by CC$Rs what is in the site develop-
ment plan be regulated. He added that he fees that the danger in doing that
is a purchaser of a home site sees the CC &Rs,`,saying lie can build a pool,
and the site development plan says he can't. Mr. Heiss stated that the
applicant indicates to all buyers that whatever is proposed has to go through
design review. It was determined that the words "may be approved" be added
to the Staff Report.
Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend modification of the CC$Rs for potential
placement of pools, per the Staff Report dated September 22, 1983, adding
the restriction on Lot 43 and the condition as stated by the City Attorney
relative to the proposed amendment. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
motion, which was carried 5 -0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining.
- 9 -
:vp"
M •�R.IM Nf�M
U 64I - it
WIREIM" 11®iwl;��
�H orry
r—mr ksr �Cpeit eslnc.
In..� Mti
EXHie17
FILE No.
CITY OF SARATOGA�
' `�•t ..r arrs•IN M1M�
—•. Q caocru inns
tL(10R ILAN
t 2,157
ie Cro cker B a n k
John D. Bmdecidc
Executive Vice President
August 1, 1983
City of Saratoga
City Hall
Saratoga, California 95070
Gentlemen:
The Crocker Bank desires to establish a branch office in the City of.
Saratoga to both better serve our existing customers and to make
available our array of financial services to the broader community.
Over one thousand households in the Saratoga area already have some
banking relationship with Crocker, but our closest branches in Los Gatos,
Cupertino, and San Jose, simply can't provide the level of convenient
service to which we believe the Saratoga community is entitled.
As you know, we've made plans to lease the premises at 1447 Big Basin
Way, formerly occupied by Imperial Savings. Our intent is to remodel
the space to present an attractive, small scale banking office con-
sistent with the attractive "village" atmosphere of the Saratoga
Central Business District. Ample parking will be available off - street
behind the office.
Our branch will provide a full -range of financial services to indivi-
duals-and small businesses with a special emphasis on lending. We'll
also have a Crocker Automated Teller Machine where customers can
transact routine banking business at almost any hour, day or night,
seven days a week.
In view of all these factors, we hope you will act favorably on our
application.
B:bam
Crocker National Bank
Personal Banking Division
One Montgomery Sweet, West Tower, 27th Floor
San Frandsco, Calidomia 94105
Telephone, (415) 983 -3605
am,ck. 40s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
`oil
K-V I
t
THOMAS L. BLOXHAM
Attorney at Law
1440 Broadway, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 832 -5460
Attorney for AIMEE CHABRE,
CROCKER BANK.
SUBJECT: UP - 543
APPLICANT: AIMEE CHABRE
(Crocker Bank)
14417 Big Basin Way
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES I14 SUPPORT OF
ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT.
Date of Hearing: 11/2/83
The Conditional Use Permit concerns 14417 Big Basin Way,
Saratoga California, which is part of a 1.51 acre shopping
center comprising a drugstore, a clothing store, a barbershop
and a financial institution. The structures contain a total
of 9,170 gross letable sq. feet.
On March 20, 1964, 14417 Big Basin Way, hereinafter
"the subject property," was leased to Imperial Savings & Loan
to be used as a financial institution. A copy of the first and
last pages of the lease between Aimee Chabre (hereinafter "the
landowner ") and Imperial Savings & Loan is attached hereto as
Exhbit "A" and made a part hereof. At the time of this original
lease, the existing "CC" District specifically permitted the
1.
of the subject prpperty as a financial institution and no
ditional use was required at that time. Imperial Savings &
n'Continued the use of the structure as a financial instituti
er several extension of leases, .the last of which extended
original lease and such use of the financial institution
it June 31, 1983. 'A copy of this lease extension is' attached
et o as E x-M7151 � "'B ."
O, 5 197,8�the then City n re-
6
Cou cil •f Saratoga, r�
ssi-i e �CC-District to specifically exclude financial
titutions from permitted users and iris,tead required that
ancial institutions would requireIadditional use permits.
Though Imperial Savings` &.Loan's lease extension provided
expiration on June 31, 1983, by prior agreement with the
downer, Imperial Savings & Loan vacated the premises and
ninated paying 'rent on May 31, 1983.
On December 29, 1982, some six months before Imperial
ings & Loan vacated-the premises, Crocker Bank and'Aimee
Dre entered into to a letter of intent that'Crocker Bank
Ld occupy the subject property as a financial institution.
spy of`this letter of intent is attached. hereto as Exhibit "C"
is made a part hereof.
On June 1, 1983, the landowner and Crocker Bank entered
D a lease regarding the subject property wherein Crocker
{ would use the, subject property as a "bank." Crocker Bank
nenced paying rent on June 1, 1983. 'A copy of the first,
rd and last pages of said lease are attached hereto as
2.
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Exhibit "D." Since June 1, 1983, Crocker Bank has been
engaged in City permit applications and other preliminaries in
order to establish subject property in its use as a financial
institution. The subject property could not be occupied from
June 1, 1983,.to present, only becuase Crocker Bank has been
attempting to secure all necessary permits and applications with
the applicable governmental authorities. Since June 1, 1983,
Crocker Bank has laid rent on the subject property to the
present time and has diligently sought City approval to
effectuate the intended use as a financial institution.
Crocker Bank does not propose to make any alterations or
expansion of the financial institution use, and proposes to use
the same site for all purposes. Crocker Bank does not propose
to perform any reconstruction as a result of any damage to the
structure exceeding 50 %.
Crocker Bank's application to the City Planning Commission
for a special Use Permit was denied on Sept. 28, 1983. Both the
landowner and Crocker Bank now bring this appeal.
APPELLANTS' POSITION
Appellants contend that the use as a financial institution
by Imperial Savings & Loan constituted a "pre- existing uncon-
ditional. use" and therefore under zoning regulation section
16.10.1 a conditional Use Perm must Ve issued.
OPERATION`AS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
PRE -DATED RE- CLASSIFICATION OF THE
"CC" DISTRICT AND THE CONTINUED USE
MUST BE PERMITTED.
3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
15
16
i�8
1-9
20
n, 21
�. 22
23
24
25
26
Section 16.10.1 entitled, "Pre- existing Unconditional Uses"
provides as follows:
"A use established prior to the adoption of this ordinance
or prior to the adoption of any reclassification ordinance under
this ordinance, which, at the time of its establishment was an
unconditional permitted use under the zoning regulations and
district classification ordinances then existing, but which by
virtue of the regulations of this ordinance or by any such new
reclassification ordinance, becomes a permitted use only on the
obtaining of a use permit, shall be permitted to continue,
subject to the following:
a) (Not applicable)
i�kb) (Not applicable)
As is evident from the above regulation, the regulation
does not seek to prohibit different users from continuing
non- on rming uses. Rather, the regulation's only concern
is uses. Therefore, it is of no relevance that this
co d�t' nal use permit application is made by one other
tha,r/, the original user. Because CROCKER BANK seeks to
ntinue the same use, under the regulation this is.sufficient.
THERE HAS BEEN NO LEGAL ABANDONMENT
OF THE NON - CONFORMING USE.
The exact date is not known at this time, but it is known
that Imperial Savings moved from the subject property towards
the last week in May, 1983 by agreement with the landowner,
since Imperial Savings had contracted by there lease extension
(attached hereto) to remain until June 31, 1983. CROCKER
BANK-signed the landowners lease on June 1, 1983 and commenced
1XIM
1
2
3
4
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 1
14 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
FIcl
24
25
26
paying rent on that day in order,to operate a "bank ".
i
$la a.result of the change in tenants, the landowner did
not lose even one day of rent.
Since June 1, 1983, despite paying rent on the subject
property each and every month and up to the present, the
subject property has been vacant as CROCKER BANK has been
attempting to secure governmental approval to commence
operation as a financial institution. But for the fact that
CROCKER was required under applicable city law to obtain a
proper use permit, CROCKER would have immediately commenced
operation as a financial institution.on June 1, 1983,
the date their lease commenced. CROCKER has filed for the
proper permits but to date the city has not allowed CROCKER
to commence operation.
LEGAL ABANDONMENT REQUIRES INTENT
TO ABANDON AND THAT THE ABANDONMENT
BE VOLUNTARY.
California law clearly requires that before abandonment
of a non - conforming arise, the abandonment must be voluntary.
Where governmental directives require abandoning a use,
such does not rise to legal abandonment. In the case
of City of Fontana vs. Atkinson (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d.499,
507, appellant maintained a pre- existing unconditional use
in raising a dairy herd. The city required that appellant
install certain improvements which required that appellant:
9610
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
414
21
22
23
24
`&M
26
discontinue his non - conforming use. The city counsel held
that the non- conforming use was abandoned. The court in
Fontana reversed the decision of the city counsel holding
that appellants discontinuance of his non - conforming use was
as a result of the governmental authorities and their demands.
Under the circumstances the court held that the abandonment
was not voluntary.
The Fontana case is controlling in the case at hand. There
can not be said to be voluntary abandonment where the only
reason CROCKER BANK did not commence banking business at the
commencement of its lease on June 1, 1983 was because CROCKER
was forced by city regulation to obtain a use permit. Any non-
use as a financial institution on the subject property is a
direct result of the requirements of the City of Saratoga
and not any voluntary act of CROCKER BANK.
Because there has been no voluntary abandonment the.
city counsel must therefore grant the conditional use permit.
National case law underscores that mere non -use or
abandonment without more can not,and does constitute legal
abandonment. It is well established that before a non-
conforming use can be found to have been abandoned, there must be
an intention on the part of the owner or user to permanently
relinquish the non - conforming use. See Service Oil-Co. v. Rhodus
(1972 Colorodo) 500 P. 2d. 807 (Intent to abandon a non - conformi
use is required.),Sutton v. Board of Adjustment (1962 Delaware)
57 De. 414, Holloway Ready Mix Co. v. Monfort (1968, Kentucky)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
474 SW 2d. 80 (Intention to abandon is a requitite), Beyer vs.
Baltimore (1943 Maryland) 182 Md.`444 ( The decisive test
is whether the circumstances surrounding a cessation of
nonconforming use are indicative of an intention to abandon.
the use.), Dusdal v. Warren (1972, Michigan) 387 Mich. 35.4
(Abandonment is act of nonuser combined with an intention
to abandon the right to a nonconforming use.) Marino v.s Norwood
(1963, New Jersey) 77 NJ Super 58.7; Saddle River vs. Bobinski,
(1969, New Jersey) 108 NJ Super 6, (The primary question is the
intent of the property owner as determined from his actions
on a case by case basis.),Marchese.v. Norristown Borough Zoning
Board of Adjustment (1971, Pennsylvania) 2 Pa Cmwlth 84,
(Intention is a necessary element in the concept of abandonment.)
With respect to the subject property, the intent of the
landowner and CROCKER BANK has clearly been to continue the
use of the subject property as a financial institution: This
intent is plainly expressed by the fact that the parties
entered into a letter of intent dated December 29, 1982,
attached hereto which mana.fested to intent to have CROCKER
BANK establish a branch at the subject location at the conclusion
of Imperial's tenancy. Additionally, intent to continue
to subject property as a financial institution is expressed
in absolute language in the lease entered into the very day
Imperial's obligation to pay rent ceased.
Because the parties intent has been to continue the.operatioi
of a financial institution on the subject property
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
no leagal abandonment can be said to have taken place and therefo.
the use permit must issue.
MERE CESSATION OF USE., TEMPORARY OR EXTENDED
IS NOT'SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE
ABANDONMENT OF A NONCONFORMING
USE.
While the issue has not arisen in..the California courts,
national courts have established that a factual cessation or
discontinuance is not,per se, an essential, controlling or
decisive element with regard to whether a nonconforming use
has been abandoned. In Green v. Copelan, (1970, Alabama)
286 Ala 341, the court held that a temporary cessation of a
nonconforming use of property, even for a lengthy period,
caused by circumstances over which the property owner had
no control was not proof of a discontinuance since the circum-
stances themselves negate an inference of the necessary
intent to abandon the use. See also Franmore Realty Corp.
vs. Le. Boeuf, (1951, New York) 201 Misc. 220, 104 NYS 2d. 247.
where the court recognized that is a universally accepted
principal that mere non -use of a property over a period of
time; when unaccompanied by any other acts indicating an
intention to relinquish-or abandon title thereto, does not
amount to abandonment of the nonconforming use, time not being
an essential element of abandonment.
A temporary cessation in the exercise of a nonconforming used
I:IN
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'19
20
21
22
23
24 !
25 1
26
, even for a lengthy period , caused by circumstances over
which a property owner has no control does'not constitute
abandonment. See west Mifflin v. Zoning Hearing Board (1971,
Pensylvania) 3 Pa Cmwlth 485, where the court said that since
intention is a necessary element-in the concept of abandonment,
it follows. that a lapse of time is not decisive in absence
of a specifice time provision in a zoning ordinance.
In the case at hand, the Saratoga zoning ordinance has
no time limits. It is essential therefore that the only
elements that can be considered are whether the abandonment
was voluntary and whether the parties intended to abandon the
use. The mere fact that the subject property has been
vacant is not a factor in determination of abandonment.
CONCLUSION
Because operation as a financial institution pre -dated
reclassification of the "CC" district, and the parties
to the application for the present use permit had clearly
iintended to use the subject property as a financial institution
there has been no abandonment of nonconforming use. Additionally,
non -use as a result of governmental requirments can not
create abandonment because the concept of abandonment requires
that the fact finders look to the intent of the parties.
It is submitted that use permit 543 must issue.
Dated: October 31, 1983 -�
^E ,A S_E
Zhis Lease is executed // in triplicate at
Loa Gatos, California, on _(Q;;G�,;, U, 1964,
by LOUIS JOSEPH CHABRE and AIMk:E .JOSEPHINE CHABRE, bis
vifie, as ,jointton,4Wts, residing *t 24550 Santa Cruz
Highway, Los Gatos, California, as I,cs:�ors and COLUMBUS
*YI 5 ADD LOO 4$OCIATION of Saratoga, California,
Lasseep; and tha Lessor and Lessees are hereafter
celled, respectivelyo the Lessor And lessee, without re-
$ard tp gumber or gender.
The Lessor leases to the Lessee, and the
1966 ae Mires frUm the Lessor, for the purpose of con -
4ucCia. thaarein a savings and loan association and '
allied Activitt.es, that certain premises located at
,; I3r�si.n 'play, in the town of. .arato a
J 4471
.Cpgpty of Santa Caere, state, of g4ttforuta.
This Le"4 is made, subject to the follow-
Jny, Germs and coudi t ions :
1. The terw oball comgence on the ,/"I,/,_
dAy of , 1964, and shall terminate at
rdui�ht n ,.,.,., .1969.
2. �io*L'essera shall ply as rental for the
promises the sun of Twenty -one Th9u$end Nine Hundred
021.,900.00) Dollars, in the follows ug manner:
The sum of $350.00 on
1964, a like sum on the each
and every calendar monk or twenty -three
(23) additional m6ntba; and thereafter,
the sum of $375.00 for the restraining
thirty -six (36) luonths of-the term. ' The
Lessee shall, in addition to all other
sums agreed to'be paid by him under this
Lease, pair to the Lessor, upon its demand,
a prorate share (based upon square feet in
the building) of all real estate taxes
which shall, during the term of this lease,,
be assessed against the demised prccuisew
and adjoining premises of the Lessor in
excess of the suz of
EXHIBIT "A"
IN WITUSS WRE"Or, the parties hereto have hereunto
•ubocribed Choir amme and' seals the day And year tirst above written.
4;%)LUKbUS SAVIhGa A14LJ LLwO lklb3itjclAllobi
A
106ts-46seph Chabre
=
by:
Josephine L !
in* Ch GL*tauc Secretary
LIS301
I
1*de of Udl=ix
Lassah;
Courdu of ................... (
ACKNOWLEDGMENT—General —
On this ..... Nth ... day of ............... *rch
U. W. Hawks ......... I ........... ........ A . D. 19.. ��. before me,
...... ................................ * ............. a Notary Public in and for the said
County and State, residing therein, d9ty commissioned and sworn, personally -ap-
peared.................... ................ ...... .....................................
brb
...................................................
................................ I .................................................... ............. ............. I ........... .............. I ..............
known to ryie to be the persons whose name.4 ....... 4?�§ ................subscribed to the
within Instrument, and aano'wledged to me that tiliq executed the same.
lit Xitness 01yerraf, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
the day and year in, this Certificate first above wri . tte
.................................. I ......
.. ..... ..... ..................
Notary Public in and for said County and Sale
,te of California
My Commission Expires ... ....... ................... . .....
Form GA Sam Hopkins Legal Forms Printing Service, 2328 FruitvQla Ave., Oakland, Calif.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THOMAS L. BLOXHAM
Attorney at Law
1440 Broadway, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 415- 832 -5460
EXTENSION OF LEASE
This e.-,tension of lease is made and entered into by
and between Aimee Chabre, Landlord, and Imperial Savings and
Loan, Tenant, relating to that certain premises located at
14471 Big Basin jiav, Saratoga, Califo,':Iia a"td-
Tenant hereby agree to extend the tern: of th::t leas-z"-.old
under that lease dated 11,1av 30, 1980 and that ''Renewal of
Lease'dated October 20, 1981, from October 1, 1982 to
June 31, 1983. Rent for this period shall be i:: the a -ounr
of $1.25 uar square foot for an aF_"ecc square footase
2,157.00 for a total monthly _,=r-al
terms and conditons of the lease date% 1y 30. 10, 8:! a tC
remain unchanged.
Landlord
I1.IPERI.yL SA+'INGS A:IND LOAN -ASSN.
Tenant
/ r�
By
WALTER SHEI;, Vice President
Property Management
EXHIBIT "B"
^>7
, hh.�
December 29, 1982
Mrs. Aimee' Chabre'
24550 Santa Cruz Highway
Los Gatos, CA 95030
- CROCKER nATIonAl BANK
CROCKER PROPERTIES DEPARTMENT
333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 740, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
MAILING ADDRESS J POST OFFICE BOX 2457, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90051
RE: CROCKER BANK BRANCH FACILITY - 14471 BIG BASIN WAY, SARRATOGA, CA
Dear Mrs. Chabre':
Pursuant to our recent conversations, the following will set forth the basic
terms under which we propose to lease office space at the subject location.
LEASE PROPOSAL
TENANT: Crocker National Bank, a national banking association.
BUILDING AREA: Property locat d 14471 Big Basin Way, comprising
appoximately.Z� slquare eet for Crocker Bank Branch
(See Attachment I).
TERM OF LEASE: t9 3Q), basic term.',`
OPTIONS: One (1) five (5') year option period.
-- !NTERIM RENT: pef meTt� open ��k-er- tak -i-rg ssession-- of - -the
- premiee-s - fa r_- -A -9A % day- - period, during eons-t-ruettocn-of-
RENT: $33,000 per year in equal monthly installments to
commence TlJ l �j i 4'�3�
RENTAL ADJUSTMENT: Rent to increase annually during term and option
period by six percent (6%) per year, xerr-compounding.9,
UTILITIES /SERVICES: - Crocker- shall -- obtain - separate- meters - -and -pay - for --a11 - --
electricity, utilities and telephone services
necessary for Crocker's use of the Premises.
RIGHT TO SUBLEASE: Crocker shall have the right to assign lease or
sublet, with landlord's prior written consent, which
shall not be unreasonably withheld br undully delayed.
PARKING: Crocker shall have eight (8) parking spaces nearest
the building designated for its exclusive use.
SIGNAGE: Crocker will;be allowed maximum lawful permanent
signage. Signage must provide - identification -
acceptable•to Crocker Bank. -=
'EXHIBIT "C"
.ac m n9TionaL Banc
Mrs. Chabre'
Page 2
12 -29 -82
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: A. Obtaining all necessary permits to construct a
Crocker Bank Facility.
B. Obtaining Crocker Executive Committee approval.
C. Obtaining approval from the - Comptroller of Currency.
Sincerely,
Richard Swezey
Senior Real Estate Negotiator
RS /bo
��j/,,,, r
APPROVED: 1L!"�%l�
Aimee' Chabre', Owner
DATE: ��
ti
LEASE
THIS LEASE is made and entered into this 1st day of June,
1983, by and between AIMEE CHABRE' ( "Landlord ".), and THE CROCKER
BANK,a national banking association (hereinafter called "Tenant ").
IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS;
ARTICLE I
DEMISED PREMISES
Section 1.01 Description of Premises
Landlord leases to Tenant and Tenant rents from Landlord
certain premises in a shopping center called 14417 Big Basin Way
(hereinafter called the "shopping center "), located in the City
of Saratoga, State of California. The entire of said shopping
center is outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof. The premises herein demised (hereinafter called the "demis-
ed premises ") consist of approximately -2,157 square feet.
Landlord may increase, reduce, or change the number, dimen-
sions, or locations of the walks, buildings, parking and common
areas and other improvements in any manner that Landlord shall
deem proper. Such action by Landlord shall not unduly interfere
with Tenant's business. Landlord further reserves the right to
make alterations and /or additions to, and to build or cause to be
built additional stories on, the building in which the demised
premises are situated and to add any buildings adjoining the same
or elsewhere in the shopping center. Without limiting the gener-
ality of the foregoing, Landlord may add additional department
stores and retain shops and parking decks anywhere in the shopping
center. Use and occupancy by Tenant of .the demised premises shall
include the use in common with others entitled thereto of the
common areas and facilities, as' hereinafter more fully defined and
as provided -in :Article -VIM.----Nothing herein contained shall be
construed as a grant or rental by Landlord or Tenant of the roof
and exterior walls of the building or buildings of which the demised,
premises form a part (other than store fronts), the area beneath
said premises or the walks and /or other common areas beyond the
demised premises, except as may be hereinfter specifically set
forth. Landlord reserves the right to install, maintain, use,
repair and replace pipes, ducts, conduits, and wires leading through
the demised premises and serving other.parts of the shopping center
in a manner that will not materially interfere with Tenant's busri-
ness or use of the demised premises.
EXH11IT �r
(b) 'If any rent shall not be paid when due, the unpaid amount
shall bear interest at the rate of ten percent (10 %) per annum, from
a ..date which is _ten .x(10) days .after the date due to the date.pa.id.._ :,_
This provision shall not be construed to relieve Tenant from any
default arising from any failure on the part of Tenant to make any
payment when due, or deny Landlord any rights granted herein or
by law.
(c) Adjustments to rental:
3.Ol.above shall tie increased on
mencement of the Primary Term of
after ( "Adjustment Date "), by th,
The monthly rental under Section
the anniversary date of the com-
this Lease and every year there-
? amount of $1,644.00.
(d) If Tenant exercises its rights to renew this lease pur-
suant to Article II above, the rental for the first year of said
renewal shall be the fair market rental value of the demised
premises as agreed in writing by Landlord and Tenant, but not less
than $3,972.50 per month. If Landlord and Tenant cannot agree as
to the fair market rental, each shall select a qualified MAI real
estate appraiser and they shall determine the fair market rental
of the demised premises which shall not be less than $3,972.50 per
month. Should said appraisers be unable to agree upon the fair
market rental of the demised premises, they shall select a third,
qualified MAI real estate appraiser who shall determine the fair
market rental of the demised premises. The monthly rental shall
be increased on the anniversary date of the commencement of the
Renewal Term and annually thereafter during the whole Renewal Term,
by a sum equal to five percent (5 %) of the annual fair market
rental arrived at for the first year of said Renewal Term.
ARTICLE IV
USE
Section 4.01 Use of Premises
(a) Tenant agrees to use the demised premises only for a
bank and /or for the purpose of conducting any other business related
to the business of the Tenant, and for no other purpose without
the prior written consent of Landlord.- It is specifically agreed
that Tenant has not been granted any exclusive rights to sell or
operate within either the shopping center or'other land'owned or
controlled by Landlord. _Tenant _ shall not conduct._ catalogue sales
in or from the demised premises, permit the use of vending machines
therein, or use or permit the use for what is commonly known in
the retail trade as a discount wholesale or outlet store.
Section 4.02 Trade Name
Tenant shall operate its business within the demised premises
under the trade name of THE CROCKER BANK. Tenant shall not change
the trade name of the business being operated in the demised
premises without Landlord's prior written consent.
the express written consent of Landlord, such occupancy shall be
a tenancy from month to month at a rental in the amount of the
last monthly rental, plus all other charges payable hereunder,..and
upon all terms hereof applicable to a month to month tenancy.
ARTICLE XXIV
WARRANTY OF TITLE AND COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
Section 24.01
Landlord hereby covenants and warrants to Tenant that Land -
lord has a good and marketable fee simple title to the demised
premises. Landlord further covenants that upon Tenant paying the
rent as required hereunder and observing and performing all of the
terms, covenants, and conditions of this lease on Tenant's part to
be observed and performed, Landlord shall secure Tenant in the
quiet possession of the demised premises during the entire lease
term and any extensions thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands the day
and year first above written.
THE CROCKER NX
by
Tenant VICE PRESIDENT
Tenant
AIMEE CHA , LANDLORD
I
I �
i �,i1S3 S IOCLt �, too
LAIL
I... .;�- Ii!i! i —•� ��; � � jyloo�- �-S1'% -'--
J: < - -- fill
:; j � i, iiil iii � � I� ;� I � _•�ii ..
;::i __c ::: :..:I:.:: ��:_ ;.I_ �; is J: (► _+'+ —1...: ' -_j_ .'_..
f �I f ,i•� I,! ,� !!fl!I � 1
:•.; _. -,�_.. :i_ - �- - �- .��- ... +. -- :75.6:
MG
it Co
7 17
PAT
I ' i
IL
S b 7 8 9 10 ]l 12 1.3 - -3t` 25 .,16 •, ]7.
t