Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-2006 City Council Agenda PacketAGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUI~ICIL JANUARY 4, 2006 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. -CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 22, 2005) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Aaendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff' Oral Communications -Council Directiou to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions None Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. Proclamation Declaring the Month of January 2006 "Volunteer Blood Donor Month" Recommended action: Present proclamation. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this rime, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 2A City Council Minutes -December 7, 2005 Recommended action: Approve minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Zoning Text Amendment - to Relax Parking Requirements in CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts for a Period of Three Years Recommended action: Open and conduct public hearing, Approve the Resolution for the Negative Declaration, Introduce the Zoning Text Amendment, Waive the first reading, Schedule the item for second reading and adoption on consent calendar. OLD BUSINESS 4. Kevin Moran Pazk Taskforce Report Recommended action: Accept report and provide direction regazding the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project. NEti'V BUSINESS None ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIG1~iMENT REPORTS None CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OTHER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ifyou need special assistance to participate in thzs meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (ZS CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certiftcate of Posting of Agenda: I, Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meetin of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on December 22, 200 oft rty of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was avgilab fo public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's 22nd day of December 2005 ar Saratoga, California. City F -,, ~ CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2006 ~rpc;1ti~ 1/4 RegulazMeeting 1/18 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commission 2/1 Regulaz Meeting -Joint Meeting Hakone Foundation 2/15 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with Youth Commission 3/1 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with Planning Commission 3/15 Regulaz Meeting -Joint Meeting with Chamber of Commerce 4/5 Regular Meeting -Joint meeting with Library Commission and Friends of the Saratoga Libraries 4/19 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with SASCC 5/3 Regular Meeting -Joint meeting with Villa Montalvo and Mt. Winery 5/17 Regular Meeting 6/7 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with Planning Commission 6/21 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission and Historic Foundation 7/5 Regular Meeting 7/19 Regular Meeting 8/2 Regular Meeting 8/16 Summer Recess 9/6 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with Planning Commission 9/20 Regular Meeting 1014 Regular Meeting 10/18 Regular Meeting 11/1 Regular Meeting l li 15 Regulaz Meeting 12/6 Regular Meeting -Joint Meeting with Planning Commission -Council Reorganization 12/20 Regular Meeting -Joint meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL /~ MEETING DATE: January 4, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: j ORIGINATING DE~:~C ity~ianager's OtTice CITY MANAGER: ~~ /~'-Y' PREPARED BY: v ~ DEPT HEAD: Cathleen Bover Ct clerk Dave Ande~~n• City Manaeer _ SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring the Month of January 2006 -Volunteer Blood Donor Month RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present proclamation. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached proclamation declazes the month of January 2006 "Volunteer Blood Donor Month". Mona Hehnhold, Donor Recruitment Representative, will be attending the meeting to accept the proclamation. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: ~-- Attachment A - Copy of proclamation. CITY OF SARATOGA PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF JANUARY VOLUNTEER BLOOD DONOR MONTH WHEREAS, Volunteer Blood Donor Month has been declared nationally since 1970 to help ensure an adequate blood supply and to stress the importance of giving the "Gifr of Life" through the donation of blood; and WHEREAS, Volunteer Blood Donor Month is a month-long observance that shows us that donating blood is a simple, safe, life-saving and selfless-gift that millions ofAmericans can do; and WHEREAS, Volunteer Blood Donor Month makes us aware that every day blood is needed in hospitals and emergency treatment facilities for patients with cancer and other diseases, for organ transplant recipients, and to save the lives of accident victims; and WHEREAS, Volunteer Blood Donor Month addresses the need for constant replenishment of blood, especially during the winter months when blood is traditionally in short supply due to a reduction in donor turnout because of the holidays, busy travel schedules, inclement weather and illness, which can put blood inventory at a critical low; and WHEREAS, Volunteer Blood Donor Month helps us understand that sixty percent of the US population is eligible to donate blood but only about five percent do, contributing an annual total of about 15 million units that in turn are transfused to approximately four million patients; and WHEREAS, in Northern California, the American Red Cross provides 130,000 units of blood per year for the protection of patients, and there is a need for additional healthy, regulaz volunteer donors to join the ranks of those who already give of themselves so generously; THEREFORE, I, Norman Kline, Mayor of the City of Saratoga, hereby proclaim the month of January as "VOLUNTEER BLOOD DONOR MONTH" for Saratoga and urge all citizens to pay tribute to those among us who donate for others in need. 1 urge citizens in good health to donate regularly. I also urge all civic and service organizations and businesses, if they have not already done so, to form blood donor groups to provide blood for others. WITNESS OUR HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 4"' day of January 2006. Norman Kline, Mayor City of Saratoga SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ~... MEETING DATE: January 4, 2006 ORIGINATING DEP pager's Office PREPARED BY: Cathleen er, City Clerk SUBJECT: City Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: ~~~ DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson, City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Regular Meeting -December 7, 2005 FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -Minutes December 7, 2005 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER7, 2005 The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:30 p.m. Conference With Leeal Counsel -Existing Litigation: Jones v. Saratoga et al. Santa Clara County Sup. Court No. 1-03-CV-010545. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION Mayor Kline reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Kline called the Regulaz City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested that Matthew Stark lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councihnembers Kathleen King, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Aileen Kao, Mayor Norman Kline ABSENT: Councihnember Nick Streit ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager J PRESENT: Richazd Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Michele Braucht, Administrative Services Director John Livingstone, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 7 2005 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of December 7, 2005, was properly posted on December 2, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Jill Hunter announced that the Village merchants would stay open until 7:00 p.m. on Thursday evenings. Citizen Ray thanked the City Council for the wonderful display of democracy at the reorganization meeting held on December 6, 2005. ~ COUNCIL DIRECTION TOi STAFF None COMMUNICATIONS FRO~VI BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None None CEREMONLAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR lA. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSENT. 1B. 2006 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT RESOLUTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: OS-078 Councilmember King requested that item 1B be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember King asked if the County will be sending out three notices to the property owners on the list. City Clerk Boyer responded yes, three notices will be sent out. 2 KING/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STRETT ABSENT. I C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT FOR FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WITH DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK CONSULTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. WALTONSMITH/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE INDEPENDENT MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSENT. 1D. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: OS-074 WALTONSMITH/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-I WITH STRETI' ABSENT. lE. APPROVE BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR NOTICING EXPENDITURE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt budget resolution. RESOLUTION: OS-079 WALTONSMITH/KAOMQVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSENT. 1F. SMART PERMIT STANDARDIZED PERMIT APPLICATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt SMART Permit $tandazdized Permit Application. Councilmember King requested that item 1F be removed from the COriSerit Calendaz. Councihnember King thanked Mayor Kline for encouraging staff to streamline City processes. Brad Lind, Builder Official, noted that eventually the entire County would be using the same permit system. KING/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT SMART PERMIT STANDARDIZED PERMIT APPLICATION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSENT. 1 G. ANNEXATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 0.034 ACRE PORTION OF LAND WHICH FRONTS ONTO BAINTER AVENUE - APN 510-06-006 (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 19330 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: OS-076 WALTONSMITH/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PASSED 4- 0-1 WITH STREIT ABSENT. 1H. AGREEMENT REGARDING RELOCATION OF CITY'S EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER TO SARATOGA FIRE STATION AND ASSOCIATED COST REIMBURSEMENT TO THE DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve agreement and authorize City Manager to execute the same. WALTONSMITH/KAO MOVED TO AGREEMENT REGARDING RELOCATION OF CITY'S EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER TO MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSENT. 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FY 2005-2006 - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive Report, conduct public hearing, and provide direction to staff. 2. Adopt Environmental Impact Assessment for new CIP project. 3. Adopt resolution amending the FY OS-06 Budget reflecting Council direction from the October 5`s, October 18~', and November 2"a City Council meetings. RESOLUTION: OS-073 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Mayor Kline opened the public hearing and invited public comments Seeing none, Mayor Kline closed the public hearing. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2005- 2006 UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSENT. TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATION (WILLIAMSON ACT) CONTRACT FOR20865 WARDELL ROAD COMPRISED OF FOUR LOTS TOTALING 7.7 ACRES, AS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS, HALL FAMILY TRUST AND TOM LIM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopts a Negative Declaration. 2. Certifies to the County Auditor the amount of the cancellation fee. 3. Makes the required findings and grants a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation Approval, subject to conditions. RESOLUTION: OS-075 Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Mayor Kline opened the public hearing and invited public comments The following person requested to speak on this item: Bart Heckman noted that he represented the property owners. Mr. Heckme commended Planner V asudevan and City Attorney Taylor for their diligence and effectiveness during the grocers. Mr. Heckman noted that he supported staff s recommendation. Mayor Kline closed the public hearing. KING/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. CERTIFIES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR THE AMOUNT OF THE CANCELLATION FEE, MAKES THE REQUIRED FINDINGS AND STREIT ABSENT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH 4. APPLICATION 06-002 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT -13425 FRUITVALE AVENUE (REDWOOD. MIDDLE SCHOOL), 13998 AND 14000 SHADOW OAKS WAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the attached resolution redesignating a 16,719 square feet portion of property at 13425 Fruitvale Avenue as Residential Low Density (RLD) 2. Approve the attached Ordinance rezoning the same 16,719 squaze foot portion ofproperty at 13425 Fruitvale Avenue as R-1-20,000. Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Mayor Kline opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Kline closed the public hearing. KAO/KING MOVED TO APPROVE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION STREIT ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH None NEW BUSINESS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL AGENCY ASSIGNMENTS AND COMMISSION LIAISON PREFERENCES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer explained that each yeaz in conjunction with the Council reorganization the City Council makes new outside agency and Adlloc Committee assignments. City Clerk Boyer requested that Council review the attached information and submit assignment preferences to the Mayor by 5 p.m., December 14, 2005. The resolution of the final assignments will be brought back for Council consideration on December 21, 2005. 6. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL RETREAT TOPICS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Mayor Kline noted that topic requests for the City Council retreat, which is scheduled for February 10, 2006, were due to him by December 15, 2005. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Kline reported that following information: Kevin Moran Pazk AdHoc -there was a chance that the next two meetings would be combined into one meeting. Vice Mayor Kao had no reportable information. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that following information: Sazatoga Historic Foundation -recently held a rummage sale and made raised over $2,000. Councilmember King reported the following information: Hakone Foundation Liaison -premiere of "Memoirs of a Geisha" -December 15, 2006 call Hakone Gazdens for tickets. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that following information: Saratoga Historic Foundation -recently held a rummage sale and made raised over $2,000. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember King reported that she recently attended the League of California Cities Annual reception at the City of Mountain View City Hall. Councihnember King noted that Assembly member Gene Mullin and Pat Dando were honored. Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that the Historic Foundation have been discussing school programs with Lane Weiss, Sazatoga Union School District's Superintendent. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Kline adjourned the meeting 8:00 p,m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 4 2006 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: ~~ SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment -To relax parking requirements in CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts for a period of three years RECOMMENDATION Open and conduct public hearing, approve the Resolution for the Negative Declaration, and introduce the Zoning Text Amendment, waive the first reading, and schedule the item for second reading and adoption on consent calendar. BACKGROUND On April 20, 2005, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission consider options for changes to the downtown Village pazking requirements. The City Council is following the lead of other cities in the Bay Area, which have found that modifying pazking requirements can be an effective, low cost tool to help stimulate revitalization of commercial districts such as Sazatoga's Village. The Planning Commission held two Study Sessions on August 24, 2005 and September 22, 2005 to ensure that the business community and other stakeholders in the downtown Village had the opportunity to provide input on this matter. The Study Session participants, who included Village property owners, business owners and others interested in the Village, supported suspending the current parking requirements for a period of 3 to 5 years. The September 22, 2005 Study Session Staff Report, which discusses the current parking requirements, and a Memorandum discussing the outcome of the Study Session are attached to this report to provide informative background for the proposed Zoning Text Amendment presented below. DISCUSSION Based on the information presented during the aforesaid Study Sessions and a review of the current parking requirements, Staff is proposing a Zoning Text Amendment that would relax all pazking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts. The parking requirements would be suspended until the sum of all new gross floor azea of development or intensification of use exceeds the pazking surplus of 93 spaces during peak demand periods as identified in a parking analysis conducted by the City's consulting traffic engineering firm, Fehr and Peers. Staff proposes that the rate at which to measure the consumption of the surplus parking spaces is one pazking space per 350 square feet of gross floor area, regardless of use. This ratio is consistent with the current requirement in the City's Pazking District 3, which has the most restrictive parking requirement of a114 pazking districts. Staff has chosen this ratio because the pazking requirements for properties located within a pazking district are comparable to those in other cities. Whereas, the requirements associated with the areas outside of the established parking districts are more restrictive than typically found elsewhere. At a ratio of 1 parkltlg Space per 350 square feet of potential development, a maximum of approximately 32,550 squaze feet of gross floor area could be constructed without significant impacts on pazking demand. Staff is proposing that any subsequent development involving the consumption of more than the 93 surplus spaces would require a parking study. The nature of this proposed change to the parking requirements also requires a provision in the Zoning Text Amendment where proposed development in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts is consistently monitored against the `consumption' of the 93-space parking surplus. In addition to the square footage threshold, Staff is proposing that this new method for determining parking requirements shall be valid for three years. Staff finds that specifying a time limit facilitates Staff monitoring of the consumption of the surplus spaces and emphasizes the exclusive nature of this new provision which the City wishes to adopt as a mechanism for revitalizing the Village. The attached Ordinance contains the exact language of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment that would relax all pazking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts subject to the requirements described above. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The General Plan designates the downtown Village area as CR -Retail Commercial. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." The City launched an economic development program in 2001 and has been focusing attention on revitalizing the Village for some time. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would be consistent with Policy LU 7.1 and the City's goals to revitalize the Village. It is anticipated that relaxing the pazking requirements would provide greater flexibility in attracting tenants and/or promote greater investment in individual properties. The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan states under Goal CL7.Oa, "Provide adequate pazking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.' CI.7.1, states, "Review on-street parking policies and utilization in the Village azea" as a policy. Intrusion of pazking demand into adjacent residential neighborhoods is a concern and was strongly considered in formulating the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan in that the proposed amendment relies on a review of current utilization of parking in the Village. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to CEQA requirements, an Initial Study and a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration were prepared by Staff and made available for public review from October 20, 2005 through November 20, 2005. Staff did not receive any public comments on these documents during this review period. Staff has determined that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment could not have a significant effect on the environment. On December 14, 2005 the Planning Commission reviewed the Negative Declaration at a publicly noticed meeting and recommended approval of the Negative Declazation to the City Council. CORRESPONDENCE Staff received one a-mail from a property owner on Big Basin Way in support of the proposed ordinance and a letter from a business owner also in support of the proposed ordinance. Both items are attached to this Staff report. ADVERTISING, NOTICING, AND PUBLIC CONTACT This item was properly posted and notice of the hearing has been placed in the Saratoga News. Notices have also been sent to the property and business owners in the Village area. FISCAL IMPACTS There are no negative fiscal impacts. This zoning text amendment may stimulate business activity in the Village thereby increasing sales tax revenue to the City. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) The current Level of activity in the Village will remain unchanged. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S) This item shall be placed on the next City Council agenda for adoption. The ordinance will be effective 30 days from the date of adoption. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Leave the Zoning Ordinance as it is currently written. 2. Modify and adopt the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. ATTACHMENT 1. Resolution of approval for the Negative Declaration 2. Ordinance 3. (2) letters of support 4. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachment Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-049 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH: A Zoning Text Amendment that would relax parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts WHExEns, the City of Sazatoga City Council is considering amendments of certain sections of the Zoning Code relating to parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts as described in the attached initial study (the "Project'; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing regarding the Project on December 14, 2005 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing regazding the Project at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declazation were routed to the State Clearinghouse and were available for public review from October 20, 2005 through November 20, 2005 and no comments were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and has determined that the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and has recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: With respect to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and based on the information in the staff report for this matter the City Council hereby finds and determines that: 1. Notice of the hearing on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration [ND] was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 2. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the ND prior to this action by the City Council; and 3. No comments were made during the public comment period and atl comments made at the public hearings on the ND were responded to adequately; and Page 1 of 2 4. The City Council was presented with and has reviewed all of the information in the administrative record; and 5. The ND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the ND represents the City Council's independent judgment. The City Council has considered the information contained in the ND and the remainder of the record in considering the Project; and 6. Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and 7. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development and are maintained by the Director of that Department; and 8. There is no evidence before the City Council that the Project will have any potential for adverse effects on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Department of Fish and Game Code. Now THExEFOxE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby: Finds and determines that it has considered and hereby adopts the Negative Declaration attached hereto and recommended by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2005 and based thereon finds no evidence that the Project, may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. PassEn AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council, State of California, this 4`~' day of January 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Norman Kline, Mayor ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Z JUDUILI ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING PARHING REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTfY OF SARATOGADOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declazes as follows: a. The City of Sazatoga's Village business district has long been recognized as an area thathas a mix of businesses that included cross section of retail, service, restaurant, and personal service industries that contribute to our residents' quality of life. b. The City's Village Design Guidelines and Village Improvement Project both contain numerous goals to create a vibrant downtown where the mix of retail and service based businesses exist. c. A nationwide economic recession has reduced the demand for many retail goods resulting in retail business failures and increasing retail space vacancies in the Village. d. There is surplus parking capacity in the Village and this capacity can be used to attract new uses to the Village to promote a more diverse economic climate. e. The General Plan designates the downtown Village azea as CR -Retail Commercial. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." Accordingly, relaxing the parking requirements would provide greater flexibility in attracting tenants and/or promote greater investment in individual properties which would be consistent with Policy LU 7.1 and the City's goals to revitalize the Village. f The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan states under Goal CL7.Oa, "Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.' CI.7.1, states, "Review on-street pazking policies and utilization in the Village area" as a policy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan in that the proposed amendment relies on a review of current utilization ofpazking in the Village. g. The City Council has adopted a resolution pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adopting a Negative Declazation and finding no evidence that the amendments contained in this ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 1 Ordinance No. Section 2. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in bold italics (example) and deleting the text shown in strikeout (ex-ogle) in the sections listed below: 15-35.020 General requirements and regulations for off-street pazking spaces. (a) Except as specified in subparagraph (k) of this Section 15-35.030, at the time of initial occupancy of a site or structure or at the time of an alteration or enlargement of a site or structure, there shall be provided off-street pazking spaces for automobiles in accord with the schedule ofoff-street parking space requirements prescribed in Section 15-35.030. For the purposes of this Section, the term "alteration or enlazgement" shall mean a change of use or an addition which would increase the number of pazking spaces required above the total number required prior to such change or addition. The number of pazking spaces provided for an alteration or enlazgement of a site or structure shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the alteration or enlazgement, unless the pre-existing number is greater than the number prescribed in Section 15-35.030, in which instance, the number in excess of the prescribed minimum shall be counted in calculating the number provided to serve the alteration or enlargement. (b) If, in the application of the requirements of this Article, a fractional number is obtained, one parking space shall be provided for afraction ofone-half or more, and no pazking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one-half. (c) Ifmore than one use is located on a site, the number ofpazking spaces provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed in this Article for each use. (d) The off-street pazking requirements ofthis Article may be satisfied by a common parking facility; provided, that the total number of spaces shall be not less than the sum of the individual requirements, and provided further, that a contract between the parties setting forth the agreement for j oint use of a common parking facility is recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy there is filed with the City. (e) Where parking requirements aze determined by gross floor area, such azea shall not include enclosed or covered azeas used for off-street pazking or loading or interior courts of a building not occupied by a use for which off-street pazking is required, but such gross floor azea shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establishment and any basement, or portion thereof, occupied by a use for which off-street parking is required. (f)The Planning Commission may require that off-street pazking spaces in excess of the number prescribed in Section 15-35.030 be provided for use on a site, if the Commission finds that such additional spaces are necessary to avoid traffic congestion or shortage of curb spaces. (g) For a use not specifically listed in Section 15-35.030, the number ofoff=street parking spaces shall be determined by the Planning Commission or th Community Development Director, based upon the number of spaces required for the most similaz specified use and such information as may be available to the Planning Commission 2 Ordinance No. or the in8-~irestef Communtty Development Director concerning the parking requirements of the proposed use. (h) In all districts except a C-H district, the off-street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15-35.030 shall be located on the same site as the use for which the spaces are required, or on an adjacent site or a site separated only by an alley from the use for which the spaces are required. In a C-H district, the off-street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15-35.030 may be located within three hundred feet of the use for which the spaces are required, measured by the shortest route of available pedestrian access. (i) With respect to any site or structure located within a C-N, C-V, C-H, P-A, R-M or MU- PD district, not more than twenty-five percent of the number of required off-street pazking spaces may consist of compact parking spaces. If, in the application of this subsection, a fractional number is obtained, one compact pazking space may be provided for a fraction of more than one-half and one standazd pazking space shall be provided for a fraction of one- half or less. (j) No repair work or servicing of vehicles shall be conducted in any parking area. (k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, for applications deemed complete between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009, no off street parking shall be required of any new, altered, or enlarged site or structure in any CHDistrict until such time as a total of 32, SSO square feet ofgross floor area beyond that existing on March 1, 2006 ("surplus floor area") has been constructed or otherwise allocated as set forth below in the CH Districts. This provision shall be administered as follows: (i) Surplus floor area shall be allocated on a firsFcome-first served basis, based on the date that the application submittal is deemed complete by the CommunityDevelopment Department; (ii) The amount to be deducted from the surplus floor area for a new or enlarged site or structure shall be the increased gross floor area calculated using the methodology for determining gross floor area in Section IS-3S.020(e); (iii) The amount to be deducted from the surplus floor area for a change in use in or alteration to an existing site or structure that does not increase the gross floor area of that site or structure shall be determined based on the gross floor area subject to the change in use reduced by 3S0 square feet for each parking space allocated to the prior use. This shall be calculated as follows: The total square footage subject to the change in use or alteration ("changed use area') shall be the gross floor area of that portion of the site or structure determined in accordance with Section l 5-35.020(e). The existing parking credit shall be calculated by determining the number ofparking spaces allocated to the prior use of the area proposed for a change in use or alteration and multiplying that number by 350 square feet The amount to be deducted from the surplus floor area shall be the changed use area minus the existing parking credit For example, for a proposed change in use of a 2000 square foot structure with four parking spaces allocated to the prtor use, the changed use area would be 2000 square feet and the parking credit would be 1400 square feet (4 parking spaces multiplied by 350 square feet); this means that the 3 Ordinance No. amount of surplus floor area allocated to the change in use would be 600 square feet (the 2000 square foot changed use area minus the 1400 square foot parking credit). Notwithstanding the foregoiMg, no deduction from the surplus f loor area shall be made or required for any change in use in or alteration to an existing site or structure within a City parking district that does not increase the gross floor area of that site or structure. (iv) Allocation of surplus floor area to an application shall be removed at such time as the application is denied or withdrawn and, for applications that are approver; upon the expiration of that approval. If an application is modified by the applicant or the approval in a manner that changes the gross floor area associated with the application, the allocation shall be adjusted accordingly; (v) The Community Development Department shall monitor and maintain an account showing the amount ofsurplus floor area that has been allocated pursuant to this section and the amount that remains to be allocated; and (vi) Any proposed new, altered, or enlarged site or structure in any CHDistrict that would add more gross floor area than the remaining surplus floor area shall comply with the off street parking requirements set forth in Section 15-35.020(a) and elsewhere in this Code as to the excess floor area unless the applicant applies for and pays the costs of a parking study to be completed by City Traffic Engineer and that study is approved by the Planning Commission and determines that excess parking capacity is available in the CH Districts and recommends that the amount of surplus floor area be increased at least by an amount that would accommodate the proposed new, altered, or enlarged site or structure. Section 3. Severance Clause. The City Council declazes that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase ofthis ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-pazagraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, pazagraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declazes that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declazes its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Sazatoga within fifteen days after its adoption. [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank] Ordinance No. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sazatoga held on the 4th day of January, 2006, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 18th of January 2006: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Norman Kline MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer CTTY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor CTTY ATTORNEY Ordinance No. Atta~hl"ent 3 Page 1 of 1 Lata Vasudevan From: A. Steve Cali [steve_cali~mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 4:03 PM To; Lata Vasudevan Subject: Parking Relaxation for Saratoga Down Town Dear Lata, ! am writing to you because I may be unable to attend tonight's meeting. AS a property owner of the Village Square Shopping Center located at 14510 Big Basin Way I would like to recommend the adoption for relaxing the parking ordinance for the down town area. Thank you for your time, Steve Cali MBF MARTIN BRANT FENSTER • ATTORNEY AT LAW 14625 BIG BASIN WAY • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • TELEPHONE (408) 867-8600 • FAX (408) 867-8260 December 9, 2005 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Attn: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Associate Planner 12E: Application #06-049 -Adoption of Negative Declaration and Zoning Text Amendment for Saratoga Village Pazking. Greetings: My business is located ih the Village on Big Basin Way. I support the above- referenced application and staff recommendations which I believe will help generate further business activity in the Village. Very truly yours, ~~ Martin Fenster MBF:jP ir',~ ~~~~~~~~j QEE 1.3.2005 U~ CITY OF Sq Wi'fUGA •,~irurv ncvc, .... Attachment 4 Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: #06-049 Type of Application: Zoning Text Amendment -Village Pazking Requirements I Location: CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts (Downtown Village) Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP Associate Planner (Meeting Date: December 14, 2005 APN: N/A Department Head: ~~ C H-7 a~rl C H-~ ZnNiNC; i~14TR iC TS Application 06-049 -Zoning Text Amendment -Village Parking Requirements BACKGROUND On April 20, 2005, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission consider options for changes to the downtown Village parking requirements. The Ciry Council is following the lead of other cities in the Bay Area, which have found that modifying parking requirements can be an effective, low cost tool to help stimulate revitalization of Saratoga's Village. The Planning Commission held two Study Sessions on August 24, 2005 and September 22, 2005 to ensure that the business community and other stakeholders in the downtown Village had the opportunity to provide input on this matter. The Study Session pamcipants, who included Village property owners, business owners and others interested in the Village, all preferred suspending the current parking requirements for a period of 3 to 5 years. The September 22, 2005 Study Session Staff Report, which discusses the current parking requirements, and a Memorandum discussing the outcome of the Study Session are attached to this report to provide informative background for the proposed Zoning Text Amendment presented below. DISCUSSION Based on the information presented during the aforesaid Study Sessions and a review of the current parking requirements, Staff is proposing a Zoning Text Amendment that would relax all parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts. The parking requirements would be suspended until the sum of all new gross floor area of development or intensification of use exceeds the parking surplus of 93 spaces during peak demand periods as identified in a parking analysis conducted by the City's consulting engineering firm, Fehr and Peers -please refer to attached summary report. Staff is not proposing changes to the definition of `gross floor area.' The term gross floor azea' is currently defined in Section 15-35.035(b) of the Zoning Ordinance as: ...the term "gross floor area" shall not include enclosed or covered areas used for oft-street parking or loading or interior courts of a building not occupied by a use Eor which off-street parking is required; but such gross floor area shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establishment and any basement, or portion thereof, occupied by a use for which off-street parking is required. If a fractional number is obtained one parking space shall be provided Eor a fraction of one-half or more, and no parking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one-half (Added by Ord. 71-108 S 2,1992) Staff proposes that the rate at which to measure the consumption of the surplus pazking spaces is one parking space per 350 square feet of gross floor area, regardless of use. This ratio is consistent with the current requirement in the City's Parking District 3, which has the most restrictive parking requirement of aIl 4 parking districts. Staff has chosen this ratio because the parking requirements for properties located within a parking district are comparable to those in other cities. Whereas, the requirements associated with the areas outside of the established parking districts are more restrictive than typically found elsewhere. At a ratio of 1 parking space per 350 square feet of potential development, a maximum of approximately 32,550 square feet of gross floor area could be constructed without significant impacts on parking demand. Application 06-049 -Zoning Text Amendment -Village Parking Requirements Staff is proposing that any subsequent development involving the consumption of more than the 93 surplus spaces would require a pazking study. The nature of this proposed change to the pazking requirements also requires a provision in the Zoning Text Amendment where proposed development in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts is consistently monitoted agairiSt 0112 `COT1SUmpt1011' of the 93-space parking surplus. In addition to the square footage threshold, Staff is proposing that this new method for determining parking requirements shall be valid for three yeazs. Staff finds that specifying a time limit facilitates Staff monitoring of the consumption of the surplus spaces and emphasizes the exclusive nature of this new provision which the City wishes to adopt as a mechanism for revitalizing the Village. The attached Resolution contains the exact language of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment that would relax all parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts subject to the requirements described above. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The General Plan designates the downtown Village area as CR -Retail Commercial. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The Ciry shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." The City launched an economic development program in 2001 and has been focusing attention on revitalizing the Village for some time. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would be consistent with Policy LU 7.1 and the City's goals to revitalize the Village. It is anticipated that relaxing the parking requirements would provide greater flexibility in amacting tenants and/or promote greater investment in individual properties. The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan states under Goal CI.7.Oa, "Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.' CI.7.1, states, "Review on-street pazking policies and utilization in the Village area" as a policy. Intrusion of parking demand into adjacent residential neighborhoods is a concern and was strongly considered in formulating the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan in that the proposed amendment relies on a review of current utilization of parking in the Village. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to CEQA requirements, an Initial Study and a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration were prepared by Staff and made available for public review from October 20, 2005 through November 20, 2005. Staff did not receive any public comments on these documents during this review period. Staff has determined that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment could not have a significant effect on the environment and is requesting that the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration. The attached Resolution includes Planning Commission adoption of this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution adopting a Negative Declazation and recommending that the Ciry Council amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to pazking requirements in the downtown Village. Application 06-049 -Zoning Text Amendment -Village Pazlcing Requirements A'rrACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Staff Report for 9122/05 Study Session and Memorandum summarising the Study SeSS10n 3. Summary of Village Pazking Surveys from Fehr and Peers; October 11, 2005 4. Table showing comparison of parking requirements in other cities 5. Initial Study and Negative Declaration Arta chm ent 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-049 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Downtown Village Pazking Requirements WHEREAS, the Ciry of Sazatoga PIanning Commission has received a request to consider. amendments of certain sections of the Zoning Code relating to pazking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at wMch time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declazation were available for public review from October 20, 2005 through November 20, 2005 and copies of said documents were routed to the State CIearinghouse. No comments were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and has determined that this application for a zoning text amendment regarding the downtown Village pazking requirements could not have a significant effect of the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Sazatoga General Plan in that: The General Plan designates the downtown Village azea as CR -Retail Commercial. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would be consistent with Policy LU 7.1 and the City's goals to revitalize the Village. It is anticipated that relaxing the pazking requirements would provide greater flexibility in attracting tenants and/or promote greater investment in individual properties. The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan states under Goal CL7.Oa, "Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods' CI.7.1, states, "Review on-street parking policies and utilization in the Village area" as a policy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan in that the proposed amendment relies on a review of current utilization of parking in the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: A. With respect to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and based on the information in the staff report for this matter the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: 1. Notice of the hearing on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration [ND] was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 2. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportuniry to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the ND prior to this action by the Planning Commission; and 3. No comments were made during the public comment period and all comments made at the public hearings on the ND were responded to adequately; and 4. The Planning Commission was presented with and has reviewed all of the information in the administrative record; and 5. The ND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the ND represents the Planning Commission's independent judgment. The Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the ND and the record in considering the Zoning Text Amendment; and 6. Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the Zoning Text Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment; and 7. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Sazatoga Department of Communiry Development and aze maintained by the Director of that Department; and 8. There is no evidence before the Planning Department that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effects on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Department of Fish and Game Code; and 9. The Planning Commission accordingly recommends that the Saratoga City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. B. With respect to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment, after careful consideration of all testimony and related information the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Sazatoga approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations of the Ciry Code as stated below. Deleted language is shown in strikeout text and new language is shown in bold text. Certain sections of Article IS-35 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES shall be amended to read: 15-35.020 General requirements and regulations for off-street pazking spaces. (a) Except as specified in subparagraph (k) of this Section 15-35.030, at the time of initial occupancy of a site or structure or at the time of an alteration or enlargement of a site or structure, there shall be provided off-street parking spaces for automobiles in accord with the schedule of off=street parking space requirements prescribed in $eCL1011 15-35.030. For the purposes of this Section, the term "alteration or enlargement" shall mean a change of use or an addition which would increase the number of parking spaces required above the total number required prior to such change or addition. The number of pazking spaces provided for an alteration or enlazgement of a site or structure shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the alteration or enlazgement, unless the pre- existing number is greater than the number prescribed in Section 15-35.030, in which instance, the number in excess of the prescribed minimum shall be counted in calculating the number provided to serve the alteration or enlazgement. (b) If, in the application of the requirements of this Article, a fractional number is obtained, one pazking space shall be provided for a fi-action of one-half or more, and no pazking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one-half. (c) If more than one use is located on a site, the number of parking spaces provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed in this Article for each use. (d) The ofT street pazking requirements of this Article maybe satisfied by a common parking facility; provided, that the total number of spaces shall be not less than the sum of the individual requirements, and provided further,. that a contract between the parties setting forth the agreement for joint use of a common pazking facility is recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy there is filed with the City. (e) Where pazking requirements aze determined by gross floor area, such area shall not include enclosed or covered azeas used for off-street pazking or loading or interior courts of a building not occupied by a use for which off-street pazking is required, but such gross floor area shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establishment and any basement, or portion thereof, occupied by a use for which off-street parking is required. (f)The Planning Commission may require that off-street pazking spaces in excess of the number prescribed in Section 15-35.030 be provided for use on a site, if the Commission finds that such additional spaces are necessary to avoid traffic congestion or shortage of curb spaces. (g) For a use not specifically listed in Section 15-35.030, the number ofoff-street parking spaces shall be determined by the Planning Commission or th~l3ireeteF Community Development Director, based upon the number of spaces required for the most similaz specified use and such information as maybe available to the Planning Commission or the Iir~g-$trester Community Development Director concerning the pazking requirements of the proposed use. (h) In all districts except a C-H district, the off-street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15-35.030 shall be located on the same site as the use for which the spaces are required, or on an adjacent site or a site separated only by an alley from the use for which the spaces aze required. In a C-H district, the off-street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15-35.030 maybe located within three hundred feet of the use for which the spaces aze required, measured by the shortest route of available pedestrian access. (i) With respect to any site or structure located within a C-N, C-V, C-H, P-A, R-M or MU-PD district, not more than twenty-five percent of the number of required off-street parking spaces may consist of compact pazlcing spaces. If, in the application of this subsection, a fractional number is obtained, one compact pazlting space may be provided for a fraction of more than ogle-half and one standard parking space shall be provided for a fraction ofone-half or less. (j) No repair work or servicing of vehicles shall be conducted in any parking azea. (k) Notwithstandittg any other provision of this Code, for applications deemed complete between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009, no off street panting shall be required of aay new, altered, or enlarged site or structure in any CH District until such time as a total of 32,550 square feet of gross floor area beyond that existing on March 1, 2006 ("surplus floor area") has been constructed or otherwise allocated as set forth below in the CH Districts. This provision shall be administered as follows: (i) Surplus floor area shall be allocated on afirst-come-Tirst served basis, based on the date that ibe application submittal is deemed complete by the Community Development Department; (ii) The surplus floor area used by any new or enlarged site or structure shall be calculated using the methodology for determining gross floor area in Section 15- 35.020(e); (iii) Any change in use in or alteration to an existing site or structure that does not increase the gross floor area of that site or structure in a Parking District shall not require any allocation of surplus floor area. Outside a Parking District the allocation of surplus floor area for such a change in use or alteration shall be the gross floor area of the portion of the site or structure subject to the change in use or .alteration minus the number of existing parking spaces allocated to-the prior use multiplied by 350 [for example, a 2000 square foot gross floor area change in use with four parking spaces allocated to the prior use would require a surplus floor area allocation of 2000-(4x350)=600 square feet]. (iv) Allocation of surplus floor area to an application shall be removed at such time as the application is denied or withdrawn and, for applications that are approved, upon the expiration of that approval. If an application is modified by the applicant or the approval in a manner that changes the gross floor area associated with the application, the allocation shall be adjusted accordingly; (v) The Community Development Department shall monitor and maintain an account showing the amount of surplus boor area that has been allocated pursuaat to this section and the amount that remains to be allocated; and (vi) Any proposed new, altered, or enlarged site or structure in any CH District that would add more gross floor area than the remaining surplus floor area shall comply with the off street parking requirements set forth in Section 15- 35.020(a) and elsewhere in this Code unless the applicant applies for and pays the costs of a parking study to be completed by City Traffic Engineer and that study is approved by the Planning Commission and determines that excess parking capacity is available in the CH Districts and recommends that the amount of surplus floor area be increased at Least by an amount that would accommodate the proposed new, altered, or enlarged site or structure. PASSED AND ADOP'T'ED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, December 14, 2005 by the following roll call vote: A~tES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission ptt a~hment 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A STUDY SESSION Application NoJLocatlon: Saratoga Village ApplicanUt7wner: City otSaratoga Type otApplication: Coancil Request for Planning Commission Review of Parking Ordinance Staft Planner: Lurie Tbrfow Assistant City Manager Meeting Date: September 22, 2005 ppN; Department $ead: PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION During this Study Session the Planning Commission tray only discuss items related to the project The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters The Study Session is a jact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions jrom or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried though to the forma! public hearing where actions wiU be taken on the proposed project MAPS See attached map of Sazatoga Village parking districts included as Attachment A (not included in the emailed copy of the report). CASE HISTORY Council Request Made: 4/20/05 Community meeting to gather inpul 7/27!05 PC Study Session #1 8/24/05 PC Study Session #2 9/22/05 (fit 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION On Apri120, 2005, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission consider options for changes to the Village Parking Ordinance. The Planning Commission held a study session on the matter on August 24, 2005. The meeting was not well attended by the business community and the Commission asked for a second study session with hopes of having a larger group of stakeholders attend. ZOtQIIVG: CH-1 and CH-2. 1VIEASiJRE G: Not applicable to parking issues. PROJECT DISCUSSION Reasons for Considering Changes to Parking Ordinance The Village has evolved over the past decade or so in ways common to other small. downtowns-services catering to residents have pretty much left, and the buildings, for the most part, are in less-than-perfect shape and are without upgraded infrastructure. The City is investigating changes to the parking requirements as a way to provide greater flexibility in attracting tenants and/or inspire greater investment in individual properties. Other downtowns have faced the same issues and found that modifying parking requirements can be an effective tool to help stimulate the kind of revitalization Saratoga needs. Parking District History The Village is divided into five parking areas-four specific parking districts and then everything else. A summary table is presented here: Location YearEsta6lished Parkin Standard Businesses associated with 1974 One space for each 473.5 sq.ft. of gross Parkin District 1 floor area Businesses associated with 1979 One space for each 380 sq.ft. of gross Parkin District 2 floor area Businesses associated with 1988 One space for each 350 sq.ft. of gross Parkin District 3 floor area Businesses associated with 1979 One space for each 380 sq.ft. of gross Parkin District 4 floor area Businesses associated with 1 space per 200 sq.ft. Boss floor area all other pazking areas for retail use except for restaurants- they are required to have 1 space for each 75 s .ft. of oss floor area The requirements for properties located within a parking district are comparable to other cities. However, the requirements associated with the areas outside of established parking districts are more restrictive than typically found elsewhere. The information presented i' _\ to Council in the report included as Attachment B contains a comparison table of parking standards. Under the parking district structure, property owners in each area were required t0 pay & parking district assessment that was used to repay bonds sold by the City. The bond proceeds were then combined with City funds to pay for the purchase of and improvements to the parking areas. In return, each property owner then received a specific number of development rights based on a calculation that took into account square footage of their property among other considerations. The properties outside of the districts were not required to pay a parking district assessment. This difference in financial support is the basis for the different requirements. KEztra" Spaces fn DistrlM 3 All public parking areas in the Village are owned by the City. Only one district has "extra" spaces-District #3 has 31.2 spaces available. The City owns these spaces as well. In October 1988, these 31.2 extra spaces were converted to 312 development rights (DR) and made available to the property owners. in that district at a cost of $1,360 per DR ($13,600 per space) until January 30, 1989. After that time, the price increased to $1,450 per DR (or $14,500 per space). After September 1989 the price was indexed to increase according to a calculation used by Caltrans. The price in January 2001 was calculated at $19,546 per space (in response to a request). Today's price has not been calculated. Any property owner could potentially purchase or lease the extra spaces in VPD #3 and depending on which property owner took advantage of the remaitting 312 DRs (31.2 spaces) with which uses, the following new development could occur with no further changes to the ordinance: Square feet of new space in each District with use of remainin 312 develo ment ri is Parking Parking Parking Parking Properties in District #1 District #2 District #3 District #4 area outside Parking Districts RetaiUOffice 14,773 11,856 10,920 11,856 6,240 Restaurant 14,773 11,856 10,920 11,856 2,340 However, the purchase cost of the 31 Z development rights using the current Caltrans calculation would likely exceed $600,000. Options for Changes to Parking Ordinance A number of changes to the parking requirements are possible. Staff developed the following list: • Make changes to requirements that apply to the area not currently in a parking district • Create a new parking district • Change the parking requirements in all areas to provide greater flexibility lIl property use and expanBion; for example, cutting in half the number of spaces needed for various uses ^ Suspend all pazking requirements for a fixed amount of time, i.e., one year Community Meeting Part of Council's direction to staffin April was to gather input from Village property and business owners. All were invited, as well as other interested parties, to a meeting on July 27, 2005, to provide feedback on the options identified by statl'and/or make other suggestions. Approximately 25 community members attended including the following: Eugene Zambetti Michelle Beck Annette Casabone Jason Sweeney Christine Calice Mitchell Cutler J.C. Masek Klaus Pache Greg Pache Bernard Wallace Kathy Phelan Arlene & Jim Rosenfeld Chris Van Hoy Rick Rats Marilyn Marchetti Francisco Bill Cooper John Marian Nasser Heikali Virginia Fiorentino Kathleen King, Norman Kline, John Livingstone, Michele Braucht and I attended on behalf of the City. Discussion included the reason,for the meeting, how changes to existing parking requirements fit within the Village Revitalization goals, a brief history of parking districts, review of options for pazking changes developed by staff, and suggested new options by group. A list of options-both those generated by staff and by the goup-with specific comments is included as Attachment C. No option for change was supported by everyone; however, when asked who would like the Vi]]age to stay the same and the City to take no action, no one raised their hand. Other comments made at the meeting: • Explore ways to revitalize the Village other than changing the parking at least for now • Monitor development elsewhere in Saratoga (i.e., Argonaut,. Quito, etc.) because activities there can adversely affect Village • City shou]'d consider permitting bed & breakfast establishments ~" t / • Investigate options related to the creek, i.e., create a Creek walk, culvert the creek and pave/construct over it; staff agreed to research Staff suggested installing parking meters to create funds to support perking garage construction -received mixed response from the group • Parking time limits if enforced need to reflect actual use, i.e., make the time frame 4 hours instead of two to allow shoppers to lunch, spa, shop in same visit. Planning Commission Study Session #] on 8-24-OS The Commission heard the information presented (above) and listened to comments provided by several business and/or property owners. However, the number of attendees was small and only seven speakers addressed the Commission with wide ranging opinions on the options provided. The Planning Commission felt greater input was needed and a second study session was scheduled. Planning Commission Study Session #2 on 9-22-05 Meeting agenda will include the following: 1. Review activities to date including all options generated by attendees of the July 27, 2005, meeting 2. Planning Commission opportunity to modify; eliminate or add options 3. Discussion of options by meeting attendees including ability to indicate their specific preferences 4. Summary of meeting results and next steps Ertv>;Etolvn~ivTaL D>/TER>timvnTlox Changes to the parking ordinance are subject to environmental review under CEQA. ColrnKUxITY I1vPil1' All attendees who signed in at the July 27 meeting were notified and invited to this study session, in addition to the regular noticing procedures. Arracl~rrrs A. Map of Saratoga Village Parking Districts (not included in the emailed copy of the report) B. Two-page table of options developed by staff and the community group at the July 27 meeting, including pros and cons of each C. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing AfI"idavit and Noticing Labels (not included in the emaited copy.of the report) CITY DF SARATOGA ~~~I~ ~~ST~~~~S ~ ~Q ~~ Wyss /~ Y sA~ ew HI~_ i LEGEND ~~ Parking District #1- 118 Spaces Parking District #2 - 65 Spaces ~~- Parking District #3 - 206 Spaces Parking District #4 - 60 Spaces Businesses using Parking District #1 Businesses using Parking District #2 ~'~~~• •~~~~«_< ~isina Parking District #3 ~~ ._;~ ; ~~ .• ~. ~. ~~ . i ; `. •-`. 1~, \. ~•,~ f' ~. N Apri( 2005 ;., ,. ~. ::~~ ., Appendix B -Village Parking Changes Table Option A: Make Option B: Option C: Change the parking Changes to Area Create a new requirements in all areas (i.e., Outside Parking parking disMM reduce by blip; would create a Districts Only number of design rights for each ezisting property owner tbat could be traded and/or sold to others needed for new business a or ez snsioa - r ~ - r ~ ~;~ ', 7 Staff Consistency Doesn't directly Equal treatment/opportunity identltied affect those within Pros established parking districts Addresses most Would require All could benefit; would create restrictive of the agreement and opportunity to buy and sell azeas buy-at ($) by parkin8 ro owners Associated with a Substantial potential for number of energizing the Village properties so the effect could be substantive and ositive Group May improve Coutd crate an Would allow the Village to grow identified business for in-lieu fee toward Pros everyone building a azkin ara e ~~ ~ ~ ~~: Sniff Ma be ercetved Itn lamentation Irn lamentation and identified ~ inequitable to and administration challenging Cons properties in other administration azkin districts challen May create too May create too May create too much traffic much traffic much traffic Group Creates inequity None noted. There are vacant spaces now; identified with other property how would this option help? COAS ~WnelS A credit bank is not attractive; 'ust more bureaucrac Heard of example in other city where owners were able to get onl $500 er credit appendix B -Village Parking Changes Table Option D: Suspend Option E: (Generated Option F: (Generated all parking by the groap) by the groap) requirements fora Relaz all parking Suspend parking fazed period requirements and' requirements bnt development assess in-lien fee for restrictions (i.e., lot new developmwt; coverage and height) in funds would p the Village fora 5-year toward new parking eriod ara e ~ Stsff Equal Equal trea~ent/new identified treatment/opportunity development wouldn't Pros ge! something for nothin Easy to implement Relatively easy to and administer administer Impact could be monitored year to .year; program could be either stopped or extended depending on outcome Greatest potential for energizing the Villa e croup Discussion evolved to Could create a "gold identified create Options E & F rush" mentality P''OB see next columns 1 e ~ r t~;ks'ti ~ 4'v~~x~ ~ x3. ). -. staff May create too much Changes to both parking Would take identified tratyic and development would considerable amount of Cone be a little more complex in-lieu fees to cover than arkin alone ara a costs Some properties could benefit more than others Discussion evolved to create Options E & F ' see next columns Group Could create a "gold identified rush" mentality Cons May jeopardize the Village's quaintness City caf Saratoga City Manager's ~ce 13777 Fnntvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 945050 Tel:408/868-1215 fax: 408/867-8559 Memo To: Planning Commission From: Assistant City Manager Lorie Tinfow Date: October 24, 2005 Re: Results of the Planning Commission Study Session held on September 22, 2005 Approximately 20 members of the Village community attended the meeting and provided input to the Planning Commission on the Village paking issue. The group included six property owners, two business owners, five who are both property and business owners, and three others interested in the Village. (Several others arrived late and their affiliation wasn't captured.) Tn addition to me, staff included Community Development Director John Livingstone and Administrative Services Director Michele Braucht. Mayor Kathleen King, and four Planning Commissioners attended: Jill Hunter, Linda Rodgers, Susie Nagpal and Robert Kundtz. Some discussion at the previous Planning Commission meeting and retreat had reflected confusion about the appropriate focus of the Commission. We started by reviewing a copy of the minutes from the Council meeting where the Planning Commission was asked to develop a recommendation for changes to the Village Pazking ordinance (see attached). The minutes clarified that the Commission was to consider only Village parking. Comments and ideas related to the Village on topics outside of pazking were collected and I promised to share [hem with the Village Task Forte (which was done last week). The group then refined the options for the Village Pazking Ordinance to the following four (with variations): • Option 1: Create a new parking district for the areas outside of existing districts ^ Option 2a: Change parking requirements in all areas ^ Option 2b: Change pazking requirements in all areas and remove pazking requirements for businesses like flower carts ^ Option 3a: Suspend all parking requirements for a fixed period ^ Option 3b: Suspend al] parking requirements for a fixed period and develop a parking monitoring mechanism (i.e., conducting a parking study at various activity points) ^ Option 3c: Suspend al] parking requirements for a fixed period and develop a parking monitoring mechanism (i.e., conducting a parking study at various activity points) and require financial participation in a new parking district for properties outside of an existing district ^ Option 4: No change to the existing ordinance The Village community members were then given dots to indicate their preference. No one chose Options 1, 2 or 4. Option 3a received ten dots (mostly property owners), 3b had one and Option 3c had three dots. Since everyone supported suspending the parking ordinance for a period of time, we asked the group to indicate their preferred namber of years for the suspension and got the following response: Number of Years Votes 1 year p 2 years 1 3 years 3 4 years 2 5 ars g Conclusions 1. The meeting participants unanimously preferred suspending the parking ordinance, and most preferred a suspension of between 3 and 5 years. 2. No one supported leaving the ordinance as-is. All participants were encouraged to attend the follow up Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting, and were told they would be notified when the meetings were scheduled. • Page 2 Attachment 3 Fer1R & Pelrlis i RA NS OOR to"lOVf CO ASJ UAb75 MEMORANDUM Date: October 11, 2005 To: John Livingstone, City of Saratoga From: Sohrab Rashid, City Traffic Engineer Subject: Summary o/tillage Parking Surveys 1025-446 Fehr & Peers conducted two sets of surveys to determine parking occupancy in the village area of Saratoga. The surveys were conducted in September 2001 and July 2002 and included counts of occupied parking spaces in the off-street parking district lots, as well as those on the street. We summarized the findings of the 2002 surveys in a July 23, 2002 letter to Lorie Tinfow and have attached a copy for your use. This memorandum provides a brief summary of the 2002 findings for use in evaluating the potential elimination of off-street parking requirements in the Saratoga Village area for a defined period. Summary of 2002 Parking Survey Results The portion of the Saratoga Village area included in the previous parking surveys extends from just west of 5"' Street to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (see Figure 1 of the July 23, 2002 letter). The parking supply in this area includes 504 off-street spaces in five off-street parking district tots, plus 135 on- streetspaces on big Basin Way and 3rd, 4"' and 5"' Streets. The survey results showed that the 504 off-street parking spaces were never more than 83 percent occupied on a weekday or Saturday. This resulted in a minimum measured surplus of 86 spaces during the peak periods. Peak parking demand occurred from 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm on weekdays and from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm on a Saturday. On weekdays, the demand was at or below 70 percent for the remainder of the day. While 2002 weekday ocxupancies were very similar to 2001 levels, the 2002 Saturday levels were over 20 percent lower than 2001 data. This was due in part, we believe, to an additional 42 spaces at the Saratoga Village Center that was not included in the 2001 surveys. As expected, on-street spaces were occupied at a higher level since they are closer to most building entrances. The occupancy levels of on-street spaces varied between 93 and 95 percent, indicating a surplus of seven (7) spaces during the peak periods. Thus, a total of 93 spaces (86 in the lots plus 7 on the street) would be available during the peak demand periods. Conclusions Recent surveys have not been conducted to determine the effect of the economic downturn over the last several years. For information purposes, recent Vaffic counts in Saratoga and other jurisdictions have shown that overall traffic volumes are the same as or less than counted in 2000 through 2002. Thus, existing parking demand in the Saratoga Village area is likely the same as or less than 2001 and 2002 levels. 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95t 10 (408) 278-1 www.fehrantloeers.com Attachment..,4..., ~ ~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ g ~x ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~~a ~,~ S .+~ ~, z ~$ y3 ~ ~^ ~ . ~~~~ .. 0 '~ ~~~ r~~ ~ a~~ I ~~ ~~ $~ ~ $~ ~~ G Y ~ ~N ~ .~ C~~ ~. ~~~ ~~~Q~ ~ .e ~ ~ ~yy,, i _ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~."~ a~ a~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ i V' ~~ ~- N g r D ~ R w ~ V m ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ O ~~ O O N A ~ N ~ ~p (~ ~ v yh ~ .~ ~.~ o ~. ~. d . a e~ I ~~ ~~ $~ ~~ ~~ G ~~ ~~ S` $~ ~~ ~/ O U d ao ~ w $~,~'~ ~ ~~~ 1_ ~'~ .v -a i ~ ~~ ~I I .~ ~~~~ g ~ E. ~~ ~~ ~ I w ~ ^ ~ ~ _G I~ $~~ 0 0 ~~ -' ~ ~~ M~~ ~o. ~~g ~~ ~ o g _~ ~' ~y, " ~ $N a g G ac N _~~ u' r V .~ Q ~~ ~ ~~ ~A s ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~ o 0 -~ ~~~ Fo: o E $ t~ ~ . r d a ~ :~ _Q ~~ '%^ tM ~ r w O 0 L 4 ! ~ V I ~~,~~ ~=~ G ~ o ~~~~ ~5e ¢ ~ 8 G p C p bu G A rrr~~~ N ~+ c~ ~ d 4 Z 6 Attachment 5 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT LOCATION: Saratoga Village [Commercial Historic (CH1 and CH2) zoning districts) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: Application No. 06-049 -The City of Saratoga proposes an Ordinance that would temporarily relax all parking requirements in the CHt and CH2 zones until such a time that new development or intensification of uses equals to or exceeds. the parking surplus as identified in the parking study. REVIEW PERIOD DURING WHICH THE CITY WILL REGEIVE COMMENTS: October 20, 2005 -November 20, 2005 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT: John F. Livingstone, Community Development Director City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 DATE/TIME/PLACE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS: Tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission December 14, 2005. COPIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW: The Initial Study is available for public review at City Hall, Planning Department located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT: There will not be a significant effect on the environment since the scope of the project involves temporarily relaxing parking requirements within the Saratoga Village. Any potential new development or intensification of uses may utilize parking spaces that already exist and that are underutilized. Any subsequent development or change in use would require a parking study. NEGATIVE D E C L A R T I O N CITY OF SARATOGA Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Is Not required For Application #06-049 Saratoga Village Parking Ordinance The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act, and the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description: The project area encompasses all of the CH1 and CH2 zoning. The area, oftentimes knows as the Saratoga Village, consists of an urban/village downtown environment with a mix of one to three story buildings composed of retail, personal services, and residential uses. The City of Saratoga is proposing an Ordinance that would temporarily relax all parking requirements in the CH1 and CH2 zones until such a time that new development or intensification of uses equals to or exceeds the parking surplus as identified in the parking study. Currently, 93 spaces are underutilized during peak hours. At a ratio of 1 parking space per 350 square feet of potential development, approximately 32,550 square feet could be constructed without significant impact to parking. Any subsequent development would require a parking study. Project Location: Saratoga Village [Commercial Historic (CH1 and CH2) zoning districts] Applicant: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvaie Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 r Property Owners: Various Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department f 3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Planner: John F. Livingstone, AICP Community Development Director Reason for Negative Declaration: The proposed Village Parking Ordinance is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 20~" day of October 2005. n. J J .Livingstone, P munity Develop ent Director page 2 Negative Deolaratlon Village Parking Ordinance INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Project Title: Application No. 06-049 -Village Parking Ordinance 2. Project Location: Saratoga Village [Commercial Historic (CH1 and CH2) zoning districts] 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 4. Contact Person & Phone Number: John Livingstone, Community Development Director, (408) 868-1231 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial Retail and Professional Administrative 7. Zoning: Commercial Historic (CH1 and CH2) 8. Description of Project: The project area encompasses all of the CH1 and CH2 zoning. The area, oftentimes knows as the Saratoga Village, consists of an urban/village downtown environment with a mix of one to three story buildings composed of retail, personal services, and residential uses. The City of Saratoga is proposing an Ordinance that would temporarily relax all parking requirements in the CH1 and CH2 zones until such a time that new development or intensification of uses equals to or exceeds the parking surplus as 1 Initial Study Village Parking OrdJnance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, California identified in the parking study. Currently, 93 spaces are underutilized during peak hours. At a ratio of 1 parking space per 350 square feet of potential development, approximately 32,550 square feet could be constructed without significant impact to parking. Any subsequent development would require a parking study. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Northerly Medium density residential (including single family and multi-family residential housing) Easterly Low density single family residential housing Southerly Low density single family residential housing Westerly Medium density residential (including single family and multi-family residential housing) 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project: o Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services o Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities/Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: ^ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, CalHornla ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect ort the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but a least one effect (1) has been adequately .analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been address by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECIARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. (Y/a5 Community Development Director Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Santoga, ca++torn+a Potentially Less than Lass than No Impart significant impact significant Impact significant Impact with mitigation incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: A} Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X Discussion: No Impact. The project area is currently not part of any scenic vista. Existing views of the project area are those of commercial buildings, ancillary buildings, and a parking lot partially screened by trees and other vegetation. Resulting views of the site after implementation of the parking ordinance would be substantially equivalent to existing views. Additionally, the development standards contained within the muhicipal code and all applicable design guidelines would need to be complied with. (Source: Review of proposed project). B) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a scenic highway? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Most areas within the Village are already developed, and therefore a significant, if any, loss of trees is not expected. Although the project site is not located within a scenic vista, all potential and future development is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore assessment of environmental impact to potential historic buildings will be done on a case-by-case basis. Given the aforementioned reasons, a less than significant impact is expected. (Source: Review of proposed project). C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its .surroundings? X Discussion: No impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any direct effects on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As a cumulative impact, additional development within the Village may occur. However all new construction will be required to adhere to all applicable design guidelines and obtain all design review entitlements. Therefore, the visual character of the site after any potential development that results from the proposed Ordinance will have no impact on the visual character and quality of the site area. (Source: Review of proposed project). Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saretoga, Callfom/a Potentially Less than Less than ~ No Impact aignlflcant Impact slgniflcant Impact significant Impact with mitigation incorporated a) create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or night time views in the area? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance recommends altering the required number of parking spaces. Although this may ultimately result in additional development within the Village, any subsequent and additional lighting that would be installed will represent only an incremental addition to existing sources of light and glare. Furthermore, each project would be review individually and would be subject to the City's design review process and to CEQA. Therefore, a less than significant impact is expected on this subject matter. (Source: Review of proposed project). Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Cal/tornla Potentially Less than Lass, than No Impact significant Impact ' I signlflcaM Impact I algniflcant Impact with mitigation Incorporated 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, aS shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X Discussion: No impact. The project area has a City of Saratoga General Plan designation of Commercial Retail and Professional Administrative and is zoned Commercial Historic (CH1 and CH2), which allows for commercial uses. The site does not include agricultural or farmlands. The project area is currently developed with multiple buildings, is not used as farmland, and is not under a Williamson Act contract. There are no important farmlands or agricultural resources on or adjacent to the project area. The proposed Ordinance may result in .additional development as a cumulative impact, but the possible development would occur within the area zoned for commercial uses and no other changes that could occur on site or on adjacent sites would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts to farmland would occur as a result of the proposed Ordinance. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan and Saratoga Municipal Code) B} Conflict with existing Toning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 2A. C) Involve other changes in the existing environment that due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X Discussion: No )mpact. Refer to discussion in section 2A. In/tfa/ Study Village Park/ng Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, CalNom/a Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant Impact significant Impact significant Impact I with mitigation incorporated 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: A) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable alt' gU211ty p1211S~ X Discussion: No impact. The Ordinance proposes to temporarily alter the parking requirements of the Saratoga Village. Implementation of this ordinance will not impede the ability to enforce air quality plans. Therefore no impact in this subject matter will occur. B} Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any direct impact on the air quality standard as the traffic study prepared for the project cites 93 available parking spaces during peak hours. A cumulative impact that could result from the proposed Ordinance is additional development with the Saratoga Village. At a rate of 1 parking space required for every 350 square feet of development, approximately 32,550 square feet of development could occur before impacts to parking are realized. As the subject area lies within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), those guidelines are used to assess air quality impacts. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the size of the potential project is below the project size likely to generate significant emissions (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, page 25). As the potential project scope (as a cumulative impact} is below the project size likely to result in significant emissions, the proposed Ordinance will not conflict with applicable air quality plans, violate air quality standards, or contribute substantially to any air quality violations. The proposed Ordinance will result in traffic and parking patterns that are identical to what currently exists and will not result in the creation of objectionable odors. (Source: Fehr & Peers Summary of Traffic Surveys, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors}? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 3A. Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Caliromfa Potentially Less than Leas than No Impact significant impact i significant Impart I significant Impact with mitigation incorporated D) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 3A. E) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 3A. Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Sararoga, Calllbrrtla Potentially Less than Lass than No Impact significant Impact I significant Impact I significant impact I with mitlgatlon incorporated 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Have a substantia! adverse effect, either directly or through habitat IT10difICat1011S, 011 any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X Discussion: No Impact. Saratoga does not have any areas designated as a critical habitat according to the Critical Habitat Portal of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. The Yuma myotis and the long-legged myotis (bat species) are listed as natural communities in the Saratoga area in the Department of Fish and Game's list of species or natural communities. Neither of these bat species are listed in the state and federal 'List of Endangered and Threatened Animals of California' prepared by the Department of Fish and Game. The only wildlife preserve in the Saratoga area is the 175-acre Montalvo Arboretum. The proposed Ordinance will not affect this area directly or indirectly through cumulative impacts, (Source: City of Saratoga Municipal Code and SCVWD Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of 1% Flooding, City of Saratoga General Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the CA Department. of Fish and Game.) B) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as it will not result in the development of the habitat of endangered species. The Ordinance may indirectly result in development in the Village, but there witl still be no impact due to the fact that much of the Village area is already developed and not within any riparian or sensitive habitat. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the CA Department. of Fish and Game) C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? lnltial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, CalJfornia Potentially I incorporated I Lesq, than I No Impact significant impact, significant Impact significant impact with mitigation X Discussion: No Impact. This subsection is not applicable. The scope of the proposed Ordinance does not include filling or dredging of wetland, coastal, marine or riparian areas, nor will its cumulative impacts affect these areas. Also refer to discussion in sections 4A and 4B. (Source: Project knowledge and review} D) Intertere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in sections 4A and 4B. E) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The City of Saratoga has a tree ordinance in place. However, the proposed Ordinance will not conflict with this ordinance being that the proposed policy will alter the number of parking spaces required for varying uses. This change will not directly affect biological resources. Cumulatively, the policy change could result in additional development. However, the potential construction will occur on land that has already been developed. Furthermore, the proposed policy will not affect the City's existing tree ordinance. (Source: Saratoga Municipal Code) F) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Discussion: No impact. Refer to discussions in sections 4A, 4B, and 4C. 10 !nlt/a! Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Callrornfa Potentially Less than I Less than I No Impact significant Impact I significant Impact significant impact with mitigation incorporated 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical feSOUPCe 8S defined in CEQA §15064.5? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will apply to the parking standards of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Upon implementation, acumulative impact that may be realized is the demolition of existing buildings to construct new structures. Any and all demolition as well as new construction will be subject to the requirements of CEQA, including those that pertain to significant historic structures and resources. (Source: Saratoga Municipal Code, and CEQA Guidelines) B) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA §15064.5? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance will have no impact on archaeological resources, as its intention is to alter parking requirements within the Saratoga Village. Implementation of this Ordinance may result in new construction. This new construction would be subject to the City's standard conditions of approval, which require work to be halted if archaeological resources or human remains are discovered within a 50-meter radius. The stipulation also requires that work be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the findings. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures will be formulated and implemented. (Source: Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University) C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X Discussion: No Impact. The project site has not been identified as containing any unique paleontological or geological features. Also refer to discussion in section 56. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan) D) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of format cemeteries? ~ ~ lnitla/Study Vfllape Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Sararoga, Cal1/ornia Potentially Less than Less than No Impact signlflcant Impact ' s(gnifteant impact signiflcant Impact with mitigation Incorporated X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussions in sections 5B & 5C. t2 Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Cal!/orn/a Potentially Less than Less than No Impact signiflcant impact I signiflcant Impact I signiflcant Impact with mitigation incorporated 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: A) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The San Andreas Fault is the only area within the City and its Sphere of Influence that the State has designated as a Special Studies Zone. The project site is located in the San Andreas Fault Zone (I). Construction on lands with these soils classifications requires a process referred to as Geotechnical Clearance, where detailed geologic and geotechnical analyses are prepared. by a private engineer and peer reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Conditions imposed by the City geotechnical consultant are incorporated as conditions of project approval. Additionally, as part of the plan check process, all proposed projects will be reviewed by the City's structural engineer ahd will be required to meet requirements in the 2001 California Building Code. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map 1 and City of Saratoga Municipal Code). (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 6a(i). (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map 1). (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Geological clearance [as described in 6.A(i)] will be required for future construction on the properties since this area, located in the San Andreas Fault Zone (I), is estimated to have a high probability of landslide potential should an earthquake occur. Additionally, as part of the plan check process, all proposed projects will be reviewed by the City's structural engineer and will be required to meet requirements in the 2001 California Building Code. Also refer to discussion in section 6a(i). (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Safety Element) 13 ~ Initial Study Village Parklnp Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, CalNornla Potentially Less than Less than No Impact signifleant Impact signifleant Impact signifleant Impact with mRlgatbn incorporated (iv) Landslides? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have an impact on this subject matter. However, landslide probability is high in the San Andreas Fault Zone (I) and geological clearance jas described in 6A(i)] and compliance with the 2001 California Building Code will be required for future construction on the properties. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards; Key for Map 1) B) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any direct impact on this subject matter. However, future construction may result in grading activities that would require the issuance of a grading permit. During the design review process, building plan check, and construction of any proposed structures, soil erosion and the loss of topsoil will be reviewed and monitored. The City will require compliance with all conditions of the grading and drainage permit, including a current NPDES permit. (Source: Project knowledge and review). C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any impacts on soil stability. The majority of the project area is located in the sun zone. Level ground and gentle slopes underlain by thick unconsolidated granular material characterize the sun category. it is subject to settlement and soil creep and liquefaction is possible in low areas during strong earthquakes. Stream erosion may trigger shallow landslides along creek banks. However, a significant portion of the developed hillside of Saratoga is characterized by areas of potentially unstable ground. These conditions will be addressed at the time of any proposed future development in the manner described in section 6A(i), above. (Source: City of Saratoga Ground Movement Potential Map). 74 /nit/al Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, California Potentially I n orporetad I Less than I No Impact significant Impact signlfcant Impact signifcant Impact with mitigation D) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform .Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 6C. 15 fnit/al Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Vrlfage, Saratoga, Calltornla Potentially Less than Less,than No Impact significant Impact I significant Impact I significant Impact with mltigatbn incorporated 7, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: A) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the rou4jn8 transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X Discussion: No Impact. This subject matter is not applicable to the proposed Ordinance, as it will relax parking requirements and will not directly (or through cumulative impacts) significantly result in the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impact will be incurred. (Source: Project knowledge and review) B) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 7A. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 7A. D) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The project area includes some existing businesses that store or dispose of hazardous materials. However, the proposed Ordinance does not have any direct impact on the storage or disposal of these or any other hazardous materials. New businesses or construction that results as a cumulative impact from implementation of the Ordinance will be required to meet all applicable requirements for hazardous materials. (Source: Santa Clara County, Dept. of Environmental Health database). 16 Init/al Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Sarofopa, Call/ornia Potentially Less than Less than I No Impact signiflcant impact signiflcant impact I signiflcant Impact I with mitigation Incorporated E) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ~eSpOr1S@ plan or emergency evacuation plan? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any impact on emergency response, as roads will remain as what currently exists. Any new development that requires any public works improvements will be required to be reviewed by the fire department to ensure adequate access by existing citywide emergency response. (Source: Project knowledge and review) F) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance matter. The project site is located within impact will be incurred. (Source: Project knowledge and review) will not have any impacts on this subject an already urbanized area. Therefore, no t 7 fnlt/a/ Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Califomla Potentially I incorporated I Less than I No Impact significant Impact significant Impact significant Impact with mitigation 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER 4UALITY. Would the project: A) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not directly have impact to this subject matter. As a cumulative impact, construction within the Village may occur. Erosion during grading and site construction can affect the quality of stone water runoff and impact water quality. However, a grading and drainage permit will be required from the City. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained oh site will be submitted and reviewed by staff at the time a design review application is filed. (Source: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit order No. 01-119 and the Santa Clara Valley Urban Ruhoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook) ) B) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X Discussion: No Impact. No wells or changes to the landscape that would affect groundwater recharge are proposed as part of the project. Moreover, future construction after adoption of the proposed Ordinance will have no impact on this subject matter. (Source: Project knowledge and review) C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a .stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 8A. D) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ~a rnrrrar seedy Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Virfage, Saratoga, Ca!!(orn/a Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant Impact I significant impact I slgnifleant impact with mitigation Incorporated X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any direct impacts in this subject matter. New development, as a result of one of the cumulative impacts from the proposed Ordinance, will be required to meet all applicable regulations. The potential construction is expected to have no impact in this subject area. (Source: Project knowledge and review). E) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed .the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 8A and 8B. F) Otherwise substantially degrade water? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 8A. G) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The project site is located in within areas of 500- year flood as well as areas of 100-year flood. The Ordinance will not directly place housing within the area; however construction that results as part of the implementation of the Ordinance may place housing within the designated flood area. However, the majority of Saratoga is within this flood designation and a less than significant impact is expected. (Source: FEMA, project knowledge and review). H) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 19 Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, California Less than Lest than No Impact Potentially significant Impact' I sNg~ imc'g~opaet significant Impact incorporated X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Not applicable. Refer is discussion in section 8G. I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving. flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X Discussion: No Impact. The project site is not located near a reservoir. Therefore, no impact in relation to this subject matter will occur. J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Discussion: No Impact. The project site Is not located in an area that is prone to flooding, tidal waves, or mudflow. Therefore, no impact in relation to this subject matter will occur. yp Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Califwn/a Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant impact significant Impact I significant tmpact with mlUgation incorporated 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: A} Physically divide an established community? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance would affect the Saratoga Village. The proposed Ordinance will alter parking requirements and through its implementation, may encourage new development within the downtown. The proposed Ordinance will not physically divide the Village and therefore no impact will occur. (Source: Project knowledge and review) B) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance will result in changing the parking standards of the Saratoga Village. It will not conflict with any policy or regulation with jurisdiction over the project area. Therefore, no impact will occur. (Source: Project knowledge and review) C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance is not applicable to this subject matter, The City does not have an adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan, Conservation Element) 21 ln/tlal Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Callfornla Potentiatiy Leas than Less than No Impact significant Impact slgniflcant Impact significant Impact with mitigation Incorporated 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be Of v21ue t0 the region and the residents of the state? X Discussion: No Impact. Mineral resources within Saratoga and surrounding areas include sandstone and shale. There are no mines or quarries known to be operating in Saratoga or its sphere of influence. (Source: General Plan, Conservation Element). B) Result in the loss of availability of a IocaAy-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer fo section 10A. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan: Conservation Element). 22 initial Study V/llage Parking Ordinance Sarato8a Village, Saratoga, California Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant Impact I significant impact ~ significant Impact {I with mkigstlon Incorporated 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: A) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, br applicable standards of other agencies? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not result in noise level atypical of commercial properties, as the current use of the project site is also commercial. Implementation of the Ordinance may encourage development, of which construction activities and typical activity associated with commercial development is expected to meet the noise standards of the Municipal Code. (Source: Review of the proposed project). B) Expdsure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels (i.e. noise created inside a building, vibration transmitted through the ground, freight train line within 50-100 feet, adjacent to Army base)? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. This subject matter is not applicable to the proposed Ordinance. As new development may result as part of the implementation of the Ordinance, some noise is expected for temporary periods of time during the construction of potential new buildings. However, there are no sources of ground borne vibration around the project area. Therefore, a less than significant impact in this area will occur. (Source: Review of the proposed project). C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. A substantial permanent increase is not expected. However, refer to discussion in section 11A. (Source: Review of the proposed project). D) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 23 Initla/Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Calilornla Potentially Less than Less than I No Impact significant im act ' si niflcant Impact aigniflcant Impact p 9 with mitigation incorporated X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to discussion in section 11A. (Source: Review of the proposed project). 24 Inltia! Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Vilhge, Saratoga, California Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant Impact significant impact I significant Impact with mittgaNon incorporated 12. POPULATIONS AND HOUSING. Would the project: A) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X Discussion: Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Ordinance would not directly induce substantial population growth. Implementation of the Ordinance may result in additional construction that will subsequently result in new businesses. However, the new business will result in a minimal increase in population .and will not be significant. Therefore a less than significant impact will occur in this area. (Source: Review of the proposed project and experience with similar applications). B) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the consVuction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Discussion: No Impact. The Saratoga Village is primarily comprised of commercial development where housing is incidental. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Ordinance will not substantially change the amount of existing housing. Therefore there will be no impact in this area. (Source: Review of the proposed project). C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 12B. yg Inltia! Siudy Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, CallforMa Potentially I ~ orporated Less than I No Impact aignifleant Impact aigniflcant Impact I sigrilflcant impact with midgatbn 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts assOClBtEd With the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection Police Protection Schools Parks Other public facilities X X X X X Discussion: No Impact. The Ordinance, if adopted, will new or physically altered governmental implementing the Ordinance may result ii expected to occur. (Source: Review of the proposed project). not directly result in a need for need for facilities. The cumulative impact of i new development, but no impact is 26 Inii/a! Study Village Park/ng Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Callfornla Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant Impact IJ signlflcant Impact signlflcant Impact with mitigation incorporated 14. RECREATION. A) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and fegional parks Of other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any impacts on this matter. It is not expected to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, (Source: Review of the proposed project). B) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 14A. 27 Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Callrornia Potentially Less than Less than I No Impact significant Impact I significant Impact I significant impact with mitigation Incorporated 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: A) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will have a less than significant impact in relation to this topic. The traffic study for this project cites an excess of 93 parking spaces that are available for use during peak times. As the parking spaces are existing and any proposed development (up to 32,550 square feet) that may occur as a result of the Ordinance would already have the parking that is required, no significant increase in traffic and the existing traffic load and capacity will occur. (Source: Fehr & Peers Summary of Traffic Surveys and review of the proposed project). B) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X Discussion: No impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have a direct effect on this subject matter. Development within the Saratoga Village may occur as a cumulative impact. However, given that the parking spaces required for .the possible construction already exist, no impact to level of service standard will occur. (Source: Review of the proposed project). C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? X Discussion: No impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any direct effects on this topic. The development that may occur as a cumulative impact of this Ordinance will require additional parking spaces. Since these parking spaces already exist, no impact will occur in relation to air traffic patterns. (Source: Review of the proposed project). D) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 28 /n/tlal Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, CaU/ornla Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant Impact I signlflunt Impact I sigplflcant Impact I with mitlgaflon incorporated X Discussion: No Impact. No new roadways are proposed as part of the Ordinance. They are also not expected to be a cumulative impact. Therefore, there will be no impact to this subject matter. {Source: Review of the proposed project). E) Resuit in inadequate emergency access? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussions in sections 7E and 13D. F} Result in inadequate parking capacity? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will alter the parking standards within the Saratoga Village such that no parking spaces will be required until the currently existing 93 spaces are allocated to various uses. At a rate of 1 parking space for every 350 square feet of development, approximately 32,550 square feet could be constructed without needing additional parking. After the 93 spaces are allocated to new development, the applicant will be required to provide additional information regarding parking, such as a parking analysis. (Source: Fehr & Peers Summary of Traffic Surveys and review of the proposed project). G) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X Discussion: No impact. The proposed Ordinance will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. (Source: Review of the proposed project). yg lnltMl Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Vll/age, Saratoga, Call/ornla Potentially Less than Lesq than No Impact significant Impact I significant Impact I significant impact with m(tigation Incorporated 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: A) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality COntrOj Board? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance would not result in an increase in the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQB), as its direct implications involve altering the existing parking requirements. Cumulative impacts could include construction within Saratoga Village; however the potential development is not expected to exceed RWQB requirements. (Source: Review of the proposed project). B) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance will not have any direct impacts on this subject matter. Any new construction that is a cumulative impact will be required to be connected to the sewer system, which will be able to accommodate such an addition. (Source: Review of the proposed project). C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X Discussion: No Impact. The proposed Ordinance will not directly result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Prior to design review approval of any proposed new construction, it will be required that all storm water runoff be retained on site, unless it has been determined through geologic reviews that retaining stormwater on site would be detrimental to soil stability. (Source: Review of the proposed project). D) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 30 Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Cal!/omia Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant impact significant impact I significant impact with mitigation Incorporated X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 166. E) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 166. F) Be served by a landfi(I with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 16B. G) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Discussion: No Impact. Refer to discussion in section 16B. 3t Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, Callrornla Potentially Less than Less than No Impact significant impact significant Impact I significant impact I with mitigation incorporated 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degradt? t111? QU2111y t)~ t~12 2S1U1~011CI12nt, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The proposed Ordinance will not directly degrade the quality of the overall environment, as it is a policy measure that will reduce the number of parking spaces required in the Saratoga Pillage. The area has already been developed and is within an urbanized area and therefore cumulative impacts will not include the items mentioned in the question above. (Source: Review of the proposed project). B) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a projecfare considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X Discussion: Less than significant impact. The cumulative impacts of the proposed Ordinance will be less than significant, as the current available number of parking spaces allows for approximately 32,550 square feet of development (93 parking spaces at a rate 1 parking space required for every 350 square feet of development). Any construction beyond this threshold will be required to undergo a parking analysis. As the parking to accommodate this construction currently exists and no new infrastructure is necessary, less than significant cumulative impacts will occur. (Source: Fehr & Peers Summary of Traffic Surveys and review of the proposed project). C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Discussion: Less than significant impact. Refer to the discussion in section 17B. 32 1nlt/al Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, CalilornJa Potentially Less than Lass than No Impact significant Impact I significant Impact I significant Impact with mitigation Incorporated ATTACHMENT: 1. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Summary of Village Parking Surveys 33 Initial Study Village Parking Ordinance Saratoga Village, Saratoga, California SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 4, 2006 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY: John Cbemmrbone ~+~"^ l"J~eaQ.e-ti.z AGENDAITEM: CITY MANAGER: ~~~G~-~----~ Dave Anderson DEPT IIEAD: SUBJECT: Kevin Moran Park Task Force Report RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Accept report and provide direction regazding the Kevin Moran Pazk hnprovement Project. REPORT SUMMARY: Backeround• At the September 21, 2005, City Council Meeting, Council established a nine member Task Force consisting of three neighborhood representatives, two community representatives, two sport user representatives, and two City Council members, to explore options to improve the two undeveloped azeas of Kevin Moran Park (KMP). The process was established to build consensus in the lazger community to develop the park. The City Council asked the Task Force to come back with a plan that everyone could agree on. Further direction from City Council included a January 4, 2006, due date for submission of a report regarding the results of the KMP Task Force process. Discussion• The KMP Task Force met five times over the course of a three month period to discuss .options for improving the pazk. Each meeting was scheduled for two hours including a block of time for public input. Agendas and action minutes are attached for your information (Attachment #1). In addition, the Task Force received numerous emails from the public providing input regazding the pazk (Attachment #2). Task Force Meetings: Summary of the Process: Given the nature of past attempts, and the long history of conflict, the only practical way was to use a consensus decision making model. In the process decisions are based on consensus instead of uP or down votes. Using this approach, the groups that held opposite views on park development narrowed their differences to one non-design issue; playing games at the park. All other issues were resolved. This issue could not be resolved from a design standpoint, although this approach was tried by exploring physical limitations, use limitations, enforcement limitations, and an external game field option. The following is a summary of each meeting which illustrates how the options presented by each group evolved and how the Task Force came to a consensus outcome. Task Force Meetine #I (October 6.20051: The first meeting was an opportunity for the Task Force to introduce themselves and to discover why each member was interested in participating in the process. The first part of the meeting was also used to lay out the ground rules and process including the goal of the Task Force which was to create a consensus plan for submission to City Council by January 4, 2006. Park trees became a focus of discussion and it was agreed that an azborist report be prepared as soon as possible to assist the process. The remaining time of the meeting was used to create a wish list of improvements and amenities for the park. Task Force Meeting #2 (October 20.20051: The meeting began with a site visit of KMP. The meeting then continued at City Hall where the Task Force developed a list of agreements and disagreements. The list prompted the Task Force to request that the next meeting include a Large map of the park with an agreed upon list of templates representing various amenities for inclusion in the park. The templates included but were not limited to scaled drawings representing various size sport fields, sport courts, restroom, parking, community garden, meditation garden, and other miscellaneous amenities. Task Force Meeting #3 (November 3.20051: The meeting began with distribution of a draft arborist report (Attachment #3). The Task Force was asked to review the report for discussion at the next task force meeting. Each stakeholder group spent the remainder of the meeting developing their group's ideal pazk layout (Attachment #4). Task Force Meetin~#41November 17, 2005): The draft azborist report was accepted with no significant feed back from the task force members. A memo from the City Attorney determining the designation of the $MP as a Community Park also was discussed (Attachment #5). The remaining portion of the meeting was devoted to discussing the pros and cons of each pazk layout by "ranking" the three plans by each group. The ranking exercise determined which plan had the most consensus features. The Community Group plan was determined to have the majority of the desirable features amongst the stakeholder groups. At this meeting discussion ensued regarding "use" of the pazk for organized sport games in contrast to what could be physically developed in the park. It became apparent that utilization of flat grass for organized sport games would not be acceptable to the Neighborhood Group. However, the Neighborhood Group was willing to concede to additional practice space, restrooms, and parking in the park. Task Force Meeting_#5 (December 13.2005 Originally Task Force Meeting #5 was scheduled for December 1, 2005, and Task Force Meeting #6 was scheduled For December 15, 2005. Because of busy holiday schedules it was not possible to have full stakeholder participation at these two meetings. In light of the schedule conflicts it was determined that Meeting #5 could take place with full participation on December 13. It was decided to extend this meeting from the normal two hours to four hours in anticipation that scheduling full participation in Meeting #6 would be difficult if not impossible due to everyone's busy schedules. At this meeting a continuation of the discussion over the use of the park for organized sport games continued. For almost the entire meeting the Task Force discussed various scenarios regarding organized sport games in the park. The Task Force made a great effort, to overcome this issue, but in the end the game issue was left unresolved. This was largely because this is a policy issue rather than a design issue. In the end the Task Force agreed on one plan with two alternative field layouts for development of the Park (Attachment #6 and Attachment #7). The only significant difference between the two alternatives is practice and game fields. Alternative Field Layout #1 has an additional practice field but no game field and Alternative Field Layout #2 includes a game field. In Conclusion, the Task Force worked well together and stakeholder group provided intelligent development options for the park. The Task Force was able to come to consensus on a majority of the proposed amenities which are being brought forward to the City Council for consideration at this time. Next Steps In the Park Development Process: There aze numerous options that can be considered for the development of the KMP improvement project. Two alternative field layouts developed by the I{MP Task Force are as follows: • Alternative Field Layout #1: (Attachment #6) • Alternative Field Layout #2: (Attachment #7) After City Council provides direction on which field layout is preferable, Council needs to provide further direction on the subsequent process to implement its decision. Different approaches to the follow-on process are listed below. • Form a Task Force consisting of the same membership as the current 1{MP Task Force. • Form a Task Force consisting of a different membership then the current KMP Task Force. • Form a Council Ad Hoc to oversee the development process with staff. • Staff develops the project with periodic "check-ins" with City Council. • Council derived option. The next step in the development process is preparation of an environmental report followed by design of the park improvements. Currently the City has a contract with MPA Design for design services and recommends that they continue as the consultant for the design of the park project. Staff also recommends that the City Attorney's Office be lead on preparation of the environmental document in light of their expertise in this area. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time, an engineers' estimate of the project will be generated as part of the design process. In addition, a cost estimate for prepazation of the environmental study will be prepared for Council's review. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The park project would not move forwazd to the next stage at this time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Depends on City Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Over 800 Notices were mailed to the area surrounding Kevin Moran Park neighborhood residents notifying them of the City Council Meeting (Attachment #8). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Agendas and Action Minutes. 2. Public Input. 3. Arborist Report. 4. Stakeholder Groups Ideal Park Layouts. 5. Designation of the Park. 6. Alternative Field Layout #l. 7. Altemative Field Layout #2. 8. Notice to Residents. Attachment 1 KEVIN MORAN TASK FORCE MEETING AGENDA ~ 1 DATE: Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA I. Introduction &'t Goals II. Self Introductions of Stakeholders III. Mission Statement, Process Description, &t Ground rules IV. Stakeholder Caucus V. Stakeholder Presentations VI. Closing Statements VII. Next Steps -Homework ADJOURNMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING -OCTOBER 20, 2005 Kevin Mgran Task Force Meeting #1 October 6, 2005 Action Minutes Task Force Members Absent: Marty Goldberg Stakeholders Wants List Neighborhood Stakeholders • 1 Tennis court, and 1 basketball court • Meditation gazden • Maintain and irrigate Heritage Otchazd • Seating and picnic area • Bocce ball and/or sand volley ball • Community garden • Do not modify West Valley Sanitation easement area • Protect trees • Keep bowl and pathway and play equipment • Leave existing improvements as they aze Sports User Group Stakeholders • 2 full size fields (110 x 65 yds) • 1 integrated infield - basebalUsoftbal] diamond • 1 full size basketball court • 1 full size tennis court • Off street pazking (nose in design) • Bathrooms similar to those at Wildwood Pazk Adjourned at 8:05 p.m, to the next meeting - October 20, 2005 at 5:00 p.m..in Kevin Moran Pazk KEVIN MORAN TASK FORCE MEETING AGENDA ~ Z Action Minutes DATE: Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. PLACE: Kevin Moran Park,12415Scully Avenue Administrative Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Task Force Members: Ballingall, Clabeaux, Escobar, Goldberg, Jacobs, Kao, Kline, Miller, and Pranys Staff: Cherbone and Borel Absent: Escobaz I. Field Visit -Tour of Kevin Moran Park II. Announcements A. Discussion Items ^ Membership and Staff Changes ^ Minutes • History of KMP B. Staff Update • Plot map -catalogue trees ^ Park Template ^ Photos of Wildwood restrooms ^ List of Ciry Park amenities III. Action Items A. Approval of Minutes -Approved 7-2-0, Ballingall and Goldberg abstain IV. Public Comments V. Stakeholder's Agreements Park should be developed • Integrity of aesthetics be maintained • West Valley Sanitation line cannot be moved Infrastructure mitigates impact to neighborhood • Keep core play area • Par course could be adjusted but content needs to be maintained • Neighborhood fence line buffer zone • Safe all weather access to overpass • Park used for practice now • No large bathrooms Stakeholder Disagreements • Removal of trees • Heritage orchard to remain Agreement of templates to bring to the next meeting fOT diSCUSS10ri • .rennin Basketball • Full size soccer and 5 partial size fields • Bocce ball • Lacrosse • Volleyball • Picnic Area - 4 tables • Parking area - 2 varieties • Meditation garden • Community gazden • Orchard • Small restroom • Softball ADJOURNMENT AT 8:25 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING -November 3, 2005 KEVIN MORAN TASK FORCE MEETING AGENDA ~ 3 Action Minutes DATe: Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Task Force Members: Ballingall, Clabeaux, Escobar, Goldberg, Jacobs, Kao, Kline, Miller, and Pranys Staff: Cherbone and Borel Absent None I. Public Input II. Action Items A. Approval of Minates -Approved 8-I-0, Escobar Abstained III. Arborist Report Update -Staff distributed Draft Arborist Report to Task Force Members - to be accepted at next meeting. IV. Template Exercise -Each User Group created a Park layout. V. Priority Setting Exercise -Did not have time for this exercise. ADJOURNMENT TO AT 8:45 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING -November 17, 2005 KEVIN MChRAN TASK FORCE MEETING 1~GENDA # 4 Action Minutes DArE: Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. PACE: Administrative Conference Room, I37T7 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Task Force Members: Ballingall, Clabeaux, Escobar, Goldberg, Jacobs, Kao, Kline, Miller, and Pranys Stag: Cherbone and Borel Absent: None I. Action Items A. Approval of Minutes -Approved 9-0 II. Arborist Report Discuss draft report -Accept Arborist Report with no changes III. Model Prioritization and Trade Offs Discuss conceptual park layouts - Stakeholders Groups ranked layouts IV. Public Input ADJOURNMENT' AT 8:20 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING -TUESDAY, December 13, 2005 KEVIN MORAN TASK FORCE MEETING AGENDA ~ 5 Draft Action Minutes DATE: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 6:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Task Force Members: Ballingall, Clabeaux, Escobaz, Goldberg, Jacobs, Kao, Kline, Miller, and Pranys Staff: Cherbone and Borel Absent: None I. Final Meeting Schedule • Extend meeting until 10:00 p.m. II. Action Items • Approval of Minutes -Approved 9-0 with changes III. Continuation of Model Prioritization and Trade Offs Discuss conceptual park layouts IV. Preparation For City Council Meeting • Decide not to hold another Task Force Meeting • Present one Pazk design with two alternative field layouts to January 4, 2006 V. Public Input the City Council on ADJOURNMENT AT 10:20 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING -City Council Meeting, January 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Attachment 2 Kristin Borel From: Joanne Combleet (jcombleet~sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, December Zi, 2005 5:34 PM To: Kristin Borel Cc: jcornbleetQsbcglobal.net Subject: Kevin Moran Park Task Force Dear John Cherbom, I wtli be out-of--town for the Jan 4, 2006 meeting and would like to comment: 1. Kevin Moran park is a neighborhood park on a quiet street, not a thoroughfare, not near a thoroughfare street. Scheduling of sports activities (other than practices) will generate too much traffic on an intemel neighborhood street. There is limited parking in the vicinity of Kevin Moran park. Furthermore 1 have seen the parking/traffic situation at Calabezas Park on Blaney Ave. during the weekend sporting events, and it is intolerable-too many cars, too little parking. I cannot imagine such a "tartest" on one of our intemel neighborhood Saratoga streets. 2. There is much more land available in the vicinity of the Saratoga Library for development of sports frelds-I think that location is much more accessible to public thoroughfare streets. 3. I want the City Council to answer a question forme: Why is there abundant city monies for an enhanced park (and for a scone entrance way to Saratoga at DeAnza and Prospectl) when there is no money to keep the church property (North Campus) on Prospect? It does not make sense to me to give up land because of financial hardship, yet spend money developing a neighborhood park! I would like the answer to #3 in writing from the City Council. Sincerely, Joanne Joanne Combleet 12105 Saraglen Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 408-255-6572 jombleet@sbcglobal.net Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: ReidMaylQaol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 200512:10 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: Re: Kevin Moran Park I would like very much to attend a meeting on the future of Kevin Moran Community Park. However, my schedule is set in stone and I will be out of town. If I could be there on January 4, I would say: Please, let Kevin Moran (or Scully Park, as we have known ft for the past twenty-nine years) stay as it is now. Our community needs a beautiful, quite place for people to walk, sit and meditate; Just Ilks h is now. Congress Springs serves one segment of our neighborhood. Scully (Kevin Moran) serves another. it Ia perfect. Leave It as it is. Sincerely, Reid May, Marilia Drive December 22, 2005 Public Works Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Kristin Borel RE: Request for Construction of Petanque Site in Azule or Kevin Moran Parks As residents of the Greenbriaz Tract in Sazatoga, we first want to thank the city of Saratoga for providing a beautiful neighborhood park, Azule Park, close by our homes. It is awell-designed and enjoyable park. However, we do have one request. We need an area set aside for boules or Petanque, the French version of bocce ball. Petanque is a wonderful game for friends or families. It is increasing in popularity in the United States. All ages can play. Petanque is organized for family and neighborhood fun and also can be organized at club and national levels. Information on the game can be found on several web sites, including the following: httn://www.usanetanoue.ora/ httn://wwwpetanqueamerica.com/ httn://wwwpetanaue.or¢/ Unfortunately, the closest existing Petanque field is at Flood Park in Menlo Pazk. The requirements for Petanque are very simple and are much less costly than those for bocce ball. The field should be approximately (but not perfectly) level, with a packed sand/gravel topping (similaz to the topping used on the Paz Course at Azule and Kevin Moran Parks) over a bed of crushed rock for drainage. A few pebbles on the surface are desirable -they act as random obstacles. A raised border surrounding the field is useful (but not a necessity) to prevent errant boules from leaving the playing field. No maintenance is needed, so no added maintenance cost will be incurred. A bench or two can be useful for players and spectators. An area for Petanque of 20 meters by 30 meters (approximately 65 by 100 feet) would accommodate several games simultaneously. The area does not have to be limited to those dimensions - a greater area will be welcome. It is important to have room for more than one game at a time since the optimum maximum number ofplayers is six, and each game can consist of several rounds and require several hours for completion. We believe that such an aiea could be easily incorporated into the existing design of Azule Park or new design for Kevin Moran Park. We urge you to consider constructing a Petanque field available to the TeS1deI1tS Of $gtg10g$, gild we will be happy to supply any additional information needed for its design and construction. Yours truly, Devin Utter 20055 Kam Circle, Saratoga 408-446-3655 Leon Mardirossian 19926 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga Kevin Moran Pazk Kristin Btsrel Page 1 of 1 From: Jahn Cherbone Sent: Monday, December 18, 2005 b;22 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park From: Ann Waltonsmith Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:44 AM To: John Cherbone; Cathleen Boyer Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: Hanna Schild [mailto:hschild@juna.com] Sent: Fri 12/16/2005 7:34 AM To: Nick Streit; Ann Waltonsmith; Kathleen King; Norm Kline; Aileen Kao Subject: Kevin Moran Park City Council Please keep Kevin Moran Park a neighborhood park. We seniors are walking every day in that park. Thank you Kurt and Hanna Schild 19829 Veronica Drive Saratoga CA 95070 Kristin Borel From: 1250manC~comcast.net Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:41 AM To: Kristin Borel; Aileen Kao; Bridgitte Ballingall; Elaine Clabeaux; Howard Miller, John Cherbone; Marry Goldberg; Mary Ann Escobar; Norm Kline; Peter Pranys Cc: SyedamirbukhariQaoi.com Subject: Re: FW: Tuesday Task Force Meeting Attachments: FW: Tuesday Task Force Meeting FW: Tuesday Task Face Meet.. ,population of the very young is increasing.' Yes. And when they reach the age when they want to be playing soccer and other sports, just where will they play? In the neighborhoods of other people who must make the compromises and sacrifices that you and your neighbors won't make? If you folks in the KMP neighborhood wish to have the rest of the community make sacrifices for YOUR children (e.g. KMP area children), then the KMP neighbors themselves need to be willing to make similiaz sacrifices for your own children. It is not reasonable for the KMP neighborhood to send your children to other neigborhoods to play sports while refusing to accomodate them in your own, when you cleazly have the ability to do so. Other communities have begun to take the position that Saratoga children should not be allowed to use their playfields because Saratoga does not contribute it's fair shaze. They want their fields for their children. Will we come to the point where other neigborhoods in Saratoga seek to exclude KMP neighborhood children from playing on fields in their neighborhoods for the same reason? Will those folks say 'If you want your children to play then go build fields in your own neighborhood?' I have heazd some neighbors say that they'll file lawsuits etc. etc. They of course may do this. While I realize that you are not seeking to exclude other children from your neighborhood, nevertheless the rest of the community will have a perception that they aze being sued to keep THEIR children out. Rather than being supportive, they will instead construe this as a grave insult and a selfish and self centered act. Paul Jacobs -------------- Original message ----_----__---_-- From: 'Kristin Borel' <kborel@sazatoga.ca.us> > From: Syedamirbukhari@aol.com [mailro:Syedamirbukhari@aol.com] > ,Sena Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:09 PM Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: SyedamirbukhariQaol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:09 PM To: Kristin Borel Sub)ect: Tuesday Task Force Meeting I guess' you were in the chair yesterday. My remarks about "strange" meeting were in light hearted jest and certainly not aimed at you or anyone in particular. Towards the end it was becoming too much of passing fire buck. I thought you handled everyone with remarkable ability and patience. Thanks. I would like to be on the interested parties list. If I may be allowed to write a few lines: Natghbors are the most affected members of the community. We love this park as it !s and do not want a sports complex. We do not want more traffic.lMe do not want more noise. Above all we want safety on our streets. Neighbors due to lack of side walks walk on the street, push strollers with tittle children on the streets. Demographics in our neighborhood is changing. Population of the very young is increasing. The neighbors wvgl accept reasonable changes. Best regards. Syed Amir Bukhari Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent• Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:52 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Agenda Items -----Original Message----- Fmm: NotTn Kline Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 200511:07 PM To: Dave Anderson; Cathleen Boyer Cc: John Cherbone; Aileen Kao Subject: Agenda Items Tonight was the last night of the KMP Task Force, until city council gives additional direction. We came up with one plan that consists of 9090 of the solution. This includes pazking, bathrooms and many community items. There are two alternatives for field layout in the plan. 1 Two Half Size Fields. 2. 1 full size soccer field and Ilat area (practice field), in middle of the existing path area. The Task force was unable to achieve consensus on either alternative, so we felt best to give the plan to council to resolve that one outstanding issue. I addition, it was requested that which ever option, or any plan taken, the Task Force should be assigned to help the Designer implement the Park. In addition I will be placing several items on future agendas, hopefully on Jan 4th. 1. Propose A CIP project to put grass and a bathroom at the West Valley parking lot with a use agreement. 2. Decide if a Task Force is required to look into other IIat grass opportunities in the city. Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: Dean Haritos [dean.haritos@pushmx.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 20051:52 AM To: 'Elaine Clabeaux'; 'Peter Pranys'; affyman#Qcomcest.net; brige26@hotmail.com; hmiller aQapple.com; markesco@aol.com; Norm Kline; Aileen Kao; John Cherbone; Kristin Borel Cc: Ann Waltonsmith; kk2king@comcast.net; Nick Streit Subject: Public input meeting -Kevin Moran Park I'd like to request a public input meeting for the proposed changes to Kevin Moran Park. I have been a neighborhood resident for almost 5 yeazs and the park has been a key part of what makes ow neighborhood wonderful. Being able to retreat to the park played a key role in my successful battle against cancer for over a year in 2004-2005. I am writing this from the Hong Kong 4irport en route from Bombay; that should give you an indication of how important this issue is to me! Thank you for your consideration, Dean Haritos 19921 Viewridge Drive Dean Haritos PushMX Software www.oushmx.com 408.287.7136 x300 Page 1 of Z Kristin Borel From: elan nonnenberg [anonnen@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 200512:38 PM To: Aileen Kao; Bridgitte Baltingalt; Elaine Clabeaux; Howard Miller; John Cherbone; Marty Goldberg; Mary Ann Escobar; Norm Kline; Paul Jacobs; Peter Pranys; Kristin Borel Subject: KMP -meet the needs of soccer and the neighborhood Hello Task Force Members, As I will not be able to attend tonight's KMP Task Force meeting, I'd like to provide my observations and request to you in writing. After studying the Sazatoga AYSO Proposal, and aleady understanding the neighborhood position on KMP 'improvements', it appears that we are in agreement that: 1. Weekday soccer practices are OK at the park 2. We don't want to significantly increase the impact of traffic on the park area 3. There is a need to accommodate U24+ soccer players, not just the U10 players. 4. There is neither a desire nor a need to use the park for weekend practices/games. 5. Parking spaces need not be increased and restrooms are not required. It therefore seems to me fairly straightforward to accommodate both the Soccer and Neighborhood needs by expanding the 'flatgrass' to include two SOyd X 5 Oyd practice fields for the U14+ teams. Switching from U10 to U14+ practice, as the AYSO requests; will probably increase traffic slightly on weekdays, but still be bearable for the neighborhood. It's also fairly straightforward to conclude that there MUST BE NO FULL-SIZE GAME FIELDS at the park. A full-size SOyd X 100yd game field would immediately introduce organized games to the park, not only on weekdays BUT ALSO ON WEEKENDS ! ! This is not the expressed desire of Saratoga AYSO. This would also greatly impact traffic in direct oppostion to AYSO's proposal to be'traffic neutral' and even 'reduce parking demand'. Clearly the neighborhood vehemently opposes full-size fields and organized games at the park for many reasons -traffic, safety, etc. After agreeing on practice fields and no game fields, it should be fairly easy to agree on the other elements to be included in the park update (basketball court, tennis court, meditation garden, apricot/prune-plum trees, rerouting the parcourse, etc.) As you put your proposal together for the park, please accommodate BOTH the neighborhood and the soccer proposal. Practice fields are the primary requirement of organized Soccer. Practice fields for weekday use are acceptable to the neighborhood. Just do it ! ! regards, Alan Nonnenberg Northampton Drive PS. Lacrosse is a dangerous sport, requiring helmets, face-guards, and pads. This sport has no place in a general-usage neighborhood park. Kttstin Borel From: Adele Salle [salle~usfca.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 200511:48 AM To: 1250man~]comcaast.net; peterpQcadence.com; Kristin Borel Subject: KMP issues This email is to remind you of important considerations regazding proposed changes at Kevin Moran Pazk First and foremost is the issue of safety-1. LaCrosse balls traveling at high speed can endanger adults and children in the pazk. 2. Likewise, soccer balls can do the same at similar speeds with older players. 3. Restrooms pose safety issues as they provide a secluded location for unsavory and possibly criminal activities. 4. Parking congestion and backing out of parking spots opens the possibility of serious accidents and injury. We ask for the acceptance of the neighborhood plan. It gives the soccer groups what they want, maintains the safety of the park and further ensures the beauty of the pazk as it exists. Before a decision is made, a public meeting should be allowed as was the case with every other task force. The voices of the residents in the neighborhood should be given ample forum as they will be ones who will live with the Kristin Borel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Attachments: Hello Task Force Members, R Alley [valley@pacbell.netJ Tuesday, December 13, 200510;55 AM Aileen Kao; brige2li@hotma{I.com; Elaine Clabeaux; hmiller®apple.com; John Cherbone; martin_goldberg@affymetrix.tAm; Mary Ann Escobar, Norm Kline; 1250man~comcaSt.n@t; 1250man@comcast.net; Kristin Borel kmp-Neighbors@yahoogroups.com Kevin Moran Park High Parking issues regarding development of KMP - 2.doc; AYSO web proposal - Kevin Moran.htm I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting and therefore I wanted to provide you with comments via emalt. I feel the key issue at hand is making KMP available for organized sports games. If organized sports games are allowed to be played in KMP it will dynamically change the character and quality of life in our neighborhood. As the traffic analysis that I have previously provided you shows, one regulation size field wpl generate traffic'and parking requirements for 72 cars an hour in our neighborhood all day Saturday and Sunday (see attached). The only way to prevent the flat grass areas to be utilized for "practice only" is to design them that way. This means non- regulation size fields that will accommodate more practice space but preclude games. If you look ai the Saratoga AYSO web site they have asked for more "practice" fields and have stated that they do not want to increase the traffic in our neighborhood see the attached web page (http://www.saratogasoccer.org/fa1105/kevin_moran.htmi). "Remove our U10 players practicing at the park and replace them with U14+ players that need larger practice areas. This would be done in a way that would be traffic neutral and actually reduce parking demand." "Our goal with the petition is not to advocate a specific solution, but to state our position in clear teams of wanting more grass, and our commitment to see it done responsibly. We want to responsibly improve the park without negatively impacting this neighborhood or the existing uses of the park. There are loss of way to do this. The wording of the petition was meant to articulate our respect for the park, for the neighborhood, and for the concerns of all people in the city. We wanted to make it clear that we value the existing park and donY want to do anything that would adversely impact the neighbors (beyond the unavoidable short-term problems of construction activity)." Smaller practice fields are consistent with the national AYSO guidelines (http://soccer.org/Support/SearcFU'Tq=size). "Smaller fields mean more players are directly involved in play, creating increased levels of both concentration and interest. The reduced field size encourages more shots on goal by all players, therefore more goals scored." Although lacrosse is a great game I do not feel that it is appropriate for a general usage park. The fact that the players are required to wear helmets, face guards and pads is proof enough that playgrounds and walking paths near the game field would be unsafe and a liability to the City. Again, this type of activity does not belong in a park, it belongs In a sports complex that can provide adequate public safeguards. Please increase the total amount of flat grass in the park but do it in a way that will preclude high traffic games. thank you for your consideration. Bob Ailey Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: Denise Goldberg [ojibway®comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:56 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Community Plan Dear Kristin, Please be sure that this message gets forvvarded or brought to the KM Task Force. Thanks. Denise From: Denise Goldberg [mailto:ojibway@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:29 AM 70: 'Kristin Borel'; jcherboneQsaratoga.ca.us Subject: Kevin Moran Community Plan Dear Kristin and John, I was able to attend the end of the KM Task Force meeting on Thursday and I looked over the different plans. I am concerned about the wmmunity plan in that the proposed lacrosse freld blocks segment 18 of our traNs system. Unless they were to build a wall around it, pedestrians and bicyclists are going to cut across that field, path or no path. They should realize that That is the crossing point for Blue Hills Elementary, MNler Middle School and Lynbrook High students to commute to school and it is one of the few bicycle paths in the city. Ida not know 'rf this has been discussed. If the field was shifted a bit and the path was shifted a bit it might work. If the path is shifted too much though people will continue to cross the field, it is human nature for people to take the shortest route, especially if they are running late to school. I would hate to put in an expensive field and see k ruined, I would appreciate if you could pass this concern on to the KM Task Force. Thanks and have a great Thanksgiving holiday! Denise Goldberg Chair, Saratoga Trails Committee Kristin Borei From: Norm Kline Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:55 AM To: ee~ones@pacbeii.net Cc: brige26@hotmail.com; hmiller@appie.com; markesco@aol.com; Aileen Keo; John Cherbone; Kristin Borel Subject: Re: Request for Public Input Meeting for Kevin Moran Park Deaz Betry and Gene This is a task force meeting. Normally task force meetings do not have public input. We had some early on, but at the request of all task force groups, because of time restraints, we have limited public input in these meetings. There is time after the task for meeting where I will invite comment. Of course there will bee amble time to give comment to the city council when it takes up this item in January. The Task Force doesn't decide on the pazk, it can only recommend a plan. Thank you again. Norman Ott Dec 13, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Eugene Jones wrote: > Is there any plan for a public input meeting prior to the final vote > on the fate of our beloved Kevin Moran Park? > It is my understanding that such meetings were held on other similar > park changes and we would certainly appreciate getting one last chance ~ to save our park from destruction. > Regards, > Betty and Gene Jones > 19648 Ladera Court > Sazatoga, CA Kristin Borel From: Robertson, Brian D (Brian) [bdrobertson~lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:22 AM To: Aileen Kao; 'Bridgitte Ballingall'; 'Elaine Clabeaux';'Howard Miller'; John Cherbone;'Marty Goldberg';'Mary Ann Escobar'; Norm Kline;'Paul Jacobs ;'Peter Pranys'; Kristin Borel Subject: KMP Task Force members -please strongly consider When the Task Force convenes this week, I respectfully request your wholehearted concern for the neighborhood community of Kevin Moran Paxk. The community at large will benefit greatly by adopting the compromises proposed by the KMP Neighborhood representatives, it keeps the plan within the confines of the $400k budget, has the least fiscal drain for maintenance and retains a safe environment (direct pathway) for children going to and from the local schools. More specifically, here are the key points: AYSO has consistently asked for additional practice fields. We are not opposed to the two practice fields proposed but NO GAMES should be allowed. The plans ]aid out for Lacrosse, AYSO and CYSA will occupy the park every weekend and weekdays throughout the year except maybe for a few weeks in January. Balls scream at high speed across the field and when they are not caught, they fly even further; likely to a passerby trying to enjoy what is left of the pazk. Additionally, the game fields} would require the unsightly nets as used at Congress Springs to keep balls from possibly flying on the freeway. With practice fields, bathrooms will not be required. The pazk has done just fine without bathrooms for 30 years. I've had groups of kids of all ages for 2+ hours at the park and never have had to make a bathroom run. Additionally, you know as well as I do, the bathroom facility becomes attractive for being used by the unfortunate homeless. We can't increase the potential for additional vagrants hanging azound the pazk especially with the kids that use the park at peak hours for going to and from school. Pazking for practice can be accommodated without ripping up trees or laying down more asphalt. The issue for pazking comes with games. Parking lots also become an attractive area for loitering, especially if they are not visible from the street. As with other task force initiatives, public input has always been solicited. This taskforce is short cutting the process wherever including reducing the number of meetings and not holding a session for public input. Why not? Why must this process be run in under 4 months while other projects of this magnitude take (as Councilmember Kline stated) up to two yeazs? What is the rush?! Lastly, the KMP Task Force representatives did the right thing. They came in with a compromise as a first step. The could have said 'leave the park as it is'. That would have been equal to the plan provided by the Organized Sports Task Force representatives. The concessions by the KMP representatives retain the beauty of the park and provide a balance for additional activities that respect the community needs and neighborhood concerns. Remember, the neighbors will live with the decisions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Your vote can either go against the Sazatoga vision statement or embrace the need for open space, as provided by the KMP Task Force Representatives. Respectfully, Brian Robertson Sazaglen Dr. Saratoga Page 1 of 3 Kristin Borel From: Angelina Pearce [angelinapearce~yahoo.com] sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:55 PM To: Aileen Kao; bridge26Qhotmail.com; eac@pacbell.net; hmiller~appie.com; John Cherbone; martin_goldberg@affymetrix.com; markescoQaol.com;Noan Kline; 1250man~comcast.net; peterp(~cadence.com; Kristin Borel Subject: Safety compromise not acceptable for Kevin Moran Park To the task force members for the development of KMP, I'm writing today to request that when considering any developments to Kevin Moran Park, all task force members should put the issue of safety as a pivotal, non-negotiable factor in any, and all discussions. I feel the need to reiterate this fact as recent discussions have not given this issue the central attention it needs. Having games fields for soccer and lacrosse are great amenities to have for the Saratoga kids involved in the sports. Better yet, if these fields are located within the city itself as it will definitely be more convenient. However, if having these games fields mean compromising the safety of fellow residents, then it is clear that safety should take priority to convenience. I have three young children and we go to KMP everyday (weather permitting). When the E1 Quito men's soccer team was using KMP, on two occasions the soccer ball came flying onto the pathway where we were strolling. My 5-year old son almost tripped on the ball in the first instance and the second time it happened, the ball barely missed hitting my twin babies who were in their stroller. I shudder to think what would have happened if i did not veer away in time. The players, of course, apologized both tllne8, but 15 Page 2 of 3 it really their fault when they were given the right to play their sport in the park in the first place? We all know that in soccex the ball will g0 Ollt Of y'~OV,IIdB sometimes. That is a given. Zf KMP were to include game fields for soccer and lacrosse (an errant ball going at 50-90 mph in this case can prove fatal for young kids!), the city must take responsibility to ensure the safety of all the other people who use the park. How are they going to do that? There is also much discussion about adding restrooms to KMP in conjunction with developing sports fields. This immediately raises another safety issue. Restrooms will attract transients. That is an unfortunate and undeniable fact. Many children use this park, often alone, as a mandated pass through to Blue Hills, Miller and Lynbrook schools. Is the city willing to risk the safety of its most vulnerable citizens to support sports? Does the city intend to provide more police officers to patrol the park to ensure that KMP continues to be a park that ie safe for all children? Is there a budget for this to happen? So far, the only plan Z've seen that has taken into account the safety issue is the one put forth by the neighborhood representatives. That plan showed a sensible and responsible development of KMP. It not only envisioned a park that served all members of the Saratoga community, young and old alike, it also provided the children playing soccer with a conducive environment to practice their game. Page 3 of 3 A park, should after all, be a glace that brings people together, rather than one that places the wants of a select group above all others. I know many in t:he Saratoga community share my sentiments and we would'like at least one public meeting before any decision is made on 7U1P to give us a chance to provide our views and concerns. Saratoga prides itself on having residents who care very much about their city, please help ensure that our voices are not ignored. Many thanks for your kind attention and your continued work toward enhancing a much beloved park. Yours sincerely, Angelina Pearce 19767 Northampton Drive Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo_ Shonninp Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel Prom: elan nonnenberg [anonnen aQyBhoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:32 PM To: Aileen Kao; Bridgitte Ballingall; Elaine Clabeaux; Howard Miller; John Cherbone; Marty Goldberg; Mary Ann Escobar; Norm Kline; Paul Jacobs; Peter Pranys; Kristin Borel Subject: Safety at Kevin Moran Park Task Force Members, KMP is today a safe neighborhood park. We neighbors of KMP are greatly concerned that SAFETY IN THE PARK -for ow children and seniors - could be greatly impacted by the athletic field proposals being considered by yow task team. SAFETY ISSUE #1. We request that there be NO GAME-SIZE PLAYING FIELDS. While practise fields can also generate safety problems, cleazly adult and high-school-aged soccer and lacrosse players on full-size fields can send balls flying at dangerous speeds. Ow neighborhood children, who must travel thru the KMP comdor to and from Blue Hills School will be at risk every day of the week, should this type of activity come to I{MP. The same goes for our senior walkers who will not be able to safely negotiate the pathways of the pazk. SAFETY ISSUE #2. The increased game an dpractice activity will also greatly increase TRAFFIC around the pazk. Our children on bicycles and on foot will be placed at far higher risk as they attempt to navigate the narrow adjacent streets -Scully, Sazaglen, and Northampton. Our children's safety is of great concern. SAFETY ISSUE #3. We request that there be NO PERMANENT RESTROOMS built at the park. Even in Saratoga, these can unfortunately attract transients in and azound the restrooms. The safety of ow neighborhood children is again of great concern, as parents will never be fully sure that children can traverse the park safely and not be pulled into a restroom. Local seniors may have similar problems. We trust that you will consider the safety of our neighborhood as you put yow proposal together. Thank you for yow consideration of these requests. Alan Nonnenberg Northampton Drive Yahoo!Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoos Shoonine Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: elan nonnenberg [anonnen aQyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 5:14 PM To: eacQpacbell.net; peterp@cadence.com; affyman@comcast.net Subject: Kevin Moran Park task force meetings Dear Neighborhood Representatives, Many members of the KMP neighborhood fear that the currant task force has reduced its number of meetings and is being 'railroaded' towazd an 'athletic field proposal' for the park's development. We have been cheated out of a public input session from the neighbors of the park. Every other converted/developed park in the city allowed for a public input session as the task learns put together their recommendations for the City Council. Can you please enswe that a public input session is fitted into yow meeting schedule prior to drawing up yow recommendation?? thanks for yow consideration. Alan Nonnenberg Northampton Drive, Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo!Yahoo! Sh°D°i-n.¢ Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: The Williamsons [zurtzaQcomcast.net] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1;45 PM To: Aileen Kao; "Bridgitte Ballingall"; "Elaine Clabeaux"; "Howard Miller"; John Cherbone; "Marty Goldberg"; "Mary Ann Escobar"; Norm Kline; "Paul Jacobs"; "Peter Pranys"; Kristin Borel Cc: Mary Robertson SubJect: Kevin Moran Park Development Members of the Task Force: In reviewing the proposed plans for the development of KMP, 1 think the neighborhood plan represents the most reasonable solution for all groups because tt maintains the overall integrity of the park, gives soccer an addkbnal place to practice, and allows the kids to continue using the bike/walking paths to and from Lynbrook, Miller and Blue Hills. Of course, the additional bonus is that this plan is within budget! The other plans raise slgnifcant safety issues for any group using the park and for the neighborhood in generel. Scully Avenue is narrow, easily congested, and has always been a safety concern to residents. To add a parking lot and game fields is asking for trouble. Also, public bathrooms in parks are vandalized, covered with graffiti and attract an unsavory element. In choosing a plan, it's important that the positives outweigh the negafrves. The Neighborhood Plan is the only one on the table that fits that criteria. Linda Williamson Kristin Bore! From: shmc9Qaol.com Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:19 PM To: Kristin Borel Cc: bmoran~marin.kl2.ra.us Subject: Re: KMP Agenda and Draft Action Minutes Hi Kristin, I am not able to attend tomorrow tright as it is my daughter's birthday. My brother, Brian Moran, will attend Our family feels it is important to have a family member observe the task force progress. I'd like to share with you, though, that I think all members of the task force are doing a great job of representing their delegation. It is our family's hope that the contention over Kevin's pazk will be settled once and for all. Best regazds, Sheila Moran Couch -----Original Message----- From: Kristin Borel ~kborel@saratoga.ca.us> To: Barbara Barone <bjbarone@sbcglobal.net>; Bill Weller <wellerbt?pacbell.net>; Bob Alley <ralley@pacbell.net>; Bob Rayl <bobrayl@pacbell.net>; David Mighdoll <migfox@aol.com>; David Winters <dwinters@juniper.net>; Debbie Lillo <dillo@mindspring.com>; Donna Frankel <donna@dancingcruises.com>; Donna McKenzie <kmdj6 @sbcglobal.net>; Doug Robertson <dougrrobertson@yahoo.com>; Fran Colletti <acolcj@aol.com>; Gary Pazanzino <gary@paranzino.com>; Heidi Parrish <hopamsh@aol.com>; Imogene Blatz <diblatz@pacbell.net>;Jamw Eu Linda Williamson <zurtz@comcast.net>; Jeff Baicher <baicher@sbcglobal.net>;Jeftery Haze ~jbhlaw@pac.net>; Jody Tatro Wheeler <jtatro@proexhibits.com>; Joe Alfazo <joealfaro@comcast.net>; Johnny Lie <johnny_lie@comcast.net>; Karlina Ott <karlinao@comcast,net>; Katey Kennedy <katey.kennedy@comcast.net>; Kathleen Casey Coakley <historycalkc@yahoo.com>; Keith Bhatia <bhatiak957@yahoo.com>; Laura Watkins <llwatkins@comcasr.net>; Laurie Pakula <pedidocsbp@eazthlink.net>; Mark Holzmer <mwhwmzm@yahoo.com>; Mark Weisler <mazk.weislet@gmail.com>;Mary Ann Escobar ~mazkesco@aol.com>; Mary Robertson <robertson.b.m@mindspring.com>; Mike Whalen <mtwhalen@earthlink.net>; Nancy Weller <nweIler@pacbell.net>; Naresh Makhijan <nareshm@yahoo.com>; Pam McDonald <pammcd28@comcast.net>; Philip Gould <pmfgould@aol.com>; Richard Pearce <rspearce@yahoo.com>; Roy Henninger <r.henninger@sbcglobal.net>; Sam Hahn cs@mhahn.com>; Sandy Cross <sandyc@cisco.com>; Sheila Couch <shmc9@aol.com>; Stan Bogosian <sbogosian@aol.com>; Therese Lorentzen <Teresa@lorenzens.org> Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 200515:53:16 -0800 Subject: KMP Agenda and Draft Action Minutes bear Interested Parties, Here is the Agenda for the Kevin Moran Park Task Force Meeting to be held on Tuesday, December 13th, and the draft Action Minutes from the meeting on November 17th. n, ---~-.--.~>>.,.,.,,;fon„haveanvauesdons. Page i of 1 Kristin Borel From: Graham Mostyn ]mostyn@covad.net] Sent: Monday, December 12, 20051:19 PM To: Aileen Kao; Bridgitte Ballingall; Elaine Clabeaux; Howard Miller; John Cherbone; Marty Goldberg; Mary Ann Escobar; Norm Kline; Pauf Jacobs; Peter Pranys; Kristin Borel I'm asking for the following from the Task Force for safe peaceful use of Kevin Moran Park: 1. No game fields. Game fields pose a safety issue for anyone else wanting to use the park. La Crosse balls can' travel at speeds of 50MPH to 90MPH. It would be difficult to walk, ride, run, play at the playground if one of these balls went astray. The same goes for soccer and remember sooorr now wants 14 and older children to play here thus more strength in their kick. In addition, if any of these balls go over the freeway wall, a major accident could be caused. 2., No bathrooms. There are big safety issues with bathroom as we do have transients in Saratoga which was highlighted by the stabbing of an encampment group on the Railroad tracks off of Cox. A transient being seen in KMP, and bathrooms would draw more. Remember children use this park as a mandated pass through to elementary school, Seniors and others use this park for exercise. We cannot risk the children or others safety simply in the name of sports. 3. No parking lot. There are also safety concerns with nose-in parking on the street or next to curves or right next to housing (as this would provide easy access over neighbors back fences. Again this is a mandated pathway for children to an elementary school. Many of them ride or walk alone. We cannot risk having a parking lot were loitering and other unsavory activities can occur amongst densely parked cars. Neighborhood children are just as valuable as soccer children. 4. Acceptance of the neighborhood plan. It does not destroy the park; it is within budget; K gives the soccer people what they have asked for aii along, another place to practice; it maintains the path for the children to walk and ride safely to and from the various schools, that being Lynbrook, Miller, and Blue Hills. 5. A Public meeting before the Task force makes a final decision. This is a process that has occurred on every other task force. Public input is important. The park must serve the people and R is very short sighted to leave them out of the process. GRAHAM MOSTYN Viewridge Orive Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: Barbara [bjbarone@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 2;34 PM To: Mary Robinson; Marty Goldberg; Peter Pranys; elaine Clauebaux Subject: Open meetings for the plan of KMP I would appreciate it if you could demand meetings of the city council similar to the meeting that we had in July 04 to let people know what is proposed. In speaking with neighbors and others outside of the neighborhood, few understand what the issues are. Thank yov for your time. Page 1 of 2 Kristin Borel From: Teresa Lorenzen [teresa@lorenzens.org] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:94 PM To: Elaine Clabeaux; Peter Pranys; affyman#@comcast.net brige26@hotmail.com; hmilleraQapple.com; markescoQaol.com Cc: Norm Kline; Ann Waltonsmith; Aileen Kao; kk2kirigQcomcast.net; Nick Streit; John Cherbone; Kristin Borel Subject: Kevin Moran Park Thank you & kudos to the task force members for yow continued work on the development of Kevin Moran Park. It is appreciated. I am a Kevin Moran Park neighbor. I have concerns about the three plans that have been presented for the development of Kevin Moran Pazk: 1)1/4 mile track -this track is used by many in the neighborhood including students going to and from Blue Hills, Miller, and Lynbrook schools. These students range in age from 5 to 18 and travel through the park and over the pedestrian overpass from 7:40 am till aRer 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. The heaviest morning traffic is between 7:40 am and 8:00 am going through Kcvin Moran to Blue Hills as school starts at 8:00 am. The afternoon traffic is heaviest between 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm as Blue Hills students are dismissed at 2:10 pm (kindergarten, 1st, 2nd &3rd grades) and 2:40 pm (4th & 5th grades). My youngest rides his bike most days using the 1/4 mile track through the park to connect up with the pedestrian overpass. If this path is removed and replaced with a field, how aze these students supposed to reach the overpass? Are they supposed to walk or bike across a wet lacrosse or soccer field? I'm swe the soccer and lacrosse players would love to have bike tracks crisscrossing their field. The 1/4 mile track needs to be preserved not just for students but for all of us -seniors, students, and others -who use this track to access Blue Hills, Azule Pazk, or just for the enjoyement of walking out of the way of caz traffic. 2) Game fields - as you all know by now, Kevin Moran is currently used for soccer practice in the spring and fall. I have no problems with a PRACTICE FIELD being put in, however, the space and current pazk usage does not allow for a full game field. I firmly believe that a game field will severly impact the character of this pazk. Again, I have to wonder why we are so bound and determined to twn every neighborhood park in Saratoga over to soccer. The population of Saratoga is about 30,000 people. Assume that between all the soccer groups, there are about 2,500 soccer players. This is 8% of the population. The total park acerage in Saratoga -excluding Hakone Gardens and the Heritage Orchard - is 39.3 acres. Congress Springs at 9.97 acres is already asoccer/sports complex. That's 25% of the City's pazk space given over to 8% of the City population. Many of the other City parks are used for soccer practice in spring and fall also. The flat grass of soccer fields is not necessarily the best use of our outdoor space. There aze many of us who would rather walk or play under the redwood and sweet gum trees instead of the flat, treeless expanse of a soccer field. Page Z of 2 Weal] have the right to access city property and use it to our bene5t. Please consider the character of the Kevin Moran Pazk and the needs of ALL Saratoga residents when choosing a development plan. Thank you for your time and devotion to making Saratoga a great place to live for all of us. Regards, Teresa Lorenzen Kevin Moran Park Neighbor Teresa~lo* yens orr; Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:53 PM To: Kristin Borel s~ble~t: Fw: HALT Kevin Moran Park Meeting tonight: THE NEW UNEXPLAINABLE TASK FORCE and questionaire should not be allowed to make a difference in COUNCILI -----Original Message----- From:John Livingstone Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:08 PM To: John Cherbone Subject: FW: HALT Kevin Moran Park Meeting tonight: THE NEW UNEXPLAINABLE TASK FORCE and questionaire should not be allowed to make a difference in COUNCIL! -----Original Message----- From: Ann Sullivan Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:58 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: FW: HALT Kevin Moran Pazk Meeting tonight: THE NEW UNEXPLAINABLE TASK FORCE and quesdonaire should not be allowed to make a difference in COUNCIL John -FYI -----Original Message----- From: K C [mailto:historycalkc@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:49 PM To: Dave Anderson; Lorie Tinfow; Ann Sullivan; Planning; cirycouncil@sazatoga.ca.us Cc: mallory58@aol.com Subject: HALT Kevin Moran Pazk Meeting tonight: THE NEW UNEXPLAINABLE TASK FORCE and questionaire should not be allowed to make a difference in COUNCIL The EMAIL HAS BEEN RUSHED DUE TO THE TIMING of THE CITY COUNCIL: I am dropping off THE FORMS for appeals 'Request for a continuance on the issues at Kevin Moran TASK FORCE FORMATION" this is my first formal request' for both the 'Planning Department and Ciry Council', and I will have them signed by the person at the city desk. You may attached this email. I believe the people of Saratoga told the Ciry Council Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: Margot Johnson [margot~covad.net] Sent: Monday, December 12, 20051:06 PM To: Aileen Kao; Bridgitte Ballingall; Elaine Clabeaux; Howard Miller; John Cherbone; Marty Goldberg; Mary Ann Escobar; Norm Kline; Paul Jacobs; Peter Pranys; Kristin Borel Cc: Mary Robertson As a friend and neighbor of KMP (Margot Johnson, Viewridge Drive), I'm asking on behalf of the neighborhood for the following results from the Task Force for a safe multi-generational use park: 1. No game fields. Game fields pose a safety issue for anyone else wanting to use the park. La Crosse balls can travel at speeds of 50MPH to 90MPH. It would be difficult to walk, ride, run, play at the playground if one of these balls went astray. The same goes for soccer and remember soccer now wants 14 and older children to play here thus more strength in their kick. In addition, if-any of these balls go over the freeway wail, a major accident could be caused. 2., No bathrooms. There are big safety issues with bathroom as we do have transients in Saratoga which was highlighted by the stabbing of an encampment group on the Railroad tracks off of Cox, A transient being seen in KMP, and bathrooms would draw more. Remember children use this park as a mandated pass through to elementary school. Seniors and others use this park for exercise. We cannot risk the children or others safety simply in the name of sports, 3. No parking lot. There are also safety concerns with nose-in parking on the. street or next to curves or right next to housing (as this would provide easy access over neighbors back fences. Again this is a mandated pathway for children to an elementary school. Many of them ride or walk alone. We cannot risk having a parking lot were loitering and other unsavory activities can occur amongst densely parked cars. Neighborhood children are just as valuable as soccer children. 4. Acceptance of the neighborhood plan. It does not destroy the park; it is within budget; it gives the soccer people what they have asked for all along, another place to practice; it maintains the path for the children to walk and ride safely to and from the various schools, that being Lynbrook, Miller, and Blue Hills, 5. A Public meeting before the Task force makes a final decision. This is a process that has occurred on every other task force. Public input is important. The park must serve the people and it is very short sighted to leave them out of the nrnr'PSS. Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: HOParrishQaol.com Sent: Saturday, December 10, 200510:47 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: Re: KMP Agenda and Draft Action Minutes Kristen. Thank you for the update. I will not be able to attend this meeting, previous plans that can not be broken. Do hope that the task force schedules a meeting for January to ensure that the original number of meetings has taken place. Please share this email with the task force. It is crucial that the park maintains the circular walking path and an unobstructed path for the Blue Hllls students to the overpass. These two areas of the park are used daily by a large number of people -young and old alike. The elderly in this neighborhood find the dreular path with the shade of the trees a safe, relaxing and eaay path to get their daily walk in. The path through the park keeps them from walking on the street. Parents need to krww that their children will be safe as they go to and from school. If the path to Blue Hllls is not relatively strelght, 1) the kids will just cut across the grass (walking or with their bikes), and 2) parents will be concerned that they ere not visible all the way to the overpass. Having a bathroom in the park will also add to the concern of tranalents hanging around as the kids go to and from school. Children need baby steps towards independence (riding their bikes without mom or dad to school is a big step) and parents need to know that they will be safe with allowing them this small step of independence. The city has the KMP marked as undeveloped in the books, but there are full grown trees in this park, a perfectly paved circular path, wondertul playground equipment, and a par course, Not every park needs 'bells and whistles" to consider it developed. A bigger concern is that destroying KMP, removing beautiful mature trees, to accommodate large flat grass playing fields is only aBand-Aid fix to a greater need in the city. The playing field(s) in KMP are not going to solve the sports complex need of Saratoga. Please encourage the City Council to look at redeveloping the Heritage Orchard to accommodate some of the heritage trees that exist, as well as a facility for our youth to play all types of sports and a place for our seniors. Destroying one orchard to save another doesnR make sense. Include the KMP trees as park of one of several heritage orchards in Saratoga. Why do we just preserve one area? A better place for a sports complex/senior center would be the property at the cor»er of Cox and Saratoga Ave., but I understand that the city has upset the property owners a lot over the years that they wNl not even consider selling to the city. Will hate to see commercial property go in this location. It is bad enough that more houses wpl be built on the North Campus site. Too many missed opportunities in better suited locations. As opposed to locations that impact the safety of quiet neighborhoods and are not easy access for all Saratoga citizens, I understand that sports is a big deal for our youth, as it should be. Let's get serious and put a proper complex in a location that is convent to all residents of Saratoga. Thank you -keep talking, Heidi Parrish 19523 Northampton Dr. Saratoga Kristin Borel From: Goldberg, Martin [Martin GoldbergQaffymetrix.com] Sant: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:55 PM Ta; Kristin Borel Subject: FW: This is what I sent to the Council today! DOUg Hi Kristin, Could you please print out the accompanying email for distribution and consideration by the Task Force Members at our next meeting. Thanks, Marty Martin J. Goldberg, Ph.D. ~ Vice President, Advanced Technology Research ~ Affymetrix laboratories AFFYMETRIX, INC. ~ 3380 Central Expressway ~ Santa Claza, CA 95051 ~ Tel: 408-731-5065 ~ Fax: 408-481-0422 maztin~oldbetg@affymetrix.com This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, privileged and/or attorney-client privileged information, Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you aze not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: douglas blatz [mailto:douglas blatz@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:18 PM To: Goldberg, Martin; Peter Pranys; Elaine Clabeaux Subject: This is what I sent to the Council today! Doug Mon, 5 Dec 200516:00:46 -0800 (PST) From: 'douglas blatz' <douglas_blatz@yahoo.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: Proposed lacrosse field at KMP To: 'Nick Streit' <nstreit@cpa-online.com>, <akao@saratoga.ca.us>, 'Katlileen King" <kk2king@saratoga.ca.us>, 'Norm Kline' <kline@caspr.com> Dear Council Members, 'Ann Waltonsmith" <awaltonsmith@sazatoga.ca.us>,'Aileen Kao' I would like to emphasize a point that was made at the last KMP Task Force meeting. As a orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine physician, I am very concerned about the potential injuries with the proposed plan for a lacrosse field at Kevin Moran Park. With the nearness of both a proposed meditation area and the children's play area as well as walkways, injuries from errant shots traveling at anywhere from 30 to 90 mph can cause a -' -=-'-^- ^ ~ ^ -~~~~* ~.~+rt..-mil arl~ricnnr mPerin~ t}ie Team nhvcirian fnr Tufts and the team physician for the Universiry of Connecticut were appalled at the suggestion of a lacrosse $eld in this location. This is a serious and ,strong warning to all of you, that if this plan is approved and injuries occur, both you and the city of Saratoga will be liable. I will be very happy to discuss this with any a~f you and also to help plan an alternative placement of this field in Saratoga. Douglas J. B1arz,M.D. Yahoo! DSL -Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com Kristiq Boren ~ _ _ _ From: Norm Kline Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:45 PM To: Elaine Clabeaux Cc: Peter; Marly Goldberg; Kristin Bores Subject: Re: TF meetings Elaine: I fully understand your concern. However, I think 'manipulation' is rather a strong word for this. Cleazly, as we come down to the end of the meetings, it was felt hat we needed as many people present as possible to have the best shot as a consensus plan. Eazly meetings, although very important, cover foundation building information. Catch up was possible. Later meetings, when we're trying to have closure, there is no possibility of catching up. We need everyone to be there. Calling this attempt at including everyone at the table a manipulation is, frankly, strange: I guess one can take every attempt at good deeds and twist it into something an effort at evil. That is always possible, but I hope not in this case. Staff and T are simply trying to give this task force the best shot at providing a plan to the city council. I am willing to fight for an extension into mid-January if everyone is willing to pull together with a positive attitude. I'm hoping that the Dec 13th meeting will be the last -- aren't we all. IE not, then an extension of a few weeks is always possible, especially since we have made such exceIlent progress. Norm Kline On Nov 29, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Elaine Clabeaux wrote > Hi Norm, > I am a bit confused. When Marty had to be in Florida and when Mary Jo > was not able to attend the TF meeting it was not cancelled or changed. > I planned my travel for December based on the meeting schedule I was > given. Whsle in Southern Calif. I receive a request for a meeting > rime the week of Dec 19-23. This is supposed to be due to the > I strongly feel that we were given a schedule and if the times were ~a > problem they should have been addressed at the first meeting. I s also feel that it is wrong to change the dates at this late time. > Why is one persons schedule more important than another persons? > We want the two meetings as scheduled. It is too late to be making > these changes unless you want to hold a meeting in January and meet > with the council in mid January. > I am available for the scheduled meetings but will depart after the > meeting on Dec 15 and will not return uhtil after the first of the > yeaz. My schedule is just as important as any other member of the task >force, > I suggest the meetings take place as scheduled......Dec Land Dec > 15th. This is the only fair way to resolve this issue. I am dismayed > at this last minute manipulation. > Elaine Clabeaux Page 1 of 2 Kristin Borel From: K C [historycalkc@yahoo.comJ Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 12:17 AM To: Bill Weller; Kristin Borel Cc: Barbara Barone; Bob Alley; Bob Rayl; David Mighdoll; David Winters; Debbie Lillo; Donna Frankel; Donna McKenzie; Doug Robertson; Fran Collettf; Gary Paranzino; Heidl Parrish; Imogene Blatz; James & Linda Williamson; Jeff Baicher, Jeffery Hare; Jody Tatro Wheebr; Joe Affaro; Johnny Lie; Karlina Ott; Katey Kennedy; Kathleen Casey Coakley; Keith Bhatie; Laura Watkins; Laurie Pakula; Mark Holzmer; Mark Weisler; Mary Ann Escobar; Mary Robertson; Mike Whalen; Nancy WeNer, Naresh Makhijan; Pam McDonald; Philip Gould; Richard Pearce; Roy Henninger, Sam Hahn; Sandy Cross; Sheila Couch; Stan Bogosian; Therese Lorentzen; Ann Waltonsmith; Aileen Kao; Kathleen King; Norm Kline Subject: Re: Next Task Force Meeting Bravo, Bill Weller, have you thought of ruruting for MAYOR OF SA.RATOGA in November 2006! Brll Weller <wellerb@pacbellnet> wrote: Dear Ms. Borel, Thank you for the notice of the meeting changes. I did not see this schedule change mentioned in the minutes of the last meeting. Is this fair to make such a change without the input and approval of the members on the task force? If the intent is to shorten this already very brief task force then please, let the official minutes record this change. I do not believe the KMP Task Force will develop a mutually agreeable plan for KMP in two more meetings. There has been some ver y good airing of wants but not a real, documented study of the needs and the issues/impacts associated with the plans. I encourage you and the TF members to extend the life of the TF and properly study the candidate plans and alternatives, not shorten it's life and push through an incomplete result. We only have the money to do this once, let's do it right. Thank you, Bill Weller On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:46 PM, Kristin Bore] wrote: Dear Interested Parties, The next Kevin Moran Task Force Meetings scheduled for December 1 , 2005 and December ] 5, 2005 have been cancelled. Some of the Task Force Members were unable to attend the meeting and the City felt that it was important for all the Task Force members to be present. Wehaveameetingscheduledfor^___ _t __„ .,,,~~ __~_~__e~~~_ .•• > > Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: Shmc9@aol.com sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:35 PM To: wellerb@pacbell.net; Kristin Borel Cc: bjbarone@sbcglobal.net; valley@pacbell.net; bobrayl@pacbell.net; MIGFOX@aol.com; dw(nters@juniper.neh dillo@rhindspring.com; donna@dancingcruises.com; kmdj8(~sbcglobal.ne dougrrobeKson@yahoo.com;'ACokj@aol.com; gary®paranzino.com; HOParrish®ad.com; diblatz@pacbell.net; zurtz@cmmcast.net; baicher@sbcglobal.net; jbhlaw®pac.net; jtatro@proexhibits.com; jcealflaro@comcast,neh johnny_lie@comcast.neh karlinao@comcaat.nel katey.kennedyQcomcast.net;'historycalkc@yahoo.com; bhatiak957@yahoo.com; Ilwatkins@comcast.net; pedidpcsbp(gZearthlink.net; mwhwmzm@yahoo.com; mark.weisler@gmail.com; MAf2KESC0@aol.com; robertson.b.m®mindspring.com; mtwhalen@earthlink.net; nweller@pacbell.net; nareshm@yahoo.com; pammcd28@comcast.net; Pmfgould@aol.com; rspearce@yahoo.com; r.henninger@sbcglobat.net; s@mhahn.com; sandyc@cisco.com; Sbogosian@aol.com; Teresa@lorenzens.org; Ann Waltonsmith; Aileen Kao; kk2king@comcast.net; Norm Kline Subject: Re: Next Task Force Meeting Thanks for the input Mr. Weller. I too have felt a certain haste. With the sale of fhe North Campus, there may soon be funds to get the organtted sports contingent and the neighborhood contingent both what they want. Organized sports deserves a great complex at the proper location, and the neighborhood folks deserve the peace and tranqulltty that Kevin Moran Park currently offers. Best regards, Sheila Couch Page 1 of 2 Kristin Borel From: Bill Weller [wellerbQpacbell.net) sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:50 PM To: Kristin Borel Cc: Barbara Barone; Bob Alley; Bob Rayl; David Mighdoll; David Winters.; Debbie Lillo; Donna Frankel; Donna McKenzie; Doug Robertson; Fran Colletth, Gary Paranzino; Heidi Parcish; Imogene Blatr, James & Linda Williamson; Jeff Baicher, Jeffery Hare; Jody Tatro Wheeler; Joe AHaro; Johnny Lie; Karlina Ott; Katay Kennedy; Kathleen Casey Coakley; Keith Bhatia; Laura Watkins; Laurie Pakule; Mark Holzmer; Mark Weisler; Mary Ann Escobar; Mary Robertson; Mike Whalen; Nancy Weller; Naresh Makhijan; Pam McDonald; Pht6p Gould; Richard Pearce; Roy Henninger; Sam Hahn; Sandy Cross; Sheila Couch; Stan Bogosian; Therese Lorentzen; Ann Waltonsmith; Aileen Kao; Kathleen King; Norm Kline Subject: Re: Next Task Force Meeting Dear Ms. Borel, Thank you for the notice of the meeting changes. I did not see this schedule change mentioned in the minutes of the last meeting. Is this feu to make such a change without the input and approval of the members on the task force? If the intent is to shorten this already very brief task force then please, let the official minutes record this change. I do not believe the KMP Task Force will develop a mutually agreeable plan for KMP in two more meetings. There has been some very good airing of wants but not a real, documented study of the needs and the issues/impacts associated with the plans. I encourage you and the TF members to extend the life of the TF and properly study the candidate plans and alternatives, not shorten it's life and push through an incomplete result. We only have the money to do this once, tet's do it right. Thank you, Bill Weller On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:46 PM, Kristin Borel wrote: Dear Interested Parties, The next Kevin Moran Task Force Meetings scheduled for December 1, 2005 and December 15, 2005 have been cancelled. Soma of the Task Force Members were unable to attend the meeting and the City felt that it was important for all the Task Force members to be present. We have a meeting scheduled £or December 13, 2005, and if needed, we will schedule a .,,P~r,no for the following week. The meeting will be held in the Administrative Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: Denise Goldberg [ojibway(ajcomcast.netj Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2006 9:29 AM To: Kristin Borel; John Cherbone Subject: Kevin Moran Community Plan Dear Kristin and John, I was able to attend the end of the KM Tzgsk Force meeting on Thursday and 1 looked over the drfferent plans. I am concerned about the community plan in that the proposed lacrosse field blocks segment t B of our trails system. Unless they were to build a waH around it, pedestrians and bicyclists are going to cut across that field, path or no path. They should realize that that is the crossing point for Blue Hills Elementary, Miller Mktdle School and Lynbrook High students to commute to school and It is one of the few bicyGe paths in the city. I do not know rf this has been discussed. If the field was shifted a bit and the path was shifted a bit it might work. H the path is shifted too much though people will continue to cross the field, it is human nature for people to take the shortest route, especially if they are running late to school. I would hate to put in an expensive frold and see ft ruined. i would appreciate if you could pass this concern on to the KM Task Force. Thanks and have a great Thanksgiving holidayl Denise Goldberg Chair, Saratoga Trails Committee I would like to understand why these sites are not being used for soccer: Christa Mc Auliffe school located in Saratoga field size: 221'x349' Marshall Lane School located in Saratoga- field size 231'x277' The practice field size stated by Howard Miller for U 14 150'x 180' or 180'x 180'. In the AYSO soccer handbook, Christa McAuliffe was shown as one of the fields used. Both these schools fit the bill Is it because of political reasons as stated in a September email from Howard Miller to the c-ty? If so, what are the political reasons. Is it because a councilman lives in the neighborhood and backs to the school? In addition in August 2004, Nick Streit indicated to De Anza farce Jeff Van Gastel that West Valley had three soccer fields with great potential for Sunday Games. Why was Nick looking our for De Anza Force when he knew AYSO needed field space or was AYSO trying to secure space for De Anza Force. I just don't get it. Mary Roberton November 17, 2005 Task Force meeting November 17, 2005 Task Force Meeting Public Input Nancy and Bill Weller 12552 Scully Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-253-7140 In deciding how to redevelop Kevin Moran Park, safety should be the number one concern. Traffic and parking issues are of the utmost safety concerns. There is only one way to enter the park and that is via the one street that borders it, Scully Avenue. Although off street parking is proposed, there will not be enough to accommodate all the players and spectators for soccer games. Parking will spill onto the surrounding surface streets. When cars are parked on both sides of Scully Avenue, it is difficult for two cars to safely pass each other at the same time. Open car doors of those. exiting and entering their cars make it impossible for through traffic to pass and the situation becomes even more dangerous for everyone. U-toms will be made in the middle of the street and this will put those on foot and in cars in jeopardy. There is a sharp blind curve in the street at one end of the park, making an already dangerous curve even more treacherous. Regardless of whether there is off street parking provided, traffic and cars will be saturating the neighborhood streets, with all the arrivals and departures of those associated with the games. There are no sidewalks on Scully Avenue, so pedestrians must walk in the street. Now they will be forced to walk down the middle of the street. People and kids on bikes will also have to maneuver through the middle of the street. First hand observation: When the adult soccer league temporarily moved to Kevin Moran Park, there were numerous problems: -Cars were parked up and down Scully, on both sides of the street. When the game was over, car doors were propped open and gym bags & equipment were set down in the street to load cars. Coming home via Scully at that time of night, I had to sit and wait for them to close car doors and pick up belongings to let me through. One player blatantly changed his shirt in the middle of the street, with his car door open, watching me sit there and wait for him. I could not pass through until he finally closed his door. -Illegal turns were made anywhere and everywhere. -During the day, children played on the goal posts and nets, dangerously climbing on them and I observed one topple over while a child was on it. -The park was impossible to use by anyone else while a game was being played. The danger of being hit by a ball was always present. This park needs to be redeveloped as a passive park. Changing this park to accommodate regular soccer games is going to cause serious safety and traffic problems. KMP Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20051:52 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: KMP Page 1 of 1 From: Ann Waltonsmfth Sent: Thursday, November 17, 200512:24 PM To: Dave Anderson; John Cherbone Subject: FW: KMP FYI Ann Ann Waltonsmifh Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: Roger Piazza [maiito:rogerpiaua@hotmafl.mmJ Sent: Thu 11/17/2005 11:23 AM 70: Kathleen King; Norm Kline; Ann Waltonsmith; Alieen Kao; Nick Streit Subject: KMP City Council. We have been a regular at the city council and KMP task force meetings. We have been very disappointed in the results of both. WE moved to Calif. and Saratoga in 1986. We chose Saratoga because of its natural beauty with al] of it green trees, the charmiug villiage and its scbools. Listening to the needs of howard miller for more flat grass is over stated. Miller' view of the world is flat. The city council and the soccor leagues have already made one mistake by not using saratoga community schools and allowing other communities to use this flat grass area. This is where regulation soccor, football. la cross, and baseball flclda should be. KMP is a great neighbor park that supports soccor practice and other activities for citizens of Saratoga. The trees are one of the beauties i spoke about when we moved here. The city council has a responsibility to e11 Saratoga citizen to preserve this natural beauty by keeping the trees in KMP. Dont make a second mistake by taming KMP into a sport complex in the middle of a neighbor which will not support the traffic and interfers will children going to school. If the council believes Saratoga need another sports complex, then look at an area which has good roads ,can. support the traffic,centraly located and is not in the middle of a neighbor. We thing that central park would bean ideal place for a sport complex. Roger and Joann Piazza Colby Ct. Page 1 of 1 Martin Goldberg From: Gary and Suzanne O'Neal) [garysuzanne~comcast.netj Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:55 PM To: 'Martin Goldberg' Subject: RE: trees Yes I mean Norm not Nick. Sorry about that. I would appreciate ii if you printed it out for the TF. Thank you, Suzanne From: Mardn Goldberg [mallto:affymanQcomcast.net] Sent; Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:31 PM To: 'Gary and Suzanne O'Neal)' Subject: RE: trees Hi Suzanne, I presume you meant Norm Kline and not Nick Streit 7 Piease clarify this and if it's ok with you I will print out your questions so that they are officially circulated among the entire TF. This seems to be the process we're using. Thx for your input. M From: Gary and Suzanne O'Neal) [maifto:garysuzanneC~comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 11:45 AM To: affyman~wmwst.net subject: trees Marty, Is it possible that you can ask for the ordinance documentation which refers to Nick Streits statement that "the council doesn't have to consider any of the trees?" His explanation at the last Task Force meeting was that when you build a new house in Saratoga, you don't have to follow the Saratoga Tree Wile but you have to follow the rule once the house is built. He said that the park is like building a new house and they don't have to work around any of the trees. Suzanne Page 1 of 3 Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:00 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Show us the documentation please From: Norrn Kline Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:20 AM To: Richard 5. Taylor Cc: Dave Anderson; Cathleen Boyer John Cherbone Subject: Fwd: Show us the documentation please Begin forwazded message: From: Norman Kline <klineCalcas r.com> Date: November 12, 2005 9:16:19 AM PST To: Brian Robertson <robertsonbrlanla~ indsprina com> Subject: Re: Show us the documentation please Brian: Thank you for your note below. I know you aze truly fighting for the quality of the neighborhood and I am also committed to that effort. First: As I understand it, our legal group gave that opinion based on a review of available documentation. Its not that we aze presenting documentaiton that its a community park, but that there simply is no legal documentation stating that KMP was approved by the City Council as a specific neighborhood park. Since there is no legal record of it being approved as a neighborhood park, then by definition it is a community park or simply a city park. If there is such documentation, a specific resolution, either when the park was completed, dedicated, or there-afrer, I would love to see it. Just because other documents may or may not refer to the park as a neighborhood pazk, doesn't change its legal designation. Supporting documents are commonly wrong and Page 2 of 3 can be mistaken. Also, sometimes terms can be used as a description of its current informal' use, and do not necessarily imply a legal definition of the property, Again, just because an article of a review plan or PRC documentation gets it wrong, doesn't change the legal definition. The only legal definition that I am truly confident in is that this is a city park. I also now know that its roughly 10 acres. Second: I'm pretty familiar with the city ordinance and general plan I can's find anything in those two documents that would prevent this city council or any other city council in developing the park with or without many of the elements the neighborhood groups do not want. ' So it seems to me the question of neighborhood vs. community designation isn't the key question. The key quesfion is how to develop a I O acre park in such a manner as to have the least impact on the surrounding community. Our task force was not given the task to define neighborhood vs. community. We were assigned the task to find consensus between the three major community stake holders. That is what we are doing. I hope you can help us in building that consensus and developing the park in such a way that everyone wins. I believe that is possible. Norman On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:42 AM, Brian Robertson wrote: Hi Norman, We have many concerns on what you and the council have said vs. the actions underway. Specifically, it has been 15 months (August 4, 2004 letter to the KMP neighbors} since the directive was provided to determine if KMI' changed from a neighborhood pazk to a Page 3 of 3 Addidona] points today that are pertinent to the park status are: 1. The 1991 masterplan was never adopted. The city has paperwork as recent as 2003/2004 stating this. It can be found in the Palk and Trans MasteI Plan TeView by Clty employee Ann Welsh (2003/2004). 2. In 2003, an Open space review plan refers to KMP as a neighborhood park. 3. In 2004, a PRC document shows that I{MP is still a neighborhood park and questions how to get to community. The PRC was then disbanded. 4. There have been no public meetings to discuss adoption of a new Trails and Master Plan/ open space plan which aze required by law. At the 11/2/05 council meeting and again at the I1/3/OS task force meeting (a copy provided for record), I provided specific documents that validated our position that ICMP is a neighborhood park. We do not want to hear a response in the opinion of this person os that person. We have done extensive research reviewing city records. A famous Iine from the movie Jerry Mc Guire is "Show me the money." We11 in this case, show us the paperwork declaring and adopting this park as a community park. Before this task force proceeds further, the documentation to prove the status the task force is operating under must be presented. We need to see backup, not heaz opinions. Brian Page 1 of 7 Kristin Borel From: R Alley (valley@pacbell.net] SeM: Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:32 PM To: Aileen Kao; Peter Pranys; North Kline; Elaine Clabeaux Ce: Robert Alley; John Cherbone; Kristin Boret SubJect: Kevin Moran Park Trees Dear Task Force members: When evaluating the different alternatives for the development of Kevin Moran Park, please, please, find the alternative that mlitigates the impact on this park's moss beautiful asset's, its trees. best regards, Bob Alley P.S. t didn't have email addresses for all the task force members so Kristin could you please forward it to the other members. thank you. Do you really want tq rip out these tree's and put in a parking lot? Page 2 of 7 The following pictures are of the California Sycamore trees that are along the west side of the park next to the freeway. Please don't rip out some of the tallest and most beautiful trees in the park. Page 3 of 7 Page 4 of 7 Page, 5 of 7 Page 6 of 7 Page 7 of 7 Submitted by Brian Robertson to the Kevin Moran Aark Task Force 11/03/2005 1`~ topic -Park Size Clarification 1. Hakone: 16 acres -including parking. 2. Central Park /Heritage Orchard: 14 acres. Library parking is separate.. If developed, parking would come.from the 14 awes. 3. Congress Springs: 11.97 acres. 9.97 acres of park and 2+ acres of parking (sweet parking not included) 4. Kevin Moran: 9.92 acres (per 1994 City Manager Peacock) (street parking not included) 2nd topic -KMP is a neighborhood park Since the inception of KMP it has been a neighborhood park. . 1991 the Parks and Trails Master Plan prepared by Wallace, Roberts and Todd suggested changing neighborhood park status to 5 acres or less. No action taken and no approvals occurred. • August 4, 2003: 2`~ draft of the Park Open Space and Trails Plan update, prepared by Assistant City Planner Ann Welsh, states that "the Master Plan was not formally adopted." • May 3, 2004 the Park and Rec commission questioned the classification of the park and NO ACTION was recommended. Accordingly, the Master Plan was not approved or adopted, thus the status of Kevin Moran Park remains as a neighborhood classification. As the Task force proceeds with recommendations please remember this is a neighborhood park. Cathleen Boyer From: Nicholas G. Streit [nsUe'~cpa-onGne.comJ Sent: Thursday, November O6, 2003 2:43 PM To: Cathleen Boyer Subject: FW: Open Fields f.~ ' !~ ~~ ---Original Message----- Fwm: Doug Robertson [maigo:drobertSOn~urrteranF.mm] SeM: Wednesday, November O5, 2003 6:50 PM To; kline~t:aspr,com; sbogosian@aoi.com; nstreit(4lcpa-online.com; Waltonsmiltt@attbi.com; kk2k]ng~comcast.net Subject~ .Open Fields Deaz City Council Members, I hope this a-mail is received in time before the tonight's City Counsel meeting. I am later than I had hoped as I have been with my wife who is recovering from surgery that occurred yesterday. As a new resident of Saratoga and a parent of two young children I hope the counsel hilly supports the proposal for more parks which are suitable for sports and other activities that engage the youth of Saratoga in constructive and enriching activities. We have moved TA this community in large part because of the school system and have been pleasantly surprised by the sense of community that I believe is sorely lacking in many Bay Area cities. But I think that this sense of commtirtity and the attractiveness of living in Saratoga can be Curther enhanced. The addition of more parks is one step that can be taken now to make Saratoga an even stronger Community. VG'hile a few citizens in Saratoga aze no doubt opposed to such parks due to the cost and/or their dose proximity to proposed park sites, I believe that the wellbeing and health of our community and youth far outweigh the negative impact on a few. In fatt while these few might suggest thu such parks hurt property values, !believe that such community amenities attually add to property valua both for homes near and more remote for the parks sites. While l feel that more parks would benefit certain groups such as AYSO, which I support, I believe that such projects have a much greater impact on the quality of life in our current urban culture. I hope to team tomorrow that the Counsel supports the Kevin Moran Field Project and other future park and open space proposals. Sincerely, Doug Robertson 19] 72 De Havilland Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 408-99G-8363 I would like to refer to the report on User groups, specifically the largest user group in the City that being AYSO. I would like the council to have some further detail concerning history of enrollment 1991 -city documents reflect that the group had 735 players with 55 teams averaging 13 players per team. 1995 the league had 1030 players with 84 teams averaging 12-13 per team with a projection to the city that by 2000 they would be at 1584 players 1997-Just under 1200 players on 94 teams averaging 12-13 per team. 1998- Nearly 1200 players 1999, the number was 1190 with 93 teams averaging 12-13 per team. 2000 they were at 1050 players with 105/103(per 8/2000 AYSO Kicker) teams averaging 10 players per team, During this period of time from ]995 to 2000 the league continually pursued more space fot active field use. The city went ahead and spent 1.9 M of city funds on a sports complex for the league, a major tribute and triumph for both. In 2003 the PRC requested the league to provide detail with names addresses and ages of players. That is not present in city records. This was to be the stipulation going forward. As a matter of fact the recent chair adhoc to KMP task force requested the same on June 1, 2005. From 2003 forward: ASK HOW MANY PLAYERS ARE VIPC 2003-1250 players 2004-with under six 1165 players and 123 teams. Kicker shows 1270 with 121 teams averaging 10 per player, September 2005 field report listed league at 1100, memo from Howard to city listed number at 1185, Teams at 110 averaging 10 players per team. Around 1100 from Saratoga, with 700 being from SUSD. CYSA number at 350 players with 23 teams averaging 13 players a team, ~~- ~~~ ~~Q i~~ ~,~u ,~ ~~~ L !`1e~~t,i~cZ/i ~. r~~-~, ~-~ ~--. Page 1 of 2 Kristin Borel From: Elaine Clabeaux (eac~pacbeit.netJ Sent: Wednesday, November 09, ~ll)p5 9:33 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: Answer to question asked me at last task force meeting Hi Kristin, I asked Dave Anderson how to approach this and he said I should ask you to put it on the agenda for the next TF meeting. Also for me to send you my statement and you could include it in the packets for next week. I have my answers below. Mr. Jacobs asked me why we did not want game fields in KM Park. I would like to answer this with the information below. Cost and Maintainenee PRC presentation to the city council for approval of user fees: Date 1/5/02 This is a small section of my presentation regarding Congress Springs Pazk I will be happy to provide you with the entire presentation if desired. FYI: the council voted in favor of the user fee increases as presented. > "Ideas for the pazk ranged from a showcase facility only to be used on weekends to just performing a turf overhaul.On the insistence of the user groups. and due to the general lack of > facilities in the city, it was agreed that the fields should be able > to handle high stress usage 6 days a week during soccer seasons. > An agronomist was contracted to advise on the project with respect to > soil preparation, turf type and required rest periods between > seasons. This was done in order to protect the lazge investment the > city is making in this park. He recommended a specific type of turf > that would withstand the planned usage. It is a type of Bermuda > grass that goes dormant and toms yellow in the winter. It is&n bsp;used in > professional sports stadiums. This turf is not used anywhere else in > the city and therefore also required new equipment be purchased in > order to maintain the fields. An expert has confirmed what we already > knew, soccer doesn't just need flat grass, it needs special grass. > This was also confirmed when we looked at Wildwood Park and Redwood > School's lower field after the recently completed soccer season." "Congress Springs renovation accounted for ^-90% of the Park Development Fund (2M) but only benefits 6% of the population" Since then the city at Congress springs alone has spent another $200,000 this yeaz in sand channels. (the grant was not recieved but the bill still had to be paid) I have not tracked other expenses but I am sure John can give us these figures. Sports fields aze very expensive to put it and to maintain. This is a low services city, stated over and over again. This is a city with budgetary problems no matter where these fields were to be located. Ai this time the city does not have the money and with $400,000 budget Page 2 of 2 for the park all else would have to be left undone if a game field were to be put in. We want our park developed after waiting for 35 years. ise. We already have reached the top decible noise level in our neighbo7hood due to the Freeway. Stattaco noise is much harder to deal with than constant noise. Practice fields do not bring whistles, yelling, cheering, etc. that games would bring to the park. Safety for the children of Blue Hills, Miller Jr. High and Lynbrook High School. The trail going through our park is a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle trail. Any full size field will impact this dedicated trail and just as persons purchasing property cannot build on any trail easement but must improve it during construction so must it be in our park. This can be confirmed in the Trails portion of the Master Plan. Elaine Clabeaux Submitted by Mary Robertson on November 03, 2005 This summer, July 18"' and July 20"'to be precise, an organized soccer group was utilizing the park. Having had children that played AYSO, I recalled that their practices did not start until mid-August. I called the Head of the Public Works Department to find out if someone had a contract with the city and was informed "NO, AYSO did not start until August, find out who it is and we will send code enforcement." Upon visiting the field, I observed all the players wearing AYSO logo shirts and gear. I then approached the Coach to ask if he had a permit. He responded NO and admitted that he was from CYSA, and a Los Gatos League. He was a friend of Ms. King and was using the field because the school field he was to practice on in Los Gatos was being repaired. He had read about atl the publicity on this park and came to use it. I wiU be glad to give staff his name and phone number should they need to verify. In the movie, fie/d of ©reams, the line many will remember is, " If you build it, they will come." Well, we haven't even built it, yet they came. We all purchased our homes in this neighborhood, had our children and made our lives here with the understanding that KMP is a neighborhood park. We did not purchase near a school expecting functions, we did not purchase by a park bordered by a school, multifamily housing or commercial (EI Quito), we did not purchase by a park with a history of being utilized for sports, bordered by a train track and High Power PGE towers (Congress Springs), we purchased in a neighborhood by a neighborhood park. The freeway was disclosed. AYSO has stated since last year that all they need is practice and we all know that a full size regulation field is not needed for practice. In fact, an email to the city states that for U14 the practice size needed is 55x60 yards or (165x180 feet). I believe if tried, you may find this to fit in the bowl area and the remainder of the park could be developed for other uses. Also, Christa McAuliff field, previously utilized by Saratoga AYSO, has the measurements of 349x221 ft. This will accommodate a regulation field (330x180 ft.). Marshall lane, when measured is 277x231ft. Both of those areas are currently not utilized by Saratoga AYSO. This will accommodate a practice field (165x180). Three lines from the cities vision statement I would like to remind you of as you proceed further are, "Where homes and neighborhoods are safe and peaceful," and "Where value is placed on an attractive, well maintained and well planned community, "Where a small town, picturesque, residential atmosphere is retained." Although, those of us purchasing homes .here had already thought the neighborhood's vision was already planned, this task force is now given the job of re-planning Kevin Moran neighborhood's future. I ask that you remember the original vision for this city as you do so and I ask that you not consider this task lightly. Consider how it wilt affect the quality and safety of this neighborhood. Page 1 of 1 Peter Pranys From: barbers barons [bjbarone~sbcglobal.ngt] gent; Thursday, November 03, 2005 8:59 AM To: Peter Pranys; sac®pacbell.net Cc: Mary Robertson Subject: Kevin Moran Park I am a neighbor (35 years) as well as a former president of Saratoga/DeAnza CYSA league so I feel that t have had experience with both sides of the KMP issue. My kids have played since they were 7 (the minimum age at that time) to the end of their college career. Two of my sons played for Steve Samson at Santa Clara University. My sons have gone on to do volunteer coaching for their own children, as well as my daughter has become a professbnal coach. When we were trying to put on a viable program for the youth of Saratoga and others, h was an uphill battle on the subject of fields. The fields that we played on required to be constantty maintained whioh included the fNNng of holes caused by gophers weekly,and walking the fields before each game to remove any sharp objects. These Included an open cut can which we missed and caused a girl to need stitches, needles, broken glass beer bottles as well as other items. When the city was asked for help to clean up the fields, they responded that Saratoga was a minimum service city and there was no money to maintain the fields. I'm sure that the sports people are looking at the beautiful sports complexes that other ckies such as Pleasanton have for their youth. What they have to realize Is that these cflies planned for the fields almost before they bulft the homes. They are located in areas that have plenty of parking, ho close neighbors and the land is almost commercially zoned. The easy access helps to control the crowds and minimize the friction between the sports families and the neighbors. KMP is in the middle of a quiet neighborhood (except for the freeway). The neighborhood is over 40 years old and composed of many families who have lived there most of that time. This is not the time or the place to build a sports complex, no matter how much some of the families want it. The neighborhood has watched the trees grow for the last 25 years and needs them to buffer them from the freeway. The orchard has gone to seed, (maintained from the city?). The older trees should be replaced and a boy scout troop or a group of citizens could be empowered to look after them. In keeping with the neighborhood, meditation gardens, more game tables end other passive aclNities could be irx:orporated. We need a place of peace in Saratoga when all the other parks are filled with sports actNitfes. Barbara Barone Northampton Dr Peter Prangs Fes; Wen Chang (wen ~clarinetsys.com] fit; Thursday, November 03, 2005 3:08 PM To: eac~pacbeli.net; Peter Prangs Sub)ect: List of no change Items to KMP Hi Elaine, Peter, As neighbor of Kevin Moran Park, my family votes NO(s) to the following changes to the Park: NO Tree removal of any large heritage trees.....ie walnut, oak, coastal redwoods and the sycamores. NO Parking lot. NO Organized group sport expansion of any kind in the park. Practice for AYSO at the current level Ox. NO Restrooms....based on safety issues for the children. Beat regards, Wen Chang 19724 Elisa Ave. Kristin Borel Fes; R Alley [ralley~pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, Novbmber 02, 2005 8:01 PM To: Aileen Kao; Peter Pranys; Norm Kline; Elaine Clabeaux Ca Robert Alley; John Cherbone; Kristin Borel Subject: KMP Task Force Planning Considerations Attachments: Parking issues regarding development of KMP - 2.doc Parking Iayxs bins aevd"' Hello KMP task force members, I wanted to provide you with my thought!; regarding the parking and traffic issues regarding KMP development. Please take these thoughts into consideration during your planning process. best regards, Bob Alley P.S. I didn't have email addresses for all the task force members so Kristin could you please forward it to the other members. thank you Potential Parking & Traffic issues regarding the development of KMP There is a key issue that is central to the Kevin Moran Park development. Because KMP is surrounded by a quiet residential neighborhood, any major change in pazking and traffic flow will have a dramatic impact on the neighborhood and must be mitigated. Practice fields or game fields -Today KMP has two AYSO practice fields (A&B). These practices do not generate an excessive amount of pazking or traffic in the neighborhood today. When a field is used for practice, caz-pooling is utilized and parents typically drop off and,pick up players but don't stay for the entire practice. Pazking and traffic increases dramatically when a field is used for game play. Typically parents and grandpazents don't carpool and they show up before the game, stay for the entire game and linger for a short time after the game. Because games are so Tightly scheduled as one game ends and another begins each field will generate pazking and traffic demands for four teams during this overlap period. The age of the players also has a ma jorimpact. -The following table shows the number of cars that a game field will generate during these overlap periods. That means it requires parking for four teams per game field. • Under 6 - 5 players per team (5*4 = 20 cars) 2 fields = 40 cars, 4 fields = 80 cars • Under 8 - 7 players per team (7*4 = 28 cars) 2 fields = 56 cars, 4 fields =112 cars • Under 10 - 10 players per team (10*4=40 cars) 2 fields = 80 cars, 4 Selds = 160 cars • Under 12 - 12 players per team (12*4=48 cars) 2 fields = 96 cazs, 4 fields = 192 cars • Under 14 - 15 players per team (15*4=60 cars) 2 fields = 120 cars, 4 fields = 240 cars • Under 16 - 18 players per team (18*4=72 cazs) 2 fields = 144 cars, 4 fields = 288 cars • Under 19 - 18 players per team (18*4=72 cars) 2 fields = 144 cars, 4 fields = 288 cars KMP currently has street pazking for 40 cazs, 10-15 aze currently in use daily. Field size is also different between practice and game fields. - A practice field does not require the same field size as a game field. Practice can be accomplished on much smaller fields. The field size for a game field also varies by age group: • Under 6 - 30 x 15 yazds + 6 yazds on the side lines • Under 8 - 50 x 25 yazds + 6 yazds for the side lines • Under 10 - 80 x 40 yards + 6 yards for the side lines • Under 12 - 90 x 45 yards + 6 yards for the side lines • Under 14 + 100 x 50 yazds + 6 yards for the side lines So will I{]YIP be utilized for practice or games? As you can see from the above analysis, utilizing KMP for game play for older players will have a major negative parking and traffic impact on the neighborhood. In fact because of the endless demand for fields there will be tremendous pressure to allow it. Even if the city council assures the neighborhood that it will only be used for practice, future city councils will not be bound by their decisions and assurances, as we have seen even by this city council. Therefore KMP must be designed to mitigate this impact on the neighborhood. Designing ItMP wiih Smaller non reanlarinn fields will allow for practice of all age groups and is the only way to guarantee that high traffic Peter Pranys - - - - - - - - per: Teresa Lorenzen Jteresa~lorenzens.orgJ Sant: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:58 PM To: eac~pacbell.net; Peter Pranys Subject: Kevin Moran Park development In the planning of the development of Kevin Moran Park, please make note that there are Scout Eagle projects that are a part of this park. The pathways that extend from the 1/4 mile track to the picnic tables were dug out, surfaced, and lined by Scouts of Troop 566. The city has already destroyed one of these pathways with no regard for the time and effort that was put into it's creation. It would be a shame to see Che service of our Scouts lost to park development, especially to the needs of such a small minority of the citizens. In planning and carrying out an Eagle project, the Scout is making a committment to community service and to the values of Scouting. It is a sign of disrespect to those values and to Che Scouts who put in so much time when the city disregads these projects. The development of Kevin Moran Park should be done in such a way ae to p=eaerve the Eagle projects from which the city and neighborhood have benefited. Thank you for your consideration. Teresa Lorenzen 19789 Northampton Dr., Saratoga Parent, Boy Scout Troop 566 Kevia Moran Park neighbor Peer Pran per; Teresa Lorenzen [teresa~lorenzens.orgj gam; Monday, October 31, 2005 3:06 PM To: eac~pacbeil.net; Peter Prangs 8ubJect: Kevin Moran Park devebpment Trees, especially the redwoods, at Kevin Moran Park are a vital, natural resource that should be protected. These trees provide not only a quiet place to relax and enjoy our beautiful California weather but also serve as a sound and pollution barrier for Highway 85. Have you stood at the top of the pedestrian overpass or even on the ram up the overpass? Have you tried to carri on a conversation in either of those locations? It's not possible because of the freeway noise. Would you like to live with that noise level on an ongoing basis? The city should be the first to abide by its own regulations! DO NOT take trees out of Kevin Moran Park. They are a distinct part of the park character and should main ae such. Thank you, Teresa Lorenzen Kevin Moran Park neighbor Peter Prange From: KMP-Neightwrs~yahoogroups.com on behalf of Naresh Makhijani [nareshm®yahoo.com~ gam; Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:10 PM To: KMP-Neighbors~yahoogroups.(~m gum; [KMP-Neighbors] FW;Remove coastal redwoods for soccer? -----Original Message----- From: Nareah Makhijani Saat: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:10 PM To: kk2king@comcast.net; 'kline@caspr.com'; 'awaltonsmith@saratoga.ca.us 'akao@earatoga.ca.us'; 'natreit@cpe-onlfne.com' Cc: an@community-newspapeza.com; MJurich@mercurynewe.com; en@svcn.com Subject: Remove coastal redwoods for soccer? Dear Council Members, At last Thursday night's KMP task force meeting, Howard Miller, the head of the Saratoga AYSO stated that he researched the redwood trees in the park, and they are not native and auggeate$ that it would be acceptable to remove the redwoods so the park could be developed. Before this thought propagates too far and takes a life of its own, I'd like to offer mY opinion and also set the record straight. There are close to 30 coastal redwood trees at ISMP. The task force has agreed that the 'Integrity of aesthetics be maintained". These redwoods are a major part of the serenity and aesthetics of Kevin Moran park. They will be there long after the children in Saratoga grow up, for generations to enjoy. These trees also serve ae a noise buffer from the freeway. Of course, these trees are a key part of the ambience of the park, providing shade for all to relax under and to catch an afternoon or evening breeze. It is really shocking that these trees would ever even be under discussion as part of park development. To me, these redwood trees ARE Kevin Moran Park. On the factual side, the Tree Ordinance clearly calls these Sec~ervirens) out as "Native trees (see below)'. In additic talks about the close tie between property value and trees s and protect them. As I understand it, the city council can ordinance for the sake of development but i content that the discount the basic principles that are behind this ordinance KMP neighborhood. redwoods (Sequoia n, the Tree Ordinance clearly s well as the need to preserve choose to ignore this city council should not and their responsibility the So, I urge the KMP task force and the city council to treat this issue with the diligence it deserves and not simply listen to rhetoric. Best Regards, Naresh Makhijani Scully Avenue (n) Native tree means Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobate), Tan Oak (Lithocarpus densitlorus), Black Oak (Quercus kellogi), Hlue Oak (Quercus douglasi), Scrub Oak IQuercus dumosa), Big Leaf Maple IACer macrophylhum), California Buckeye (Aesculus California), Douglas fir (PSeudotsuga menziesii) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). 15-50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. The City Council finds that the City is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the ---- M.,..h ~f which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental. beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. To compliment and strengthen zoning, subdivision and other land use standards and regulations, while at the same time recognizing the privileges of private prop@rty ownership, the city council adopts this ordinance to establish basic standards and measures for the maintenance, removal, and replacement of trees. Thus, this ordinance is designed to provide a stable and sustainable urban forget to preserve and protect significant historic heritage values, and to enhance the unique aesthetic character and environment of this City. (Amended by Ord. 226 § 2 (part), 2003) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------__________> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your. home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRUSR/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Sgto1B/TM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groupa.yahoo.com/group/KMP-Neighbors/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: KMP-Neighbors-unaubscribeGyahoogroupa.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://doce.yahoo.com/info/terms/ October 17, 2005 Dear Task Force Members, While I am unable to attend your meeting this week I would like to give you my "Do Not Want" list for Kevin Moran Park. These are my personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the neighborhood or my husband. 1) I do not want a parking lot. Kevin Moran is a lovely pastoral park. When I drive down Northampton Dr. towazds the park it just makes me feel so good so see that expanse of grass with all the trees. It is beautiful, I have never seen a beautiful parking lot. When the balls, toys, and picnic lunches aze all packed up, on hot afternoons or rainy days we will be left with asphalt and curbs. This is not my idea of improvement. I do not currently think there is a problem with parking during current soccer practice. I did not see any problems with the parking last yeaz when more kids practicing. I had no problems with parking during the Quito renovation when many more people visited the pazk. No one blocked my mailbox or driveway. Unnecessary u-toms blocking the road would probably be my biggest complaint. Whatever improvements are made please keep the usage consistent with on-street pazking access. 2) I do not want play/recreation/picnic/other area to come right up to my fence line. Kevin Moran Park property is next door (beside not behind) our home. Our side yard is not very wide and our living space is not very far from the fence line. The current use of an occasional dog walker or child playing does not disturb us. I would greatly appreciate a buffer zone of trees or other landscaping. Right now we really enjoy many existing trees along our fence and would like the healthy ones to stay. 3) I do not want the existing park, path or trees changed. I value all healthy trees for fruit harvesting, shade and beauty. There is plenty of relatively unused (dirt) area that needs "improving". My children and I enjoy the orchard and its apricots and would love to see any of it preserved/replanted/maintained if this is possible. Please consider some kind of rodent abatement before work begins, We have had ongoing problems with squinels, rats and raccoons. Thank you for your consideration of my requests. Denise Goldberg 12325 Scully Avenue "NEW" task force would be biased, and should NOT continue to discuss the KEVIN MORAN NEIGHBORHOOD PARK; without the old task force in place It was said that two of the city council members, where taking sides with the organized sports groups; verses the input of "THE PUBLIC CITIZENS of Sazatoga". There are other interests for Kevin Moran pazk, they were outlined at the September 21 meeting: Many people and there should be verfication wanted something OTHER THAN ORGANIZED SPORTS. Mybe a dog park, or ONLY a NEIGHBOR PARK with the orchazds, as the pazk IS standing NOW! Under the current direction of Norman Kline, the task group members HE has assigned, are meeting this evening, without the ok fmm the old task force. Last night at a City Council meeting, I said I would file this appeal to remove IMMEDIATELY the NEW TASK FORCE, and believe now that only the city council should remain with the old Kevin Moran task force developed in the year 2004 on July 28 until further public input) Also a PUBLIC questionnaire, should be developed PUBLICLY and with PUBLIC INPUT NOW, and not by the biased NEW TASK FORCE! In a few days, there will be an outside CITIZENS COMMITTEE group meeting on this subject of "bias" , along with due process, transparency, special meetings and committee formations. This email is going to other Saratogans that have witness to this email, under bcc. Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Thursday, October O6, 2005 4:52 PM 70: Gary and Suzanne O'NeaU Cc: Kristin Borel Subject: RE: Information for Task Force Dear Suzanne, Thank you very much for your thoughts regarding Kevin Moran Park. We will edd your commend to the record. Sincerely, John from: Gary and Suzanne O'Neall [mailto:garysuzanne@comcast.netJ Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:27 PM To: John Cherbone Subject: Information for Task Force Dear John, I'm sorry I won't be able to attend tonight's meeting because of scheduling problems. I do want you to t>e aware of problems which exist currently at the park. Within months of moving into this neighborhood, we were told by several neighbors about a house which was to be avoided and that our children were to be watched carefully. This house is across the street from Kevin Moran Park. I'm sure if you contact the police department, they cen give you a long list of problems at this residence. I'm sure if you contact the neighbors in this area, they can give you an even longer list of problems regarding the residences of this home. If you are thinking about irutalling a bathroom at KMP, the task force and sports organizations needs to be aware of the safety issues which can occur in and around a bathroom. My suggestion is to avoid putting the Saratoga children at risk by not installing a bathroom. Please have the Task Force look at squirrel abatement before you start any improvements. The squirrels that live in KMP will Invade the neighboring houses and then move back to the park to destroy whatever you have installed. Please look al our city's fiscal responsibilities and expenses before you build. The city has many expenses already with Congress Springs and Azule Park. Let's create a low maintenance park and be fiscally responsible. Thank you for your time and efforts, Suzanne O'Neall Kristin Borei From: John Livingstone Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 6:58 PM To: John Cherbone Cc: Dave Anderson; Kristin Borel Subject: FlN: Kevin Moran ParWNorth Campus FYI -----Original Message----- From: Linda Yelavich [mailto:LindaY@cupemno.org] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 4:06 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: Kevin Moran Pazk/North Campus Deaz Mr. Livingston: I was at my pazents house who still live in Saratoga. When I visit I still enjoy reading the Saratoga News to keep up on the community. Lately I have been reading a lot about Kevin Moran Pazk and the possibility of changing it from a residential park to a soccer complex, much to the disatisfacdon of several neighbors who reside near the pazk. I have also read quite a bit about the North Campus and how it has become a financial drain on the city thus the decision to sell it to a developer for nine residences. Unless the information I have read is incorrect, it seems that the main reason the city would like to sell the North Campus is because it would be too costly to renovate to todays standazds. I am not sure where the city plans on obtaining the money to make Kevin Moran Park into a soccer complex but it cannot be inexpensive. What about taking that money and leveling the buildings at the North Campus and turning that into a soccer complex. The land is jewel, there is akeady an existing pazking lot plus lots of additional parking along Prospect Rd It is in a more open azea and not infringing upon a residential area. The land would continue to be used for community purposes and if the demand for soccer were to decrease in the future the city would still own the land to develop into a senior center or community center or later sell for development. It would satisfy the people who need soccer space. It would please the neighbors living near Kevin Moran Park to know their park would remain residential and the North Campus would become a pazk for community use. The city would not have to keep up any buildings other than maybe a restroom or two and the money that was going to be used to convert Kevin Moran Park could go into the North Campus renovation. I may be missing something here but it seems it would keep more people happy. Could the soccer organizations help with the upkeep costs of a soccer complex? Sincerely, Linda Yelavich 1677 Blaney Ave. San Jose, CA PS: I grew up in Saratoga and attended Foothill Elementary School, Redwood Junior High, (now Redwood Middle School), and graduated from Saratoga HIgh. My heart remains in Saratoga even though I can not afford to live there. Page 1 of 1 Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 200510:37 AM To: Cathleen Boyer; Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park From: Ann WaRonsmlth Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:31 AM To: davee~saratoga.c.aus; John Cherbone Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: Judy Keever [maifto:jkeever@netgate.net] Sent: Wed 9/28/2005 10:01 AM To: Nkk Streit; Ann Waltonsmith; Kathleen King; Norm Kline; Aileen Kao Subject: RE: Kevin Moran Park I would like to add my recommendation to leave Kevin Moran park as a neighborhood park. There is no time of day people are not out walking there, Coking their children to the playground, passing through on the way to 81ue Hills School and bock. It is simply not big enough to add soccer courts and alt That involves and still mointain the 'friendly neighborhood' quolity it now hos. As I was driving to the Post Office yesterday, I noticed that Heritage Park has a HUGE amount of already flat land and no neighbors around, and no one walking through. Couldn't a piece of thdt on the far end toward the City offices be turntd into soccer fields much more easily, and with already available parking? It seems possible to me. I know those trees are representotive of Sorotoga's history, but so are the similar ones at Kevin Moron Park. I believe it could be trimmed down some and still mointoin it's heritage status. And what about neighborhood grammar schools for soccer? Or this North end location where the Methodist Church was and that needs to be rebuilt to meet code standards. Maybe that piece of land could be leveled and not rebuilt, and used os a soccer park instead. Aren't these possibilities) I have been a resident for 37 years, and although I am now o grandma, we still use the park with our grandkids. I can't even imogine where traffic and parking could be for such intense usage. Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will vote no. Sincerely, Judy Keever 19797 Colby Court Saratoga, CA 95070 408 257-1345 Kevin Moran Park discussion Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 9:50 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park discussion From: Nick Streit Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 9:32 AM To: Cathleen Boyer; Dave Anderson; John Cherbone Subject: FtN: Kevin Moran Park discussion Page 1 of 2 from: Jerry Tu [mailto:Jerry.Tu@palm.mm] Sent: Tue 9/27/2005 9:22 AM To: Nick Streit; awaltonsmith@saratoga.ca.us; kk2king@mmcast.net; kline@caspr.com; akao@saretoga.ca.us Subject: Kevin Moran Park discussion Dear Mayor and City Council members, I attended last week's meeting discussing land use & Kevin Moran Park development. Thank you all so much for putting time and effort into these issues. Here are some opinions from me and my family. As a Kevin Moran Park user and neighbor I can't say enough how disappointed I am about plans/ideas to add soccer fields to this park. It's one of the only neighborhood parks left in this area that many families in Saratoga qn go to escape the hustle and bustle of this valley. Aside from the natural beauty and serenity of the park, the park provides a natural habitat for squirrels, huge butterflies that fly right up to you, birds and others. It truly is a unique place in Saratoga. Putting in parking lot, restrooms, and leveling the orchard and rolling hills would be a travesty to this park. I heard the many inputs at the City Council meeting last night but couldn't stay for the whole meeting. I can understand the needs of more fields, but this Is not the place to bulid them. If any of you lived near the park or use it on a regular basis, you would understand why there are so many objedrons. We are city tax payers too. In fact, we pay city taxes and donY even attend any of the Saratoga schools!! Our kids in the Kevin Moran Park neighborhood are zoned to go to Cupertino schools. The argument that Saratoga residents who don't live in the Kevin Moran neighborhood but pay city taxes should therefore have use of the park for soccer does not stand. There are many residents in the city who pay taxes but are not entitled to the use of all city servKes because of zoning. Also, soccer is one of many, many organized sports and activities. I have 2 kids at Miller and 1 at Blue Hilts. My son loves to play soccer with his friends, but I can say honestly that of the many Saratoga families I know, the majority is NOT involved with AYSO or CYSO soccer. They are not the majority. 1 plead with the City Council to consider alternatives and to preserve the park. I can't help but think about North Campus and the enormous potential that site had/has(??) for community use such as soccer. I was disappointed in the decision to sell that precious property. I think that was a mistake that the city will regret in the future. We need to look more into the future rather than short term. Kevin Moran Park discussion Page 2 of Z Thank you for listening to our pleas. ]erry & Carlin Tu 12196 Candy Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Circulaz 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advise in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, mazketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agrnt responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(aze) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval, Use of Kevin Moran Park Kristin Borel Page 1 of Z From: John Cherbone Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:43 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Use of Kevin Moran Park From: Ann WaRonsmith Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:31 AM To: Cathleen Boyer; John Cherbone Subject: FW: Use of Kevin Moran Park Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: Lynne Engelbert (mailto:iengelbert@mail.arc.nasa.gov) Sent: Thu 9/22/2005 8:07 AM To: Kathleen King; Norm Kline; Ann Waltonsmith; Nick Streit; Aileen Kao Cc: lengelbert@comcast. net Subject: Use of Kevin Moran Park Good morning, I sat in the council chambers last night for the first time in my almost 15 years in Sazatoga. I found out about the proposal to put playing fields, parking and potties at Kevin Moran Park last week in The Guide and again with a flyer tucked under the welcome mat at my home. I'm distressed. After listening to the playing field report last night I began to understand the magnitude of the problem. It also became very clear to me that destroying the serenity of Kevin Moran Park and/or ripping the Heritage Orchazd out near the Library would be like applying amini-band aid after open heart surgery. It's not going to help solve the problem, but would create others for a quite little neighborhood or cause the loss of a beautiful orchard. It would destroy a pazk that is used by locals from little babies being pushed in strollers, to the elderly slowly making their way around the loop or just sitting quietly watching the little ones play on the jungle gym. I run there with my dog on a regulaz basis. I love the mustard in the Spring, the families with their plastic bags, picking the apricots, the little kids (and often adults) who douse it as a practice field. I love the fact that it is used by a broad cross-section of our neighborhood. I would hate to see all of this taken away from those who currently use it because it IS a quite little neighborhood park to create a sports field only. Mr. Streit made the comment last night that the sports field would only be used for 3 hours in the afternoon and that the rest of us would have the remaining 21 hours. He was upset because those in attendance gave a "collective groan". That wasn't disrespect, that was people reacting to an exaggeration. You don't find any park utilized to any extent for the 8-12 hours of darkness (depending on the time ofyear) ...this leaves 9-13 hrs., not 27. Kevin Moran is used during the day by young Use of Kevin Moran Park Page 2 of 2 mothers and their children and the retired. Those of us who work utilize Kevin Moran at the same times the sports fields would be used, not in the middle of the night. I fully support Mr. Klein's suggestion of working with adjacent cities to approach the possibility of jointly purchasing a parcel of land for the specific creation of Single USE'., Sp01tS p3ik. A 10iUt Powers Authority is a good way to go. Thank you for listening. Lynne Engelbert 19327 Northampton Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 P. S. I was one of those who did not receive a notice of last night`s meeting. I'm not sure what is going on there, but unless it is sent First Class perhaps the post office isn't getting them out in time for the meeting. Lynne J. EnpNMr6 Saotlon Chfaf of Trafnin0 NASAAmas Dbastsr Assfstanu d fiasew Team AMS 168-7 AAORa1t FMId, CA 8406-7000 (6601 BW-71t1 (860)BW-OBW FAX (880)%0.8868 Paper http://www.myairmai].comJquick.shhn) Cathleen Boyer .-. From: Nick Streit Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 9:0T PM To: Kathleen King; Cathleen Boyer, Dave Anderson; John Cherbone Subject: FW: Soccer fields ~ ~~`c FYI r ~ " \ 5 Nick nose@hotmail.com] Sent: Sun 9/18/2005 12:43 PM ander.org Subject; Soccer fields Having just visited an AYSO site to find out who to contact so that I coultl tbm lain o school For games on Sunday (Cope n i rve ou perm according to Kathy VyNinkyl in Maintenance does not allow teams to even predice in live behind Blue J-tills School last year we' pre games ys a w nog a season. - don't know about your weekend,quality of life in Saratoga,.but ours hss gonesteadily downhill.over ihe.last few playofis....six of which are scheduled on Sundays...did I mention tTiaY Ito psrrr~itsare given out for these days9 This is the arrogance Of the association. I4{6awure~adcetl,tedau ~~ <~ a rev oft cir nnrmM thou 'n gd ~c b ~t we're fading it vary hard to tenors the.noise r~n~njg~~~. of reef", I understand the need for youth ro get irrvolved ~n a i uens who are paying taxes also dg¢erye some rest and relaxation qn what is,often. that[ only day of supposed peace. Should the AYSO and council members not get behind the rxeaton of new fields at the site of the old Grace United methodist church on Blaney and Prosped9 It has 2.B acres and should help ro satisfy the need for not only a North Saratoga Community Center but playing fields for the youth of this area. thank you for your time, Tricia Sweeney, Knollwood Dr. Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advise in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer fot the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,thiscommonication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. ]f the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(are) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval. li •~`~~•~ af~~ ~~,~~~~ ~ ~t~ John Chemw~e~~ Ftotn: Emma (elwydwlt~ezWe iDp-ItJ snc rl,eed:y, sepferrlber 13, 2005 ta.32 AM To: ,ktrt Cfterborle; Dare nrdsraon rx; Ilata~ tnl.phy®r-td.com stte~r ~ alga acne ~aautttt«ws: ElOu~o 9 e os.vac be p d a.c r• a wnnb darirK ganws. with uw nwr 1.1 w a pltlhM4. Paretlts rAlo wam a IKe Wo ioeocr payrn rrn kr aw ~w~:) earnor park on t4aao t4saa/M. ft B we arc nac tfut iF rrutict has been meibd a ewn rlitnoaod N -he Saratoga 75111es marry heighboa wouM1 have ana•ulod fhc rrrcelirr~• m Ji•cuxa Ow: iaon7 wuuna yetp ate in a pwk bared ie the tniddb o[a neithbofiood 'Ibc p QuiW rank fwa: wx• wrrhx Ila irnpnx•iwr awl an: Wlluwu~ .wwld 6e obmved afbr ale upYradl~ went nralplrwnl: -_ ~ • Nt eh6na,~-- .:..~ a....~r..w .~.s, r• L- en M., •.na "0 CKrri • SThn - ..":-:,z ~"'"'.i1" ~~~ LO1, su drua is ? Irumn .rroarl+,hfrrn bond accts.. at the end of Ws rkty. PrafIN2 IIIdV arIWRS_ WId! 3flSt nt~ m,rr {r:.u C,u-iYr,a ~naidenls ' / _- sawrmy betwMl 9.11 was Deily,.' used for adah Soccer pmrtict. fa ketraiteion k Socut's wlsrk-time hccess to continue nc~ fulkrwing muss mrur. •~nwlr uw: parking/ dn:p.ull's, ae. arly I'nnn Wcsdngs parkbrK hM k, rro nrorc leptattd Wtimotulm. It iS time W lade laamil.• fiw any vinlalims, . Recreation xtivities ore W also i/sc tfrt Wcsl)wpc parking IM . -tatrrittal RccrGrlum R Stta~cr use rmly. Aral, No prxtrlitx ur he isru~d kw la;riral+ dwupl uuglll+urhood access tirrws. Pelmilletl users swat cwnisi ofet kxa SOyG ur3arallraa resiJuns. Oalti crcies hove denied tICGE55 lb tl-eir fields whrn a0A- r~yNllsd numrDcn wwu higlwT thxn msidtsnr JN%1 lrnYnxu d~u l'rwrJ~ is n Saratnga rasitlertt.dnac not ratan a tram tan pranix on any Saratoga Reld. Any pcrsan otl'aing a paid service lc.g., drag training or fitness coaching) must file a permit if they art using da: puk m a ~" nanmcrekl knit. Whik (his may Iw hrrd W ulfirru we Iwn s.asr iiuul (:atop irwnrttioo, private SOtCEr [oxhitlg atld dOg "~ l~S~ ~mlble~ ,~~~~ 1 ,,~ r ~2~ ~~ \\'}1 b/ Kristin Borei From: John Cherbone Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:17 PM To; Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park FYI -----Original Message----- Fmm: Nick Streit Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 Z:04 PM To: John Cherbone; Dave Anderson Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Pazk Fl'I Nick --_--Original Message----- From: Adele Salle [mailto:salle@usfca.edu] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:02 PM To: awaltonsmith@sazatoga.ca.us; Nick Streit; kk2king@comcast.net; kline@caspr.com; akao@sazatoga.ca.us Subject: Kevin Moran Park We have lived in the neighborhood of Kevin Moran Pazk for several decades and enjoy the serenity of the pazk; we take pride in taking our grandchildren there and showing it to visiting family. The play equipment and the large grassy areas provide opportunities for children to play and run freely. The trees provide an environmental buffer from pollution of Highway 85. We do not have to worry about traffic on the quiet streets surrounding the park nor do we have to be concerned about public restrooms as a possible source of unsavory activities. While there is soccer played at the pazk currently, the amount played at the park does not significantly cause noise, commotion or excessive traffic in the azea. Now our understanding is that the city wants to change KMP from a quiet neighborhood park to an active community park and use the site for an AYSO soccer field. We are horrified that the Ciry Council plans to ignore the desires of the residents who live near the park and pursue its own agenda, which appears supporting the wants of AYSO. Clearly you are not listening to the concerns of the neighbors and are supporting AYSO soccer against our wishes. WE ELECTED YOU TO REPRESENT US AND YOU ARE NOT DOING SO! Any number of options are available for the use of the undeveloped land at the park including additional walking paths, a tennis court, bocce ball court, basketball court, gardens and orchards. None of these options would increase traffic to any degree nor would require the building of restrooms or a parking lot. We do not want KMP turned into another sports complex. Listen to the people who live near the park. Vote against organized sports at the park, vote against increased traffic and noise and the extra taxpayers' ' _'- - `--"`~~'-.~ e n,~ a~ln})p all vnte for the safety ~f nnr rhilc~lrPn Adele Salle and Marvin Kohn 12188 Terrence Ave. Sazatoga, Ca 95070 Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advise in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(are) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval. Kevin Moran Park Kristin Borel Page 1 of 2 From: John Cherbone Sent: Thursday, September O8, 2005 8:58 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park From: Nkk Streit Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:34 PM To: John Cherbone; Dave Anderson Subject: FlN: Kevin Moran Park ~i From: kenneth wong [maiito:kwong_95070@yahoo.com] Sent: Thu 9/1/2005 12:49 PM To: Nkk Streit; awaltonsmith@saratoga.ca.us; kk2king@comcast.net; kline@caspr.com; akao@saratoga,p,us Subject: Kevin Moran Park Hi Saratoga Council members: I live several blocks away from Kevin Moran Park and have been using the open grassy fields of the park for many sctivities for many years. If the park is in any way improved, such as expansion of the open fields, addition of bathrooms and water fountains, I am very much supportive of it. I understand there is a proposal of opening up the "orchard" area; that would be a great way to improve the park and the city facilities. While I can understand some of the itrtmediate neighbors' concerns about increased (soccer practice only) traffic, it should be an easily manageable issue and a worthwhile wade for a spanking new perk in the backyard. -Krn Wong 19465 Miller Court, Saratoga Do You Yahoo!? Tired of span? Yahoo! Mail has the best Spam protection around hmo•//mail,yahoo com Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advise in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials} was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. Kristin Borel From: Howard Miller [hmillerQapple.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:25 PM To: John Cherbone Cc: Dave Mderson; Mary Mn Escobar; Kathleen King; Kristin BOrel Subject: Re: Saratoga Soccer Field usage Here is some data about our field usage this season: Argonaut Elementary -11 U10 teams for practices in the afternoons M-F Azule Pazk - 0 Beauchamps Patk - 0 Blue Hills Elementary - 6 U14, 2 U16 teams (1 or 2 Games on the Sundays) Church of Jesus Christ andlatter-day saints (Moron) - 9 U14 teams Congress Springs Pazk - 23 U10,16 UIZ (-55 games on Saturdays) Foothill Elementary - 20 U8,1 U10 teams Kevin Moran Park - 8 U10 teams McAulliffe Elementary - 0 Redwood Middle School - 0 (5 games on Saturdays) Saratoga Elementary -14 U8 Sazatoga High School - 0 West Valley - 0 Wildwood Pazk - 0 We are the only league that has to cut or field usage into 'early' and 'late' lots. Cupertino and West San Jose, and well as De Anza Force (CYSA) have the space to not have to double-up fields. This greatly impacts coaches...they have to work, so leaving at 2 PM to get to a 3:30 practice is a real hardship. In addition for U14, we are they only get 75 minutes of practice!! A game is 70 minutes...and with warm-up and cool down, they need 2 hours to practice far real. This year the early/late schedule impacts 30 of our 86 teams that practice (U5, U6 and VIP don't) this season. It impact all but 2 of our U14 teams, and the reduced time impact all of our U14 and U16 teams! (And impacted U16 Boys and U19 Boys which were sent to other cities to join their teams). We also cut Under 8 to once per week...where our neighboring tides aze twice per week. We lost a U16B and did not have a U19B team due to a lack of suitable field space. The U16 Boys coach quit in frustration and we had to refund 16 players. I tried to get a field from our neighboring cities and from CYSA (even though I knew they were already over committed with the limited space they had). we just could make it work for that coach. We lost Mazshall lane to U14+ kids when they cut the area of the field in Half. We now appear to have losrit for all age groups due to a political problem with the school. For U14 alone, we need 20 practice times a week on half of a regulation soccer field. So had the plans for Kevin Moran gone through, this would have been just enough space for the our 10 U14 teams. Here are the practice slots needs we have this season with the teams that were not cut due to a lack of space if we had the same practice rules and procedures as the other leagues around us: UI6 - 4 (60x60) (This for example would be 2 days a week of use at Blue hills) U14.20 (60 x 55) (5 days at BH + 5 Days at the Mormon church) U12 - 32 (50x50) (4 days on CSP 3,4,5 and 6) U10 - 56 (40x45) (4 days on CSP 1,2&t7 + 5 days at kevin moron*Argonuat, Marshall, West Valley oid Archery) U8.34 {If we stay at the reduced scheduled on once per week) (30 x 30) (5 days at Saratoga Elementary + Foothill + some unknown space) This does not include the margin needed so that our volunteers can have the days that work with their schedules. We need about 1596 to 20y6 extra for people to move around (also form unknown spaces) It I took what could be expected in team counts based on an unconstrained field space: U19 - 4 (60x60) Ul6 - 8 (60x60) U12 - 40 (50x50) UIO - 68 (40x45) U8 - 80 (Twice per week) (30 x 30) On field, I have had 2 kids and one adult with broken ankles at the Mormon church in the last 3 years. I have had numerous ankle injuries and one broken hip at Blue Hills. CSP lS great, KM 1S OK. RMS 1S now g00d, but not available during the week or Sundays. The other fields are fair, except BH and the church. This season we have just over 1185 players. (it would have been over 1200 with U16B and U19B). 1100 are from Saratoga. Last year we had 1250, and the yeaz before 1150...always about 92 to 9596 from the city. (Note last yeaz there were more Saratoga kids in West San Jose and Cupertino than we had fmm other cities. ] did not check this yeaz, but it is likely the same.) Of those kids, about 1000 are grades K through 6. Of those, about 700 are in SUSD schools (they aze letting us use all their fields). Virtually none are at McAulliffe (They play in West SJ). In an ideal world, we would have space for our UI4s and up to practice. That would be 3 full size fields, 5 days a week. For U12 the 4 fields at CSP, plus part of Marshall Laae would be enough. For U10, the 3 CSP filed, Argonaut, plus 4 more U10 sized fields {Christa Azule, Beauchamps or other spotsl). For U8, Saratoga and Foothill Elementary School, assuming we stay at one practice per week For games, we would love to have a real Sunday game field for U16+ (2 games a weekend, make 3 aow and agin depending on the schedule...West Valley, SHSTT), and continue with RMS for UI4 games on Saturday. U5 through U12 have games at CSP on Saturday and VIP on Sunday. If something seems out of wack or you need additional data /clarification, just let me know. Thanks! Howazd... On Sep 1, 2005, at 5:48 PM, John Cherbone wrote: > Hi Mary Ann and Howazd, > The KMP Task Force Members aze: > Peter Pranys, Elaine Clabeaux, Marty Goldberg: Neighborhood Reps > Howard Miller, Mary Ann Escobar: Sport User Reps Paul Jacobs, Doug ~ Robertson: Residents Ac Lazge Reps Norman Kline, Aileen Kao: City > Council Reps > I need to get some information regarding the locations in the Ciry > where AYSO and CYSA play practices and games and what your current > needs are. > This is time sensitive as the Ciry Manager and I will be meeting next > week with West Valley College. ]n addition the information will be > used for my report to Ciry Council on September 21 in regard to field > opportunities in the Ciry. >john -----Original Message----~ > Fmm: Howard Miller [mailto:hmiller@apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September OI, 2005 9:39 AM > To: Kathleen King; John Cherbone > Subject: Who are the members of the KMP task force? > With all the complains I have seen in the paper about the make-up of > the Kevin Moran Task force, I realize that I much be the only one in > the city that does not know who they are. Can you provide their names > and there affiliations? > Thanks! > Howard... Kevin Moran Park Kristin Borel Page 1 of 2 From: Cathleen Boyer Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 2:06 PM To: Kristin Borei Subject: F1N: Kevin Moran Park ---0riginal Message---- From: Nkk Streit SeM: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:411 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; John Cherbone; Dave Anderson Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Park FYI nick From: Karen Sloan [mailto:karensloan@earthlink.netj Sent: Thu 9/2/2005 1:37 PM To: Nick Streit; awaltonsmith@saratoga.ca.us; kk2king@comcast.net; kline@caspr.com; akao@saratoga.ca.us Cc: j.sloan@comcast.net Subject: Kevin Moran Park To the Saratoga City Council Members: While I don>ifr"rt actually live in the Saratoga city limits, my kids and I spend most of our time in Saratoga with my parents and do our part in supporting the Saratoga community. I also know that I speak for my parents that do and have lived in Saratoga for over 30 years. In todayaEm"s world where kids spend too much time playing video games and surfing the intemet, my family family believes [hat we need to do more in getting our kids out there and active. We also believe that there needs to be more places where families can go, spend time together and be active in the outdoors together especially with the busy lives that families live today. We are fully aware of the situation regarding Kevin Moran Park and are concerned with what is happening. There is a group of families that live neaz the park that have taken the position that AYSO and other youth sports groups are the frE¢bad guysfiEO and want to run them out of fiE¢their pazkaEO. We quote dEo:their parkisEO because what they are effectively trying to say (once you get down to the heart of their objections) is that they donSErr"t want anyone but the people who live near the park to have access to this park. They are a small group of people who claim to be speaking for the majority of the city and they claim to Lave the petitions to prove this. However, what they neglect to say is that they have completely misled every person on those petitions in an effort to gain signatures. This group is leading people to believe that AYSO is pushing the City Council to build a soccer stadium for all ] 200 kids to play on Saturday and practice during the week. If you listen to the aE¢Friends of Kevin Moran ParkiiEO, you get the picture that we are going to have a stadium fit for the Earthquakes in this park with parking lots, lighu, bathroom complexes, bleachers, state of the art soccer fields and nothing else. At one point, dray even tried to say that having AYSO there would bring in vagrants and drug dealers, The truth of the matter is that this is completely misleading and to say it is a Luge exaggeration would be putting it mildly. All the citizens of Saratoga want is to have an improved park that everyone can enjoy and use including youth sports. If the grass was expanded just enough to have two regulation practice fields, then the number of soccer teams that practice there would actually be reduced while allowing AYSO to expand the number of practice slots elsewhere. This is because they could put two U14 or older teams on this field each afternoon and where these teams practice today can then provide space for three to four U10 & U12 teams to practice, thus doubling the practice spaces. Also, the older kids would not be doubled up with early and late practices like the younger kids that are there now. Thus, reducing the practices at Kevin Moran Park and allowing more people from the neighborhoods to be out there and reducing traffic flows. Fem. your information, this year, AYSO had to rum away our U] b boysaEr^' team for lack of practice space. TLis sent ] 7 Page 2 of 2 Kevin Moran Park Saratoga boys scrambling to play in Cupertino and West San Jose. Also for the first time in many ycars, AYSO does not have a UI9 boys' team and the players were sent to play in Cupertino. The field at Marshall Lane was recently cut in half and is now not suitable for ow older players. There have already been two ankles broken while practicing at the Mormon Church and Blue Hills is marginal at best despite ow attempts to help improve these fields through donations and ow own manpower. In West San Jose and Cupertino, they donSER"t have eatly/lete practices for the U14s and tlp, but S8r8tOgt 1185 for several years due to lack of space for the older kids. McAuliffe Elementary field is used by Wtst San Jose and is shared by Saratoga during the spring when Congress Springs Park is unavailable due to the baseball season. The iE¢Frienda of Kevin Moran ParkTifQ will lead you to believe that Kevin Moran Park already supports two practice fields. Thin is a mustattmxnt We can put two younger teams there are at because they are smaller and need less spaces We would love to have two practice fields there. Also, AYSO is not the only group that uses all of the fields in Saratoga. We are constan@y trying to share with lacrosse, cricket, CYSA, baseball and many of the other youth and adult sports leagues in Saratoga and not all fields are suitable for youth sports. My family strongly encourages the responsrble improvement of Kevin Moran Psrk. We also encourage you to listen to reason and not the exaggerated fears of a small group. While the neighbors have a right to their opinion, they also doaiErtit speak for the entire city and this park belongs to everyone in the city (not just the neighbors). If everyone were to step back, put aside their animosity and actually listen io what the youth sports groups, the neighbors who live near the park, and the citizens of Saratoga want, they would realize that we all essentially want the same thing. We all want a perk where people can go to play volleyball, to inn, to fly kites, to practice soccer, play bocce ball, play other field sports, play tennis and basketball, run an improved par cowse, and have access to chess tables, a meditation area, and picnic tables where we can hang out as families and friends as welt as have a safe access to the Highway 85 pedestrian bridge. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Karen Sloan Jerry Sloan Dianne Sloan ]9968 Charters Ave Saratoga Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advise in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters ii addresses. 'Ibis message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(are) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval. Recent discussions about the make-up of the Kevin Moran Task force is a Delay tactic Page 1 of 3 Kristin Borel From: Cathleen Boyer Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 2:05 PM To: Kristin Borel Sub}ect: FW: Recent discussions about the make-up of the Kevin Moran Task force is a Delay tactic -----1)riginal Message----- From: Nkk Streit Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:42 PM To: Cathleen Boyer, Dave Anderson; John Cherbone Subject: FW: Recent discussions about the make-up of the Kevin Moran Task force is a Delay tackiC FYI nick From: Howard Mtller (mailto:hmiiler@apple.wm] Sent: Thu 9/1/2005 12:26 PM To: Kathleen King; kline@caspr.mm; Ann WaRonsmith; Nkk Streit; akao@satatoga.ca.us Subject: Recent discussions about the make-up of the Kevin Moran Task force is a Delay tactk Council Members: I just read the Saratoga news last night. A couple of people are complaining about the make-up of the task force for Kevin Moran park. If one were to read these letters, one would assume that a great many people on the task force were sports people. Fttrdter one might conclude that the deck has been stacked against the neighborhood. My understanding of the task force is that is has 3 neighborhood people, 2 at large, 2 sports people and 2 council members. It is not clear how this is biased. Also, I am lead to understand that this was been set this way for some time. Why all the ruckus about it now, why not when it was formed? I fear that this is because the first meeting is scheduled to start. This is a tactic to cause ilre council to delay open discussion on the possibilities for that park. 1t is part of an overall misinformation campaign. Without s public forum to explain our needs and out hopes, my organization has been attributed with all kinds of outlandish things. My wife was told by a petition gather that AYSO want to cut down all the trees. Neighbor have written to the paper saying we ant a special use park, or that we would put ]200 kids into their park. Children of residence have been put up at the Mic in council meeting to explain how they are a fair of all the kids that would be playing night-time soccer under stadium lights. The more misinformation that is spread, the more polarized people are becoming. --~-~- ~~~~ ~-~ ~ „r~~,~ of parents that Recent discussions about the make-up of the Kevin Moran Task force is a Delay tactic Page 2 of 3 volunteer our time so the kids of sazatoga can play soccer. This year we have about 1200 kids playing soccer and 800 families. They play an average of 3 seasons. Over the years, this is a lot of kids. All most two third of Ute kids at Saratoga high school have played soccer with AYSO a some point in their childhood. No other recreational activity in the city is as universally popular, except video germs! To help the children of our city we need access to suitable space for Ute kids to play. Kevin Moran park should be part of that solution, Without a public form for discussion, this situation confinues to fester. Please find a way to move this discussion out of the kitchens and driveways and into a form where all minds can tenet, collaborate and coarpromise to help this city move forward. Howard Miller PS. Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the Saratoga News. It restates the hopes of my league and more importantly, it tries cornett corm of the plain goofy misinformation being spread daily. > We all Agree: Plenty of Possible Uses for Kevin Moran Park > On August 31, tltc Saratoga News published the following from Mary and > Brian Robertson of Sculley Avenue. > "Picture this: Shade of over 100 various mature trees to sit under, > read a book under, play hide and seek behind, build a fort under; the > current grassy area to run, play volleyball, play catch, fly a kite, > and, oh yes, have soccer practice; a tennis court, a large pathway for > walking, a bocce ball wort, a tot lot for Utose mothers with several > young children, a specimen orchazdlasdve plants to reflect the natrue. > of oru city's/valley's heritage roots and reflect Ute natural beauty > of our city, a quiet reflective meditation area, a basketball court, > picnic tables, chess tables, a par course, and, most irrrportantly, a > safe access for children going to and from 1$lue Hills Elementary > Schwl ss well as Miller Middle School. Wow, that sounds h7ce a park > to fiilfill many interests." > Saratoga Soccer supports this vision. It is extremely companltle with > Ute needs of the field sports playing youth of our city. Our vision > is to expand Ute flat grass in the park so that older kids can use the > park; replacing Ute younger kids in our league that arc currently > practicing there. We have never been in favor of fuming Kevin Moran > Park in to a special use park. Nor are we in favor of building a > sports complex. Nor are we in favor of field lighting for nigh[ > games. Nor are we in favor of eliminating existing uses of the park. > Nor are we in favor of increasing traffic in the neighborhood. Nor > are we in favor of many of the things that people in the neighborhood > fear. There is much misinformation being spread by a handful of > people in the city. To try to clear this up, hate is what Saratoga > Soccer thinks: We are in favor of the responsible improvement of Kevin > Moran park including Ute expansion of the field space while preserving > the character of the existing park and neighborhood. The city has the > need. The city has the money in the form of a grant. The city has > the space. > Today, there is a nearly dead orchard with about 75 old trees in a > space where there were once over 500. This orchard was long ago ~~-~.,a,,.,pd 1 would love to see this area renovated to include Recent discussions about the make-up of the Kevin Moran Task force is a Delay tactic Page 3 of 3 > additional grass for volleyball, to run, to fly kites, to practice > soccer, play bocce ball, play other field sports or just hanging out. > The city should refresh and maintain a "specimen orchard" as a > compliment to the heritage orchard at the Saratoga Library. Tennis, > better facilities for young children, a real basketbalt court, > improved par course, chess tables and meditation area, picnic tables > and safe access to the Highway 85 pedestrian bridge are all things > that I want to see at the park too. I would love to work with Mary > and Brian to see their vision become a reality while supporting the > needs of the thousands of kids in the city that play field sports. If > we put our heads together it would be easy to get past the > misinformation and develop a plan that meats everyone's needs. Mary > and Brian, Please give me s call! > Thanks! > Howard Miller > Regional Commissioner > Saratoga Soccer Circular 230 Notice: 1RS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advise in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,thiseommunication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(are) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval. Page 1 of 4 Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:03 AM To: Kathleen King Ce: Kristin Borel Subject: RE: Justice for Kevin Moran Park Hi Kathleen, We are working on a plan which can be emailed. John From: Kathleen King Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:06 AM To: Naresh Makhijani Cc: John Cherbone; John Livingstone Subject: Re: Justice for Kevin Moran Park The park is 10.3 acres, the orchard is four and the southwest undeveloped comer is half an acre. John or John, do we have an on-line picture of the park the shows the dimensions. The citizens of Saratoga are showing the greatest need in soccer. Basketball and tennis seem to be covered by the high schools, some elementary schools and the collage. I agree there are many nice uses of a neighborhood park. Not many of our neighborhoods have neighborhood parks because the city was not developed that way. Of the twelve parks we have, one is Hakone at 15.5 acres (our biggest park), seven could be considered neighborhood parks in size, two are around 4 saes, flue are between .5 and 3 acres, one has all the historical buildings In It, and we have only three parks greater then 4.5 acres That can be used for field use in our city of 30,0170 residents. I think the council representatives are the'most un-biased you wiN find in the city. One-third of our city is seniors, one-third is kids and and one third is between, It is pretty hard to find active residents that do not have children and children in this area are involved in organized sports. We were looking for a representative group of our city. Kathleen King -Original Message ---- From: Naresh Makhiiani To: 'Kathleen Kino' Cc: 'Cathleen Bover' Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:07 AM Subject: RE: Justice for Kevin Moran Park Kathleen, Again, I truly appreciate your responses. I'm really confused....are we talking about the same park? The orchard area is not 4 acres and there is no way a soccer field can fit there. Is there a drawing or something that can help communicate this kind of information to the neighborhood? Can someone from the city meet the neighborhood at the park to better understand the thinking? btw, as you point out, there are a large number of field sports that can be discussed for the park. I content there are a large number of non-field sports that can also be discussed for the park (e.g. basketball, tennis etc.j. There are also a large number of non-sports activities that a neighborhood park is good for Qogging, playground, picnic etc.). In either case, unless the plan is to have task force representation from all of them, why is soccer being highlighted and given special treatment? I think the neighborhood would be content at having an unbiased task force and let democracy take its course. The soccer leagues can speak out in a public forum as can the other groups. Page 2 of 4 btw, based on prior history, some of the neighborhood doesnR feel that the council representation on the task force Is unbiased either but that's a pofn! of another discussion, -Naresh From: Kathleen King [mallto:kk2king@comwst.netj Sent: Monday, August 29, 200511:07 PM To: Naresh Makhijanl Cc: Cathleen Boyer Subject: Re: Justice for Kevin Moran Park Dear Naresh, We need to figure out what is best for Saratoga in general, the neighborhood and the rest of the city. The orchard is four acres and a regulation soccer field is just about 1 arxe. We actually need more sports fields for everyone and we could put someone from baseball, cricket, la Crosse, and field hockey on the task force because they all are complaining about shortages. My fasting is this would upset the neighbors even morn. Again, we took off two council people that have chidren in spoAs and put onto council people with no children in sports. I thought this was a good compromise all around. Kathleen - Original Message -- From: Naresh Makhiiani To: 'Kathleen Kino' Ce: Cathleen Bover Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: RE: Justice for Kevin Moran Park Kathleen, I appreciate the quick response. I must be missing something....how can two additional regulation soccer fields possibly fit Into the old orchard area? It's a tiny area in comparison to the rest of the park. I still don't understand why soccer is getting special consideration to the point where two soccer representatives are on the task force, It almost is being setup as "us against them" instead of figuring out what's right for the neighbourhood. From: Kathleen King [mailto:kk2king@rnmcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 31:16 PM To: nareshm@yahoo.com Cc: Cathleen Boyer Subject: Re: Justice for Kevin Moran Park Dear Naresh, Thank you for your a-mail. I will just list a few facts here and not opinions. If you were to pass on my opinions to two other council members it would be a Brown Act violation. About the task force, we originally decided that the two council members sitting on the task force, Nick and I, should remove ourselves because we both have children in soccer. The two current council members on the task force do not have any children playing sports in Saratoga. About Kevin Moran, the park is 10.2 acres, the second largest park in the city, the only park larger is Hakone. Kevin Moran is slightly larger that Congress Springs. If any fields are agreed to at Kevin Moran, they are recommended to be placed where the old orchard is, not where any of the park is developed now. There is no plan to take out shady trees and fiat grass fields. currently two teams practise soccer at Kevin Moran each weekday. The smaller kids practise there. What we Page 3 of 4 in the city is practise fields for older kids, the 12-16 age group. They tend to be less kids and more poling, reducing overall traffic. ~YSO teams are ail Saratoga kids, Meny of our Saratoga kids are playing on Cupertino ffekls because rtino has more fields. Cupertino Is starting to complain about how many of our children play on their . we had to disband a Saratoga team recently because there was no where in Saratoga for therm to We continue to look for space on all the school fields and churches. nstreit@coa-online.com ; kk2kina oorncast.net ; kmcoherson mercurynews.com ; yam, x.. , , , August 28, 200510:09 s for Kevin Moran Park the Saratoga City CounGl, and I live on Scully Avenue, just a few doors down from Kevin Moran Park. We have been in the ood for the past 5 years. We have two kids (ages 13 and 16) who have grown up in this general understand the city is considering further development of Kevin Moral Park. First of all, I realy don't nderstand why such development is necessary. This is a wonderful and quite neighborhood park with lenty of trees, a children's playground, ajogging/walking path and a field. 1 really do not understand how re c(ty makes decisions regarding the park. For example, a single basketball hoop was added to the park ut it sits in the comer of the park, right next to the freeway. It's in a secluded little comer of the park that's of very inviting for kids. v, I understand that the city council is considering adding more soccer fields to the park. Why would the council want to replace rolling grass and shady trees with flat grass fields? Why would you want to ace a quite multi-purpose park with a noisy soccer field? What about the traffic? From what I erstand, the soccer teams primarily consist of people from the neighborhood cities. This doesnY make sere does the city come up with these ideas? I certainly do not think the neighbors were ever asked or an the residents of Saratoga were asked. Our two kids grew up playing soccer so I appreciate the desire the local soccer clubs to promote more soccer fields. But I thought this was a democracy...soccer is not only interest of the entire community. I'm sure you can appreciate that people look to neighborhood ks for a lot more than just soccer.... Some quite time walking or jogging with your loved ones or friends Playing games with your kids Picnicking under the shade of the trees Taking the little ones to play in the playground is how we use Kevin Moran Park currently as do a lot of the neighbors. Some soccer Gubs also come play on the existing soccer field. btw, just across the bridge. at Blue Hills Elementary, there are two soccer fields so why do we need more of them? We would love to see a proper basketball course sd to the park. Perhaps even some play equipment for the older kids would be nice....why aren't the ale who use the park being asked? )n the subject of democracy, I understand that a task force has been formed to decide the future of the park onsisting of the following membership: 3 from the neighborhood two citizens at large two from soccer (1-CYSA 1-AYSO) ---~...~ Page 4 of 4 What doesn't make sense to me is why should two special interest groups representing soccer be part of this task force? Why is soccer getting such biased attention? If the city wantsYepresentatian from athletic groups, I'm sure you can find coaches and volunteers for other sports as well. It also concerns eta that the city council has previously expressed their opinion in favor of more soccer fleldS So heVinQ iW0 ed-hoc members biases their vote in favor of soccer. I strongly urge the city council to reconsider the makeup of this task force to be balanced and uhWased. Special interest groups should NOT be permitted to be part of such groups. Naresh Makhijani 12576 Scully Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Kristin Borel From: John Chetbone Sent: Wednesday, Junk 22, 2405 7:28 PM To: 'ralley~pacbell.nef Cc: Dave Mderson; Kathleen King; Kristin Borel; Cathleen Boyer Subject: RE: Kevin Moran' Park CEQ4 -EIR Hi Bob, Basically, the Ciry cannot begin the CEQA process until there is a project to be evaluated When Ciry Council reviews the recommendations of the taskforce (by the end of December) the environmental effects of the proposal can be evaluated and the appropriate level of environmental study can be determined. Staff/consultants will then perform the appropriate CEQA analysis for Council consideration prior to making a decision. Let me know if you have any additional questions and I will try my best to provide you with answers. Sincerely, John -----Original Message----- From: Dave Anderson Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:35 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; John Cherbone Subject: FW: Kevin Moran Pazk CEQA -EIR -----Original Message----- From: RAlley [mailto:ralley@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:02 PM To: Kathleen King; Dave Anderson; Richard S. Taylor Subject: Kevin Moran Pazk CEQA -EIR June 22, 2005 City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Kathleen King Dave Anderson Richard S. Taylor As I have stated in the last two city council meetings, I am deeply concerned that the proposed conversion of Kevin Moran Park from a quiet , r .v_. __:n t ...... .......: F;.~~nr impart on the environment of our neighborhood including traffic, parking apd increased noise. I am therefore formally requesting that a Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be completed as required by the California Envimntnental Quality ACT (CEQA). Because the proposed project constitutes a significant change in the, use of Kevin Moran Park and will significantly increase the traffic, parking and noise in our neighborhood a Negative Dedazation is unwarranted. I am also requesting to be added to the distribution list of the draft EIR and any and all documents related to the Kevin Moran Park Project. Bob Alley 19792 Northampton DR Saratoga, CA 95070 Kristin Boret From: robert baltaglia [bgbnbobbi~sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 200511;44 AM To: Kristin Borei Subject: Kevin Moran Park Kristen; Even though I do notuse Kevin Moran park I can sympathize with the local neighbors. I believe that the city of Saratoga should Ieave all neighborhood pazks alone and build a Soccer Facility adjacent to the Saratoga Library! One to two acres of heritage orchazd is enough. Let's put the excess to good use and give the Soccer playing kids a permanent home field near city hall and environs. It would be good for the city, the soccer playing kids and all concerned and leave our neighborhood pazks as is. Sincerely Bob Battaglia i3o Way Saratoga Attachment 3 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arbaricultural Consulting & Tree G A TREE INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF TREES AT KEVIN MORAN PARK (LOCATED ALONG SCULLY AVENUE) SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Public Works Department City of Saratoga 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered ConsullingArborist #399 Certified Rrborist #WE-4001A November 2, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, Califm'nia 94402 Emaii: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor !/796763 David L. Ba66y, Registered ConsultingArbarist Norember 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Public Works Department has requested I provide a cursory inventory and evaluation of trees located at Kevin MoY'an Park,l Saratoga. ~1S TepOTt presents my findings and recommendations, The site contains a playground azea, an open lawn area, a pedestrian pathway, and one large orchazd area to the north land a smaller one to the south. The document reviewed for this report includes an aerial photograph taken during the Spring of 2001 (® 2005, County of Santa Clara) that is presented on a plan sheet, dated October 2005, by The City of Sazatoga. The trees' locations and numbers2 aze shown on three attached copies. Trees inventoried for this report include those of all sizes (regulated and not regulated by the City Ordinance) that aze situated on site or significantly overhang the project site from neighboring properties. FINDINGS Tree Count and Composition There are 272 trees of 17 groups inventoried for this report.3 The table presented below identifies the name, number and percentage of each group. Specific data compiled for each tree is presented on the attached table and each tree's location can be viewed on the attached maps. : ~~~ ... hlif#~1~ ^ . '~ ~:. .. ' ~' American Sweetgum 191, 193-199, 226-233 16 6% Ash 6, 167-170, 190, 200-203, 206, 17 6% Z40, 247-251 Calrfomia Sycamore 138-142, 148, 151-155, 171-180, 29 113'° 217-224 Ceanothus 38, 39, 41, 98 4 1 Chinese Pistache 204, 205 2 1% 69, 97, 107, 111, 128, 129, 131, Coast Live Oak 132, 134-136, 144, 148, 147, 150, 21 8% 156, 157, 164, 255, 257, 259 ~ The park is located along Scully Avenue and spans between Scully Avenue and Highway 85. ''Every effort was made to place the tree number on top or immediately adjacent to the canopy of each tree, ' The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 272. Due to time constraints, tags containing the numbers were not attached fo the trees' trunks (but can be upon request). Kevin Moran Park; Scully Avenue, Saratoga Page I of4 City of Saratoga Pubbc Works Department David L. Bobby. Registered ConsultingArborist November 1, 2005 Coast Redwood 48,158-163,165,166,161-189, 39 14% 207-216, 234-239, 241-245 Eucalyptus 83, 86, 90 3 1y, Fem Pine 102 1 0°h 1, 3-5, 7-30, 32.37, 40, 42-46, 49, Fruit Tree 50, 52-66, 70-81, 84, 87, 92, 96, 98 36% 112, 115-127, 137, 143, 252, 253, 261, 263, 265267, 269, 270 Myoporum 88, 89 2 1% Clump of nine various trees 272 1 096 Olive Tree 103, 264, 268 3 1 % 67, 68, 91, 93-95, 99, 101, 105, Pine 106, 108, 109, 133, 145, 256, 17 6% 258 260 Southem Live Oak 2, 82, 100, 110, 130, 246, 254, 6 3% 262 Southern Magnolia 192, 225 2 1% Walnut 31, 47, 51, 85, 104, 113, 114, 149, 9 3% 271 Total 272 100°k Suitability for Tree Preservation Each tree has been assigned a `high', `moderate' or `low' suitability for preservation rating based on its physiological health, shvctural integrity, location, size and specie type. These ratings aze defined as follows: I i Trees chazacterized by significantly contributing to the site, appearing in good health, and having seemingly stable structures. These trees are typically the most suitable for protection. This rating also applies to trees located on adjacent properties, regardless of condition (provided they do not pose an apparent significant risk to public safety now or in the foreseeable future). Moderate: Trees that contribute to the site, but not at seemingly significant levels, and/or appear in only fair health and/or structural condition. These trees aze typically worthy of protection, however, not at the expense of major design revisions to accommodate development. Generally, their longevity and contribution is less than those of high suitability, and frequent and attentive care is needed during their remaining life span, Kevin Moran Park; Scully Rvenue, Saratoga page 1 of qq City of Saratoga Public Works Department David L Babby Registered Consulting Arborist _ November 2, 2005 Low: Trees providing minor contribution to the property and/or are in relatively poor, dead or dying condition. These trees are the most suitable for removal and their removal will typically improve site safety and aesthetics. In most cases, these trees are predisposed to health problems audlor structural defects that are irreparable and their condition will likely worsen regardless of measures employed. The table below illustrates the majority of trees have a low suitability for preservation; trees assigned this rating are predominantly located within the orchards to the north and south sides of the property. Suitability Ratings Count and Composition High 92 34% Moderate 48 18% Low 132 49% Total 272 1009'0 Suitability for Preservation Ratings ~ 4 ~ P. tlJG1~ 11i1C7 IvR~i ~ ~ M. 48, 67-69, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 97, 90, 92, 95, 96, 99, 104, 108, 1-47, 49-66, 7D-87, 98, 103, 100-102, 105-107, 109, 111, 110, 114, 132, 138, 149, 158, 112, 113, 115, 127, 130, 131, 128, 129, 134, 135, 139-142, 162, 168, 170, 173, 177, 189, 133, 136, 137, 143, 150, 169, 144-148, 151-157, 159-166, 190, 193, 194, 196, 197, 199- 194, 191, 195, 198, 202, 226, 171, 172, 174-176, 178-183, 201, 205, 206, 214, 218, 219, 232, 247, 248, 250-253, 256, 185-188, 192, 204, 207-213, 225, 227-231, 233, 240, 246, Z61-267, 269, 270, 272 215-217, 220-224, 234, 235- 249, 254, 258, 260, 268, 271 239, 241-245, 255, 257, 259 Trees defined as being of Native Origin Of the inventoried trees, CZO are defined per Section 15-15.020(n) of the City's Ordinance as being of native origin and include the 21 Coast Live Oaks and 39 Coast Redwoods. Trees Situated on Adjacent Properties Six of the inventories trees are situated along the northern neighboring properties and have canopies that extend well over the subject site. They include one Coast Redwood (#48); two Monterey Pines (#67, 68); two Myoporum (#88, 89) and one Fern Pine (#102). Xevin Moran Park; Scully Avenue, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City ofSararaga Public Works Department Dwtd L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 1005 Trees Regulated by the City Ordinance Of the inventoried trees, 20~ are regarded as being regulated trees per 5ecdon 15-50.050 of the City's Ordinance. They include #2-4, 8, 10-17, 19, 21-28, 31, 36, 31, 40, 42.46, 48, so, 51, sa-62, 67-69, 71, 73-78, 80, 81, 83-85, 90-92, 94, 95, 97, 99, 101-103, 105-111, 117, 118, 121-123, 127-129, 13]-136, 138-142, 144-167, 169-192, 194, 195, 197-229, 233-247, 249, 254-261, 265-268 and 271. ildditional Trees There are numerous small trees not inventoried for this report due to their location withitt significantly vegetated areas along the northern and western property boundaries and amongst larger, more prominent trees. None of these trees are of Ordinance-size. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Maps (three copies of the aerial photograph sheet) Kevin Moran Park; Scully Avenue, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Public Workr Department FruitTra ~ 14 ~ 20 ~ 30% ~ 73°/a ~ Low Fruit Tree Low Fruit Tree I 12 I 20 I 30% I 25% I Low I Yes 13.10 I 20 I 23°/a I 30% I Low I Yes Project Name: Revin Moran Park, Saratoga Prepased for: City of Saratoga Pabttc Works Dept. Prepared by: David L. 13abb15 RCA ! of l7 11/0205 TREE INVENTORY TABLE Fruit Tree Fruit Tree I 8 6 I 30 23 I Fruit Tree I 19 I 20 Ftuit Tree I 13 27 I Fruit Tree Low Low I Yes 28 ~ FtvitTree ~ 17 ~ 25 ~ 50% I 25°h I Low I Yes I I I 2g Fruit Tree 2 18 100% 50% Low No $]eck Walnut 110, 7, 7, 5 ~ 40 I 75% i 25% Prajar Nnmc: Xevfn Moron Pork, Sara!°ga Pnprnd for; Ciry ofSorrtogr Public Works Dept. Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA Z of 17 I1Po2/OS TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE INVENTORY TABLE Ftvit Tree ~ ]2 20 44 ~ Fruit Tree ~ 19 ~ 25 ~ 75°k ~ 25°/a ~ Low ~ Yes 45 Frvit Troe 12 35 50% 50% Low Yes Walnut ~ 4, 4, 3, 2 ~ 30 ~ 75% ~ 25% ~ Low Projem Name Xevin Aforan Park, Sararoga Prepared far: City of Sararoga Pubfie if arks Dept Prepared 6y: David L. BaDby, XCA 3 oj17 1LpIPoS TREE INVENTORY TABLE F .-. ~ ~ yp ~ q C ~~' ' ~+ b+ ~ .~ ry A, S ,~.., y '. ~ ~ tl Z l:. ~ $ ? eg ~ ~ ~ . ~O ~ ~ . $ p g p 50 Tne ~ 11 LOW 5~ California Black Walnut 9, 8, 5 50 100% 25% Low Yes 52 FmitTrce 9 10 50% 25% Low No 53 FmitTrce multistem ]0 0°h 0°/a Low No 54 Fruit Tree 12 15 0% 0% Low Yes SS Fruit Tree 20 20 25% 25% Low Yes 56 FmitTrce 10,6 l0 50% 0% Low Yes 57 Fruit Trce 16 30 75% 25% Low Yes 58 FmitTrce 12 70 50% 25% Low Yes 59 FmitTree ]0 10 50% 0% Low Yes 60 61 62 63 64 Fruit Tree FmitTree Fruit Tree Fruit Trce Fruit Tree 15 ]1 12 8 B 20 ]0 15 5 ]0 0°/a 25% 75% 0% 50% 0°h 25% 25% p% 25% Low Low Low Low Low Yes Yes Yes No No Prajact Name: Xtvin Mown Parh, Saratoga Preparedfor: City of Saratoga Pubic Works Dept. <of _ ]7ro71115 Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA TREE INVENTORY TABLE 66 Fruit Tree 6 ]0 0% 0% Low No 67 Monterey Pine 24 60 100% 75% Hi Yes X bg Mont Pine 32, 30, 28 75 100% 25% Hi Yes X 69 Coast Live Oak 35.5 70 ]00% 25% Hi Ye6 X 70 Fruit Tree 9 10 0% 0% Low No 7] Fruit Tree 8, 6 20 25% 0% Low Yes 72 Fruit Tree 6 10 SOYa 25% Low No 73 Fruit Trce 14 15 50% 25% Low Yes 74 Fruit Trce 9, 5 20 SOYo 25°~ Low Yes 79 76 77 78 79 80 Fruit Trce Fruit Tree Fruit Tree Fruit Tree Fruit Tree Fruit Tree ]0 ]0 . 9.5, 8 14 7 15 10 10 20 ]5 ] 0 30 25% 50% 25% 50% 50% 50% 25% 25°h 0% 25°h 0°/, 50% Low Low Low Low Low Low Yes Yes Yes Yea No Yes Projen Name: Kevin Moran Pork, Saratoga Prepared for: Ciry of Soraro8a Publie Works Dept 5 of 17 11/OI/OS Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA TREE INVENTORY TABLE 82 ~ Southern Live Oak ~ multistem ~ ] 0 Black Walnut I 24.5 I 55 I 75% multistem I 40 I 100% Island Yes 93 Can Island Pine 9 ]0 100% 75°h High No Island Pine Project Name: Xevin M°rmi Park, Saratoga Prepared jar: Ciry ajSorot°ga Public Works Dep(. Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 6 of / i I ]/OY05 20 I 25Ya I 25°/a Island Pine I ]3 I 30 I 100% Moderate I Yes 30 ~ 75°/a ~ 25% ~ Moderate ~ Yes PrajectName: Xevfrc Moraa Park, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Sarot°ga Public Works Dept. Prepared by: Dovid L Babby, RG 7 of ] i I ]NI/OS TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE INVENTORY TABLE Walaat California Black Fruit Tra _ _ ~ multirtem ~ 30 ~ 50% Low Fruit Tree ~ 9 _ f 20 ~ 50% ~ 25% ~ Low ~ No Project Name: Kcvin Moraa Park Saratoga Prepared jar: Crty ojSarato6a Pablie Works Dept. Prepared by: David L Rebby, RC.9 8 oJ17 vrovos 129 ~ Coast Live Live Oak I ]0.5 X Live Oek I 11.5 I 25 I 100°/a I 75°/a I Hi¢L I Yes I X 15 1100% I 25% I Low I Yes I X muldatem I 25 I 100% Projecs Name: Xrvin Moraa Park, Saratoga Prsparsd for: Ciry of Saw~o;a Pubtir Works Dept Prepared by: David L Ra66y, RCA 9 of 1 J J]/01R15 TREE INVENTORY TABLE Pine 123.5. 14.5 1 60 ! 100% ! SO°/a I Hisb I Yes Redwood I 20.5 ~ 20 I 100% I 50% I Moderate I Yes 2vs f ao i loo°r° I loo% I xign I Yes I X Redwood I 25.5 Pr°jen Name: Xevin Moran Park, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Publir Works Dept Prepared 6y: David 413abby, RCA 10 of 1 i 11/OLOS TREE INVENTORY TABLE Coast Redwood ._27.5 ' S0 ~ 100% ~ 100% ~ Huth ~ Yes Coast Live Oak ~ _ _ 9 _ ( 15 ~ ]00°h ~ 75°h ~ High ~ Yes 9.5 ~ 20 ~ 50% ~ 50% ~ Moderau ]73 I California Sycamore I 16.5 t 20 t 50% I 50°/a I Moderae Catifomie Sycamore I 22 Projec! Namr: Xevix Maran Park, Saratoga Prepared jor• Cfy of Soro(a6a Public Works Dept Prepared bp: DovidL Itabby, FCA 17 of l7 77/03M5 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 40 I 75% I 50% I Moderate I Yes 181 ~ Coast Redwood ~ 29.5 ~ 35 ~ 100% ~ 75% ~ Higb ~ Yes ~ X ~ ~ 182 Coast Redwood 43.5 50 100% 100% . Hi Yes X 183 Coast Redwood 36 60 100% 100% Hi b Yes X 184 Coast Aedwood 13.5 20 50% 50% Low Yes X Redwood 31 I 45 Yes I X Redwood 28 I 35 Moderate I Yes Projett Name: Ravin Moran Park, Saratoga Prepared for: Cyr ofSararaga Public Works Depl. Prepared by: David 1. Bobby, RCA ]I of l i IIAII/OS TREE INVENTORY T.diBLE 198 Low I Yea 16 I 40 I ]00°/a I 50°/q I Moderate I Yes 20 I 50 I 50% I 50% I Moderate I Yea 10 I 40 I 100% Redwood Yea Project Name: Kevin Moran Pgrk, Saratoga Prepared jot: City ofSarafo;a Public Works Dept. Prepared by: David L. Robby RGf ]3 oj17 11/01rD5 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 13.5 I 40 I ]00% I SO'/o Project Name: Kevin Mornn Park, Saroroga Prepared for: Clry of Samroga Pablic Works Dep+. Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 14 of 77 ]1Po1A75 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~'M r g 3 L ~ ' ~ m ^g ~ y s a n ~ 12 12 6.5 multistem I 15 I 100% o - , .~ ^ ~a u E ~.~ i, °> ~ a ;, ~~ w ,~ ~.: x~. ~.~ 4 ~ . ~ ~ ~, ~:'Q ~i3 - Moderate I Yea Moderate I Yes Moderate Moderate Redwood ~ 15.5 ~ 25 ~ 100% ~ 75% ~ High ~ Yes L237 ~ Coast Redwood ~ 28 I 40 I 75% I 75% I ritgh I Yes I n I I 238 Coast Redwood 30 30 100% 75°/a Hi h Yes X 234 Coast Redwood 52.5 45 100% 50% Hi h Yes X 240 Raywood Ash 11.5 25 75% 50% Moderate Yes Project Name: Xevin Moran Park, Saratoga Preparcdfor: City ojSarotosa Public Works Dept. Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA I S of l7 l1/02A15 TREE INVENTORY TABLE L;~e oex I io I zs za7 I Reywooa nsb I ~o I is Yes 253 Frvit Trec multistem 30 50% 25% Low No 256 Proj[tt Name Xevin Moran Park, Saratoga Prepared for: Ciry of Sararoga Pubii[ Warks Depr. Prepared b~~: David L Babby, RCA 22 ~ 60 I 75% ~ 25% I Low I Yes l6 °Jn 11M1rnS Piue F 11.10 I 35 Live Oak 1 B I 15 1100% I 75°/. I Hiah I Yes I X Fruit Tne I multietem I 25 265 I Fruit Tne I 8, 6, 5 Tne I multietem 271 En lish Walnut 9, 8, 8 40 100% 50°~ Moderate Yes 3.5-7 ~ 5-20 125-75°h I O-SO% ( Low I No Project Name: Xerin Moron Park, Sar'ataga PrepandJor: City of Saroroga Pu61ic Works Dept Prep°red by: David L. Bobby, RCA 17 °jl i I ]A)2A75 TREE INVENTORY TABLE r N a '~ z ~ r ~ ~ ,. ■ ✓f_ �s (' Y� pp ei6. 1'ij b T�k 'ice " 19t _ l"'}." F j �.1' ` / ��' •ifj f P' y� • � V l3� EMI t � :¢ '� � ✓Y'1b` �'6>�'e a�•Y f� �, �4rw,rc . 9i .�_ �� P g 3 .h Y r _.q"'���Y :4 �a7}�• -wad+ h x -�. ,�"R.� �r "r" ._. "°�. �,: 41x ry96 nom'; v s Y� a,"rfi'A� n`'F�'11? r12 i1�J y 4 #114 90 4 erg 126 f16 89 s 429 117 , 88 JI mot f�i I e X 1,19 f18' $6 ��% 30 122 128 i 2 o 143 a 144 RS ri 131 ` 123 121. 132 83 .134 124 .. 145 135133 84 146 137 136. J { 1147 148 142 77 78 82' f 49 81 5I1 141 119 - 14 0 76 75 79 80 i ct j,28 1 1 -77 178 179 180 74 73 71 68 176 72 70 E7 173 174 69 ri r N, e+~ N `p I N tf~ d H Attachment 4 Nei hborhood Grou ~ Plan Soccer Half Field 160 X 185 Soccer Half Field 155 x 180 Meditation Garden 120 x 70 Tennis Court 120 x 60 Orchard (100'buffer) 100 ft. Basketbll Court 94 x 50 Picnic Area 60 x 60 Bocce Ball Court (2) 60 x 12 Sport User Grou ps Plan Lacrosse Field 330 x 180 Soccer Field 309 x 180 Community Garden 120 x 170 Basketbll Court 94 x 50 Volleyball Court (2) 50x84 Softball Field 90 x 90 Picnic Area 60 x 60 Bocce Ball Court (2) 60 x 12 Restroom 14 x 14 Parking 40 spaces Orchard Area Buffer Zone 30 ft. Communit -Grou Plan Lacrosse Field 330 x 180 Community Garden 170 x 120 Meditation Garden 120 x 70 Basketbll Court (2) 94 x 50 Orchard (100' buffer) 100 ft. Picnic Area 60 x 60 Bocce Ball Court (2) 60 x 12 Restroom 14 x 14 Parking 40 spaces Attachment 5 SHUTE, MIHALY &WEINBERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.• MARK I. WEINBERGER (191!•t0051 FRAM M. LAYTON RACHEL B. HOOPER ELLEN J. GARBER TAMARA S. GALANTER ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR WILLIAM J. WHITE ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER OSA L. WOLFF JANETTE E. BCNUE MATTHEW D. ZINN CATHERINE C. ENGBERG AMY J. BRICKER JENNY K. HARBINE 396 HAYES.STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 TELEPHDNE: (415) 552-7272 FACSIMILE: (415) 552-'5816 WWW.SMWLAW.COM MADELINE O, BTONE GABRIEL M.B. 8085 DEBORAH L. K~ETH WINTER KING' KEVIN P. 6UNDY ANDREA RUIZ-E80UIDE BHERIDAN J. PAUKER 'SENIOR CO UNSEI MEMORANDUM TO: Norman Kline Chair, Kevin Moran Park Task Force FROM: Richard S. Taylor City Attorney DATE: November ] 6, 2005 RE: Designation of Kevin Moran Park LAUREL L. IM-ETT, AICP CARMEN J. BORG, AICP UREAN PLANNERi DAVID NAWI ANDREW W. SCHWARTZ OF COUNiEL "NOT LICENi iD IN CALIFORNIA You asked me to provide you with additional information regarding the designation of Kevin Moran Park as a "neighborhood" or "community" park. The City's Parks and Trails Master Plan (1991) establishes three categories of parks: neighborhood, community, and specialty. The plan lists Kevin Moran Park as a community park. (See page 3.4.) Therefore the park is designated as a community park. The Parks and Trails Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1991 on the reconunendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Following a number of Parks and Recreation Commission meetings the Plan was presented to the City Council in July 199]. The Counci] approved various revisions to the Plan and unanimously accepted the plan at that meeting and directed further consultation with the Parks and Recreation Commission. That consultation took place at a joint meeting of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission held on November 26, 1991 at which time the Plan was approved. Copies of the City Council meeting minutes are attached together with a newspaper article that appeared at the time. The plan has subsequently been affirmed by Norman Kline November 16, 2005 Page 2 the City Council by reference in the General Plan's Open Space Element (adopted iA 1993) and Circulation Element (adopted in 2001). I have been informed that a draft report prepared by staff in 2004 indicated that the Parks and Trails Master Plan had nat been adopted. I do not know the circumstances under which that report was prepared. It was a draft report, however, and it appears that the statement in the report had not yet been venified with reference to minutes of City Council actions. You have also asked whether a site's designation in the Parks and Trails Master Plan requires the City Council to approve or disapprove of particular uses at that site. A site's designation does not impose such a restriction on the Council. The Plan is presented in terms of goals, objectives, and recommendations. It refers to uses that "typically" will be found at parks with various designations (see, e.g., page 3.2-1), but does not mandate or preclude specific uses based on designation. The Council has discretion to approve or disapprove of specific uses in adopting a specific improvement plan for a specific site. Please let me know. if you have any questions regarding this matter. cc: Saratoga City Council Dave Anderson, City Manager John Cherbone, Director of Public Works r:~snxnrocav~aar;trs~aospcnsp D<s;~aeo~).ace V SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: iTednesday, July a7 1991 TYPEfi~ RegularhMeet3ng1373~ Fruitvale Avenue 1. ROLL CALL The meetin was called to order at 7:30 p.m. pCouncilmem~ers Present: Clevenger, Monia, St prlownt at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Anderson e 2. CgR$MONIAL ITBl1S - None 3. ROUTII+lB NATTERS by Mayor Rohler. utzman snd Mayor Rohler arrived at 9:05 as note ~~ vecbata~ excerpts)$ andJofeJuly 3991991s amended including MONIA/STUTZNAN MOVBD APPROVAL OF TB8 lIIT7UTES, AS Al~NDBD IIiCLUDING VERBATIM BBCERITS. PASSED 3-1-1. (Anderson was absent, Clevenger abstained). Councilmember Clevenger amended the Minutes of July 3 on Page 6 the paragraph to read: .Gene Zambetti, former "Planning Commiss~one: STUTZMAN/CL,EVENGGBR NOVBD.APPROVAL OF THE MINITPBS OP JULX 3, 1991 AS AN$NDBD. PASSED 4-0. B. Approval of >larrant List CLgy~p.NGSR/MOrTIA MOVED APPROVAL OF TBB 9ARRA1~ LIST. PASSED 4-0. C. Report Of City Clerk Mr. Peacock announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on July 12. • 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Rohler removed Item B. from the Consent Calendar. CLEVENG$R/MONIA NOVBD APPROVAL OP THS CONSENT CALENDAR i1ITH THE EgCEpTION OP ITElI B. PASSED 4-0. A. Planning Commission Actions, 6/lO - Noted and filed. B. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 6/3 and 7/1 - Noted and faled. C. Award of 1991 Street Maintenance Program Contract to American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing in the amount of x103,118.58. D. Authorization #or staff to request proposals,to develop a Ci Irrigation System Master Plan for Parks, Medasns, Parkways s~ Landscape Facilities E. Authorization for attendance of Planning Director at America Planning Association Conference, Sacramento, October 20-23, ---~-~-~~ =~~1 nc+cP~carv expenses City Council Hinutes 2 I. City Financial Reports for Jude 1) Treasurer's Report 2) Inver gent Report 3) Financial Report July 17, 1991 Regardin Item B, Mayor Kohler requested clarification re arding a st temen~ made at the Parks and Recreation Commission aee~ing ti~at "tie Creeks belong to everyone". City Attorney Riback stated he is not sure how the comment was intended but that the Creek i~a a public waterway and under jurisdiction of the Yater District or the Flood Control District. MONIA/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OP ITffi! B. ON T>IB CONS>~IT CAI.IDiD~AR. PASSB~D 4-0. 5, (;ONMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC A. oRAL co~uNICATIa~Is i) On behalf of Cal. E.T. Barco of Saratogga, Ms. Pe g~yy Corr read a letter recommending that Council declare Au st 9, 991 as She~aian Hiller Da Col. Barco provided copies of the many testi~aonia a made for ltr. Sherman. B. VRITTEN COlMfJNICATIONS 1)Therese Osborn ••, 13566 Nyrea Dr., regarding use of Gardiner Park Kr. Peacock reviewed the memorandum from Hr. Trinidad, included in the meetin packet relative to Hs. Osborn's concerns witk~ improper activi~y causing problems n the park to nearby rest emir. Mrs. Osborn will be notified t~is issue will be taken up by the Parks and Recreation Commission on August 5. 2) Ro er p. Ross, Florence Nelson Foundation, 120 Monigoaerryy ggt. sc~2~~actancisco 94104, concerning cancellation of oilliam~son Hr. Peacock reported there are approximately 9 years and 6 months left on the Villiamson Act. In 1992 the time will go back to 10 ears because there has never been a request for cancell tioa of the existing contract and there has never been a forma notice of intention not to renew the contract. In 1987 there was a request for withdrawaluweretnotsmett finalized because the conditions for early In accordance with the most recent City Council decision on this issue to abide byy the dictates othe City's General Plan CLBVBNGBR/ CATNCBL~THIS WILLIAl1S0lV~AC~P CONT'RA~.ITP SSED~4-0PLAIN. POLICt AMID NOT 3) Harilyn A. Boyette, City of Huntington Park, requesting opposition to water company surcharges for reduced water consumption Tn~rec~oTTm~endapi~oS~bY4sOtaff, NONIA/CLEVENGffit MOVED TO RBCEIVB AND FILE 4) Albert AuAn-stine, Jr., County Grand Jury, requesting comments on Review of Cities' Procedures for Awarding Contracts for Services City Council Minutes ~ 3 July 17, 199 Mr. Peacock responded that the Pierce Road Improvement Project will enhance the safety of the road for motorists, bicyyc11st5 and adjacen residents. A letter will be written to Mrs. San Fflippq ba ed,on,th Memorandum. As suggested by Councilmember NOnia, She wiill ~e invite to review the maps relative to the line of sight issue she raised. 6) Vill Kempton, Traffic Authority, requesting ~thdraval of City's letter to the Carps of Engineers regarding the corridor-vide permit for creek restoration. (Clerk's note: Mr. Peacock reported Mr. Kempton apprised hi^ he cou not be present at 8:08. Mayor Kohler a reed to hold the item until Mr. Kempton's arrival later in the meeting.) Mr. Kemppton reqquested an o portunity to discuss the City's letter of July,S to the Krm Corpps o~ En sneers requesting the delay of the 40 Permit on the Highway SS/17 Interchange projject. He referred to discussion in the Hinutes of July 3rd, specifically the allegation that the issue of habitat reply ement had not been considered in the environmental process an~ that the City had no involvement. He corrects those aspects of the situation and states there is extensive covera a in the environmental document regarding the issues and very speci~ic as to requirement and what types of mitigation would be provided. In-kind on-site mitigation is suggested and was utilized in two locations. Because of the urban a suburban nature of much of the corridor, much of the mitig~~ion has had to be provided off-site fn the vicinity of Coyote Creek by the Highway 101/Bernal Area. Hr. Kempton stated that the Authority is hoping to get the Corps permit issued as quickly as possible ss this is the critical path project for Route 85. The roject fs sehggduled for advertisement fo bids on Sep tember 30. He sated his staf# is willing to wo k with Council an7/or staff to explain the efforts made and he imp~ores Council to reconsider its action of July 3 and, if possible rescind that action and withdraw the letter to the Corps with a foljowu letter indicating the City has no objection to the issuance of ~he permit. . Ms. Cheriel Jensen Quito Road, stated she brought the issue before Council and that this issue was addressed in the EIR• although it wa not in the draft EIR, it came up in the Final EIR. ~t had not been the subject of any ublic discussions, nor hearings. She points on several documents w~iat the requirements for the environmental proces are and what she believes was not done in c mpliance with those requirements. She stated many residents will be impacted and requested the Council write a letter to the California Water Quality Control Board and oppose issuing a permit of this project until such time as the City has had an opportunity to have proper review of the issues of loss of habitat, the channels, and the floods She pointed out that trucks are now allowed on Route 85 and~here is potential for loss of water quality in the percolation ponds and a quifers because of potential spills. Mr. Kempton pointed out that flood control is not an issue related t issuance of a 404 Permit but stated he and his staff would be happy discuss that issue. He stated his staff has worked closely with the re ulatory agencies to ensure that requirements are being met and th ef~orts have been successful. Responding to Councilmember Monfa, Mr. Kempton said that the City was notified and participated in the hearings. However, the Traffic Authority is not the responsible aooncv for the process_of_the.404 Permit issued,by_;he~CDrps~ cHe *~ City Council Minutes 4 July 17, 1991 MaYOr K hies st~dted he vas u ap~l+ with the lieited fiat rmation found ~n said h~ wou i be moire con~ofr Able tQ vast a fstr,vaekp titfind out urther in ormat on and that this kills Route es be Mr. Bob Louden, Sara~oga, Chairman of the Route 85 Task Force, cemmente~ chat this reevay natter vt~ bro~bt before Strecogs vOtels twice an carried, representingg the o fici ,recorded will of the Sarato a voters. Any delay vil~ cost very arge ~ums of money. Ae urged ~oun it to consider this elaX very SeriQQps yy Be ffelt the a comment ma~e by Mayor Kohler, that if th s kills R~ute 85 so be it was an i~refe~gnsib}e st tement for a public official to matte. Mr.' yy~~uden c aril ied ~n~a~ tie Task Force represents every comrunity along the route, mot just Saratoga. Councilmember Stutzman fated he believes there has been an over fight hese and because loa o~ iiparian hay tott is becoming increasingly iapppor ant, pr~se vat~on,v~l~ be vital~y impoztaat in the• future. Ae Julge~ letter.d ~ike to see a response from the Corps regarding the STUfZMAN/NOIfIA MDVSD TO VAIT TVO TO T~ oBBRS POA A R$SPONSE PEOM TAB CORPS OF H~iGINBffilS, TO COUQdCIL'S JUL S LE17'SR, BEFORE COt1NCIL MARES A FINAL DECISIOIf. Councilmember Clevenger states she will vote no because she believes there has been ~gnn oppggrtunitp to t to get riparian habitat to replace what will b! lost. She bel~eves the amount of money it will cost outweighs the possible benefit. (Note: At the Council's request, a verbatim transcript follows.) Dowdy: My name is Rnrin Dowdy. I live an Brgok Lane. Mr. Rohler-- Mayor Rohler--and the Council, I would just like to make a couple of comments about this whols rocedure. In the last couple of months this Council has considered two different requests Eros ppeople who have been before this Sarato a Council, perhaps not constituted in the same_way it 1s,right now, bu~ at any rats have been before the . on numerous, numerou :sway, alwayyq fighting : is presenting bad da record that tFiase pas ~a~ bias that this com m t see how you can c and to tales up the ti these issues that as It with. Now mayie y agree with the way it ns a matt•r of tact I enance this kind of d. Traffic Autnoz Rohler: Okay. ys that these people ] he money they have eo: ly that ou simply di: v to con~inue on ats i 1:he And :ntinue to give credence to these :e of the public and yourselves Mrs. C1'evenger has said, have ~u don't lik~ the results of it. was dealt with, but it has been as a member of the puplie am not lay and s end Chia kind of nve already caused us are t with the delays. I would re~ gand this and allow the ath. Thank you. We have a motion sod a second. Clevenger: Mayor Kohler, I do have to respond to one thing that Mrs. Dowdy said. Saratoga has not caused the Traffic Authority any delays. We have been--we had our vote, we got our reading from the people, we acted in a timely way, and I would like to sea that documented--how Saratoga in and way has cost the Traffic Aut:horit~ money by delaying tactic. I don t think we have, and I hope ws don t start tonight. Kohler: Thank you,~Mrs. Clevenger. I also agree. i think Saratoga has been bending over backwards as far as the freeway. Monia: Mr. Kempton? Has Saratoga cost you financial delays? Kempton: To data Mr. Monia, you have noL. If you take this action tonight, should i~ result in a delay in our ab laty to achieve the Corps permit and advertise the project, you will. But we hove not. • TBB ABOVE Md7'ION AS STATED VAS VOTED UPON. FAILED 2-2. (Clevenger and Monia voted no). ... .. - --~.~ .~- --••-- -..~ __.~ t_ g July 17, 195 City Council Minutes ,, ~,BVEtdGffit/MONIA MOVED THAT THB CITY ATTORNEY BB REQUESTED TO PRBPARf AIiENpMSNTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANC$ TO TA1~ SUGGESTIONS INTO CONS~I$~ ~'~ ~~ TDiPi?T ON Sl ~STIOIi.Q~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ Councilmember Monia suggested the proper protocol would be to reques that the City A~torney prepare a draf} ordinance which M Di Manto could review an comment on and the, motion should so ref~ect. Councilmember Clevenger explained hez intent was to gget inpput froa t developper so Council would know what would be possible. SF~e felt ti could be saved if there were input or review from the public. She agreed with Councilmember Monia to amend the motion. Councilmember Monia bonding, the value Peacock agreed and Attorney to make re which are the base item staff could re' bonding companies ai are known to have f; equested staff p~ a bond 3n proles ded that another saons to the star. currents for whist ew is establishir, only accept bond ancial stability. pare a re ort on the futures ng the City's interest. Mr. quest could be for the City rd improvement agreements he bonds ara secured. Anoth standards on the rating of t froa certain companies which City Attorney Riback said a draft review (to the ordinance) could be ready for Council's August 7 meeting. THE ABOVE MOTION AND AMENDMENT IS DOTED UPON. PASSED 4-0. Mayor Kohler moved the agenda to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Solid waste and Environmental Management Rates and Fees for 1991-~2 (continued froa July 3j, with inforioational report on rents chippers and shredders. Mr. Peacock referred to the Memorandum from Ms. Isabel Gloege, Environmental Program Manager, which presented additional infotmatio on rental chippers and shredders. . At 8:45 p.m. Mayor Kohler continued the Public Hearing testimony. Mr. Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive, suggested that a publicati be put out explaining the Solid Uaste Program Management proposal. Councilmember Cleven~er re orted.in detail the requirements of the State Legislature's olid ~Jaste Management Pro ram which ~eandates th each City must reduce its solid waste garbage low by 25X in five years. Mr. Jim Guthrie,,Director of Enforcement for the Bay Ares Quality Management District, and resident of Sarato a, reports the Air District considers solid waste a significant air problem. Ae report on what has been developed as an integgrated waste mina ement program and provides copies to the Council. He urged Council ~o reconsider asking the solid waste company to be involved in a public education campaign at this time. Mr. Anthony Marsh, resident of Saratoga, stated he served on the Sol Waste Task Committee and supports everything except metered cans. H suggested metered rates be delayed one year. He sugBested Council consider whether there is a need to have a rate higFier for two cans than unlimitedt once the yard waste is adopted. He does not believe City Council Minutes 6 July 17, 1991, (Clylerk's note: Because of substantial public interest in item BC lhleldraftereltemvBC.the agenda to that item. Discussion on Item B~ was B. Civic Center Improvements -Capital Project No. 956 1) Continued public hearing on Negative Declaration for Civic Cuter Mr. Peacock reviewed his memorandum to Council summarizing that staff's recommended action after the Public Hearin is to adopt the Ne alive Declaration, apppp ova the plans and specifications and NegativeeDeclaratfonor bi~s. No comments were received en the Mayor Kohler opened the Public Hearing at 11:20 p.m. Mr. Barry Ford, Saratoga, expressed opposition to the skateboard arena because of the noise imps t, rowdiness and police problems. He ppointed out he was oppose to the first rop4sal for the same reasons. ee said he sent numerous complaints to tie City Manager.regardin the activity of the trucks in the early morning (4:00 a.m.j He ques~ions why Council would want to build a noise p oducing facillity where one was just shut down because of citizen compllaints. His property is approximately 100 feat from the proposed site. Mrs. Pat Ford, expressed concerns re arding the violation of resident's privacy, the environmental factor because of the litter left behind by trespassers. She had no knowledga of the issue on the agenda tonsSht as s e was not notified by the City. She referred to letters written by the Creedys and O'Connors who strongly oppose the skateboard park. Hr. Bill Souza, a resident on.liildcat Creek, reportgd he lives 100 yards from the site. He said'he has put up with all the noises in the area for more than 20 years but believes g~OUgh is enough. H opposed building of the skateboard park because it it is implemented ~t will only create more problems. Councilmember Monia explained the various aspects of the proposed skateboard park and why Council felt comfortable with that. Be later suggested that Council should review location of the site. Mrs. Pat Ford suggested the $125,000 would be better utilized on a teen center where all Saratoga's youth could benefit. Councilmember Monia requested the concerned citizens indicate on a m p where they live so that notifscation can be given when the issue willp next be addressed. Mayor Kohler closed the Public Hearing at 11:35 p.m. Responding to Councilmembers Clevenger and Anderson, Mr. Aerlin suggested that since the plans and specifications are due'to go to bid on Tuesday that the skateboard park be left on as a bid item in the package. fit the time the bids are open there would be an option to delete the skateboard park from the contrct. The issue can be revisited at the August 7 meeting. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED S-0. City Council Minutes 7 July 17, 199 THS ABOVE MOTION, AS A!lEtiDBD, VAS VOTED UPON AND PASSED 5-0. C. Draft Parks and Trails Master Plan Mayor Kohler stated that although he oritiis proparty adjacent to aura in the hills, Mr. Riback informed him he would not be in conflict of interest in participating in discus~fon of trails along the creek. Councilmember Anderson arrived at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Dan Trinidad referred to his Memorandum to Coun it dated July 17 . He reviewed the events and reported on the status o~ the Dra#t Parks and Trails Master Plan. Responding to a question from Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Trinidad stated the Plan does not speak to acquisition at this time as.it is .visionary plan, not a plan for implementation at this time. Mr. Paul Rookwood, represent plans for improvement and me intent of the Plan is to ppro actions over the next decde serving the population in Sa was a major component in the the surveys which were compl expressed the highest levels ing Aallace Roberts S Todd thods of a ~iieving 'these go vide a pol~cpp framework for or more, in 3m lementi a ratoga. 8e re~terated~hat planned development aroces l G4 • VV1 of support -that ng and explained t s. The heQgCity's ubliclinput an revieve si ants iking trail Mr. Rookwood reviewed, in detail, the improvements of each area, He ointed out a wall map op the improved and unimproved exi t3ng dpedicated trails proposed by the Park Master Plan. He ~elt the pproposed system is feasible enough an~ should be cemented 1A the City's olicy documents as a secure concept for the long term. He reviewed the capital improvements including maintenance costs. The acquisition costs are not included in the capital improvements progr except as pertains to the Ravenwood Park site and the Nelson Gardens park site. Regardin Councilmember Anderson's concern with the language at the bottom o~ Page 2.4-1 (Azule Park) and Page 2.4-6 (Kevin Horan Park) which stated The site could be sold in conjunction with the ad,~acen • site." and "The site was considered suitable for sale in order o generate funds for maintenance of all developed parks", Mr. Rookwoo agreed to remove those two sentences. 'On Page 2.6-9 regarding the utility tax, Councilmember Anderson requested that the information explaining the requirement for passin a vote to increase utility tax should be more clear in the text. On Page 2.7-3, Councilmember Anderson said she thought support was stronger than 22X for residence tax. Mr. Rookwood repported the figures in the document were taken directly from the FIIG study. She suggested the fi urea be shown in the three levels of taxes. Mr. Rookwood agreed ~o do that in the final plan. Mayor Kohler reported that two additional letters were received on t issue; one from Margaret Burmingham and Charles Dipple. Mayor Kohler opened the Public Hearing at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Preston Burlingham expressed concern that no figure has been giv for acquisition costs. He disputed the amount of land o en and owns ~... rhp Water Companyiand/or Santa Clara Valley hater Dis~riCt as City Council Minutes 8 Jyyttly 17, 1991 shouldlbetavoidedd°foItudoessnotaprecludeaaisuitffromvbe3n~f~iledzand the landowner wi1L have to 'invest time and resources in legs processes. Kr. Merlin McKenzie read his comments verbatim. He spoke to the issue of financial impacts and g~ve detailed figures he developed from his analysis of acquisition an other costs. He pointed opt the trails would provide easy access and get-away for home break-ins, pro rt owners within the spehere of influence must file a disclosure ~ y statement regarding this pending pplan and he believes that would decrease the value of proparty. He stron 1 recommended that Council either reject th~ proposal expansion or s~r~ke the Saratoga and T7ilcat Creeks from cons deration for inclusion. Mr. Alan Abbott, Via Ranchero Drive, read a letter verbatim. he stated he purchased his home 15 years ago specifically for its creekside setting; The ~rcposed trails sytem would r ddically change th t setting and impact is rop~rty values. He and ~iis neighbors be~ieve the proposed cree~idpe trail system po es a significant safety hasard, fire hazard, and liability exposure an~ should be removed from the Raster Plan. He stated he nor his neighbor will grant easements willcbeethedonlyachoice~lopment so seizure of the private property Ms. Diane Ouisinger, Via Ranchero, discussed in detail the maintenance costs which have been borne by the residents, not the City, for the p st 25 years. She referreeto the erosion problems and loss of w~ldlife which would occur with removal of the trees (100-200 years old). She testified the residents wish.to keep the creek in Sts present condition and ur es Council to reject, if not the entire plan, at least the two Creeks ~rom the Trail Plan. Mr. Dick Dipple spoke to the security issues. He reported on burger ry activity from access and exit via the creek. He recommended Council reject the Plan. Nr. Ed Flory, Via Ranchero, stated he bought his hom in 1968 for its beautiful setting and prfvachv. He read dart of the ~eed pertaining to the flood control easement w ich states the said easement area shn11 be clear of any and all types of improvements whatsoever.° He said if Council approves the trails proposal it will no longer meet the requirements of a lot in Sara to a. ~e urged Council to reject the Plan if possible, or at least ~he portions which refer to Saratoga snd ~iildcat Creeks. In response to Councilmember Cleverger, Mr. Flory and other members of the audience voice their opinions that none of the Districts do maintenance of the creeks. Mr. Lee Gray, President of Saratoga Oaks Condominium Association, reported the Flood Control District does come to clean the creek when he specifically asks them to. Beatrice Schmidt, Merr~brook Drive, a resident for 34 years, reported on the years between 1 55 and 1965 when many residents lost the land b a raging creek all the way to their doorstep. She stated the cost o~ the Trail Plan has been underestimated by .several million dollars and explains how she arrived at that opinion. She stated the Council must consider the right to privacy law. She mentioned all the acreage available in the City of Saratoga and believes 14 Barks provide enough -••~~;~ ~~~~p when there are only _29,000 Qeople,in^ aratoga. She felt ^~~1 COllthF Y7 ••ti.•..~ C, City Council Minutes 9 July 17, 199 habitat which exists there because she has fought several times to keep it in existence. She described the many various problems s~ie h encountered with different agencies and stated there is no reason to change the creek now. Mr. Lee Gray, a reed with the previous speakers that the plan,w0uld impact the cree~C residents. Invasion of privacy is the main issue a well as eminent domain. He questioned why thg City would consider a plan costi~ over $6 million dollars considering the current financi situatfono the Ciity and State. Councilmember Anderson stated that in view of the fa t there are so many people who have compelling reasons to not incline Saratoga and Wildcat Creeks in the trails .plan, she would make a motion to vote that down.. Hayor Kohler pointed ou Lhe vote can only be taken after all who wi to speak have spoken an~ the Public Hearing is closed. Mr. Eri Grup reported he has•done appraisal of properties and reporte~ if the privacy of the Creek 3s taken to create an easement, the City will probably h ve to pay the owners on both sides of the creek. fle disagreed wit~i the figures in the document for acquisitio costs. • Mr. Al Rigel, a 30-year resident of Wildcat Creek, fated both the cr ks are unprotected above. He referred to the foods in 1962 whe Wi~~cat Creeks overflowed its banks. Mr. Daryl Metzik, Wildcat Creek resident stated the people in the hills have the same right of privacy as 'hose people along Saratoga and Wildcat Creeks. He stated the motion by Councilmember Anderson excludes those people and it is out of order. Ms. Wendy Weisman, Squirrel Hollow Lane, reported there has been maintenance on her propperty because of a sanitary sewer. Sh report on several instances with the backed u sewer line where aem~-raw effluent flowed into her back yard. S~}e reported on the cleanup restoration and restriction from use ots the property for two weeds because of health reasons. Mr. Rich Williams, Via Hadrones Drive; stated he pp rchased his home last year. He reported on the many impacts he wil~ encounter if the plan is approved. Ms. Jean Patsuras a 30-year resident of Saratoga questioned the amount of money tie City spent for this study. S~ie expressed concer in the way residents were approached by the consultant durin the studies and stated she felt deceived. She supported the protesters and stated the group is for saving the environment and for open spaces. Mr. Sal Liccardo, an Attorney and creek resident, stated his opinion chat costs are not reflected in the report because the easement is restricted to flood control and therefore would cost the City a lot. Mr. Terry Wolfe Oak Hollow Lane referred to the consultan't's comments.that tie survey was conducted among 400+ people. Ae gguestior~iits accuracy because there are 29,000 people in Saratoga. He pointed out .that earlier this evening Council did not make a decision on an issue of minimal wildlife concern regarding the area ~~- ~a..~freewav, vet wildlife was not even considered, nor addressed City Council Minutes IO July 17, 1991 CCouncilmember Anderson suggested Council may want to consider the dlfferent~ aspects of the report separately. Councilmember Monia report~d that in 1978-90 a similar situation occurred and he felt iii un ortunate it reoccurred. He stated it is heartening to ee the community respond to the issue. He bel~iabilit this is and wi~l continue to be an issue of privacy, safety, Y and unless this Council makes a clear statement about that, this will probably be revisited again in the next 10 years. He s ated he would bring it up at another time and get assistance from sta~f on how to proceed to close the issue. Councilmember Cleven~er st~ted that because Saratoga' s residential to have a trails sys em t e away froze the residential enjoyment an~ value, it is not as important as the ~omes along the creek. She believes that although the trails wit be negative for neighbors that it is are s.tfll needed for walker She stated she would not be wl~~ing to change the philosophy oaf hillside trails because it has been designated and buyers are aware of that. Councilor tuber Stutzman pointed out the reason for the survey was because ~or years the debate has been whether there is an adequate park system, how much is available, and what a e the future nee~s. Thus the special committee was se up to deve~op a lop term p an which wa needed and a consultant :~eveloped the plan. ~e supported the vaii~ity of the surveys completed by the consultant and pointed out the pplain is only a long range plan with no implementation element to it. He explained that any implementation will be done through public hearings, etc. Mayor Kohler said he believes the creek area are very fragile and it is damaging to the creeks to have horse trails and walking trails and it takes away from the privacy. T~ ABOVE MOTION YS VOTED t7PON. PASSED 4_1. (Stutznan voted no). ~uncil~Memberscandestaffetc+ere presen[5 p.m. Upon returning, the sane Councilmember Clevenger discussed, on Pag 3.5-1 of the Parks and Trails Master Plan documnent the propose two trails in Centr 1 Park from the Library to City Half. The two available options are ~) to support the existing road bridge which has sidewalks or 2) an addition of a pedestrian bridge set back from the road which would provide a more direct connection between Ci~t~ Hall and the Libra~y (would require removal of trees . She a ieves duplication of-a trail and the removal of trees wou d be a mistake. CLBVENGER/MONIA MDVED TO DELETE T~ SECOND OPTION AS DESC]tIBBD ABOVE. Members express various concerns with whether sections of the Plan should be than ed now or when the actual implementation procuedures' take place in the future. (C~lev~er votedO~s~ON AND IS NOT PASSED. THE vOTE vA5 i-4 Councilmember Monia suggested Council prioritize the issues in the Plan. Be requested an implementation plan be prepared in three stages; for the next 30 years. Mr. Peacock reported the cost of information at the end of the document goes o~1995 and it fs based upon, the Capital Improvements P1 an. What hasp t been established are priorities for the trail - --- -- ---- -......l..aSnn rovardin8 the extent Of City Council Minutes July 17, 19' accepted the suggestion as wording for an amendment to the above motion. Councilmember Anderson stated she would like to have the cha es she brought up placed into the report. She agrees to speak vith~he Cit', Manager regarding those areas. r~ L THB xoTiop is voTgD tD~t ApD Pess$D s-o. D. Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a 3~T sq. ft.~ two-story, single family resfdencg on a 13 000 sq. f parcel in the R-iZ 500 zone district st 2076p Varde~l Rd., Parcel 2 (Appellan~/applfcaat,.Bmad) {DR90-065). Mr. Emslie reviewed The Planning Commis front lot of this t The Commission foun surrounding neighbo to reduce the maxim with a one-story al Commission for a pu 11 is memorandum to the City Council dated 7/12/91 on denied the plans for a two-structure on the lot subdivision recently appppr wed ~y the City. the proposed height incompatible with the ood. Staff recommended Council modify the plan heigght of the two-structure to 22 feet or retu rnat3ve to be submitted to the Planning is hearing process.. Mayor,Kohler reported he received a letter from xr: Emami indicating note is due on the property on August 4, 1991. Responding to Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Emslie clarif~ed there is olicy mandating the roof height of a two-story has to a as low as ~eet, so, a thirdoptfon would be to approve the original plans. Mayor Kohler opened the Public Hearing at 11:40 p.m. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Principal of the architectural firm representing the applicant, supported the design as originally presented. Ms. Shirley Deemer Wardell Rd., Mr. Ed Sevis, Arroyo de Arguello a Mr. Andre Bogart, ~-ardell Rd.~ supported the original plans fo tie home as the design is in keeping with the changes in t e neigh~orhoc and will add beauty and value to the neighborhood. They urged Counc to approve the original design. Mr. Anderson presented letters in support and a etition for the record. He painted out several areas in the sta~f report which meet the reqquirements for view and rivacy impacts, mass and bulk aad compatibility He stated his ~irm tried to reduce the height to 22 feet and still maintain the architectural integrety of th home, but could not do it. He implored Council to approve the orig~nal design He pointed out the project is in conformance with all conditions of the tentative and f3na maps, zoning ordinances and does not exceed the 26 ft. height restriction. Staff reviewed the maps with Council to clarify which set of drawiriF were under discussion. Mr. Bob Rockwood, Rockwood Design, supported the original design of the home reiterating Mr. Andersons comments. Mayor Kohler closed the Public Hearing at 11:55 p.m. As pper Councilmember Monia`s suggestion, the item was tabled so slat rr,uld clarify which drawings were being discussed after the complete City Council Minutes 12 July 17, 1997 Discussion ensued wherein Councilmember Anderson asked various questions of Mr. Kempton. He stated the City did have an opportunity, and did extensive)y rev ew the Environmental document and commented or a number of elements an~ con onents which were recorded. Kr. Kempton clarified that the Corps of ~,nginee7:s has a process for the ROtiC1Ag~ Councilmember Anderson stated she is willing to look at the one possibilitysofemitigatfon.(Calabazas Creek Headwaters) for a TBB TRAFFIC AUTHOR7[1? CALABAZAS CRB~C AR8 AST CREBIC RIPARIAN HABITST IN N AUGtTST 7. PASSE 5-0.. Mr. Peacock stated he would notify the Corps of this activity. Ms. Cherie) Jensen mentioned that the State De artment of tTater Resources is still an issue, she believes the City shoul~ speak with them because they are to issue a permit also. It is sti 1 not known how the impacts may be mitigated along the percolation ponds the flooding patterns are not known and t ose residents in the food plains are very concerned. She stated there are probably several hundred residents affected by this who don't know it. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. Appeal of denial of design review approval (oardell Rd) Continued from above. Mr. Anderson concurred with staff that the design before Council tonight is 23 ft. 6 inches. However, from an architect's point of view, he stated the 24 ft. 8 inch drawings are a much better design. 8e stated the original plans submitted to Council were 24 ft. 8 inches with brick across the entire facade and no dormer is a much more attractive project and encouraged Council to approve that plan. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE ORIGINAL PLANS AS~SU73gITTED, 24 FT. 8 INCHBS, VITHOIIP THE DORMER AND {tITH T8B BRICK FACING: Councilmember Anderson stated there are many two-story homes along the creek and this home would not be inappropriate in that setting. she supported the project. In response to Councilmember Monia, Mr. Emslie stated that by approving the.23 ft. 6 inch plans, Council would be supporting the Planning Commission's findings that the height is the major contributing factor to the bulk and the Commission was trying to maintain the streetscape. Staff agreed a two-story house does make sense, however the height could be lowered successful)y to at least 2: ft. 6 inches to maintain compatibility of the neighborhood.. Councilmember Clevenger supported the applicant's ~lan at 24 ft. 8 inches pointing out Fie has neighborhood support an the two-story is not objectionable. Councilmember Monia stated he could support either plan. Mayor Kohler stated he believes since it is close to the creek, ft is better to have a two-story home in the area. He expressed the importance of having the neighbors come to the meeting in support. He said he would support the original plan. City Council Minutes 13 July 17, 1 expansion. The Commission offered thg opportunity of pur~uing expansion plaps including one-story alternatives at an in ormal stu session.. The a lic t indicated they wished to puts only two-st~ alternatives. ~~ie Pinning Commission denied 4he app~~ca ion. Sta believes it would be fruitful to return to study Sea8i0a ~O1'H3t t0 evaluate all altern fives with the Panning Commission. Staff is recommending Counci~ return this app ication to the Planning Commission. Mayor Kohler opened the Public Hearing at 12:40 a.m. • Mr. Ton Sloan, architect, stated it was believed that the Planning Commission was willing to enter a study session to review only one-story alternatives, therefore, that i why th6 applicant electec not to enter a study session. He reporte~ his client has support f~ some residents in the cul-de=sac. He distributed photographs of thr project and neighborhood to Council. He reviewed the plans in data: and reported wha has been done to minimize the bulk including a hig roof and bay win~ows to lesson the impact. He reports how the privt issue has been addressed and that the Wests have invited surrounding neighbors to discuss the plans. Kr. Hovard Summers, a nei hbor, expressed his concerns with the bull which he believes will no~ be.compatible with the existing neighborhood. He said he attende7 the Planninngg Commission meeting t believes the process they followed was thorougFi and proper. He requested Council not to overturn the Commission's decision. firs. Marcia Summers stated s two-story home would set a preceden~ it the neighborhood. She ob'ected to changing the front of the yar ar objecte7 to the concrete ~rfveway. Mr. Morris Jones, Resling Court, stated the house will be elevated above the tree lane, he distributes photoggrapphs showing the elevatic poles. He said tha although the home will be 200 feet away from hi home, 15,000 cubic ~eet of space will be above the treeline. He believes the structure would degride the property, invade his privac and lower the enjoyment received from their lot. He requested Counc deny the request: Mr. Michael West the apppplicant, reported that his familyy is growin8 and he is in need of additional liven space. He pointed out there are many two-story homes much larger ~han what he 3s proposing and invited Council to visit the site to review the issues in question. He stated he did not realize there would be such a level of opposite and that the report to the Planning Commission recommended approval the plan.. He stated he believes he also has ri hts to be able to da things to his property which is not inconsistent with the codes in t ordinance. He read a letter of support from a neighbor two homes do which also suports the process which the Wests have taken to address neighbor's concerns. Mayor Kohler closed the Public Hearing at 1:06 a.m. • Councilmember Clevenger stated she could not support the pro.7'ect wit all the opposition, and believes it should be sent back to ,the Planning Commission for a study session. Councilmember Anderson stated Council would be happy to entertain another two-story plan but they must work with the neighbors and bri. the vertical element down. ..,n.rowirvn/dnmAnCnta urntun Tn.nrxertn TF7TC TTF.M RAt`iC T(1 TAF. Pi.ANNTNI; City Council Minutes 14 July 17, 1991 C. Ordinance amendsng v rious sections of tb City Code pertaining to parking - Big Basfa ~iay betveen 4th a~ 5th streets CygApp81tSON h0 Tp~~0~ TBS ORDINANCE BY TITLB ONLY vAZVn~c puaT~ 7. NBf1 BUSINESS A. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Bearings 5~. Mp~SBD05-0.STAPF RBCOMlS6NDATION F08 PUBLICIlT OF UPCOMING B. Budget Adjustment Resolution 91-46.1 for recalculation of cost of Annexation 1991-1 to Landscaping and Lighting District Mayor Kohler continued the item to a future meeting. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITSlIS A. Date and Agenda., for meeting with Chamber of Commerce B. Reports from Individual Councilmesbers Clevenger-Reported on information regardingg current Sanitation District projects at Montpere and Paseo Lado. Mayor Kohler - Reported he received a few calls from citiz n¢¢ who wanted to know why the letter by Jeffrey A. Schwartz should be discussed in closed session since portions of the letter had already been read to the public. Mayor Kohler adjourned the meeting at 1:15 a.m. to 10. CLOSED SESSION on pending litigation on ill~gal grading, lleering and tree remoyel on Cocciardi/Chadwick deve opment, Tp. 770. il. ADJOURiilO;NT to August 6 at 7:30 p.a. for joint meeting with Tr. 7770 Task Porce Committee Respectfullx submitted, Victoria R. Lindeman Minutes Clerk J •~ MINIITEs BARATOGA CITY COII~iCIL TIME: Tuesday, November 26, 1991 - 7:30 p.la. PLACE: Senior Day Care Room, Community Center, 19655 Allendale aVe. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting/Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission 1. RO11 Call • Councilmembers Clevenger, Monia and~Stutzman were present. Parks and Recreation Commissioners Crotty, Franklin, Miller, Pierce, Swan and Ward were present. Staff members present were: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Maintenance Director Trinidad, Recreation Director Pisani, Senior Building Inspector Oncay, Buildings Superintendent Rizzo, and Environmental Programs Manager Gloege. 2. Report of City Clerk oa Postiag of Agenda The City Clerk reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 22. The notice of adjournment from the November 20 Council meeting was properly posted on November 21. 3. Items for Discussion with Parks and Rsareatioa Com~siseioa A. skateboard Ramp Statue Mr. Trinidad reported that both West Valley College and Saratoga High School have declined to consider locating a facility on their grounds. He also reported on the status of the facility in the City of Palo Alto. The ramp continues to operate with supervision, modified hours and self-insurance on liability, Recent injuries have been minor. City Attorney is working on having legal basis of ramp: regarding liability to equal that of other types of parks facilities (swings, • slides, jungle gym, etc.) They currently do not charge fees, but they are considering same if legislation is not changed and supervision is still provided. The main issue for Saratoga seems to remain the location. Youth Commissioners feel that regardless of location someone will oppose it, but the Commission remains enthusiastic about having a ramp for Saratoga young people. Petitions circulated by the Commissioners were submitted. Councilmember Clevenger discussed the reasons why she feels the City should be spending resources for things like the Warner Hutton House, which will provide benefits for more Saratoga young people, rather than a skateboard ramp, which would serve a wider community in the County. Richer cities like Palo Alto can take on such responsibilities, but Saratoga cannot. Councilmember Stutzman stated his reasons why the ramp should be built on the Civic Center site; he would vote for such a project, City Council 14inutes Z November 26, 1991 would prefer Congress Springs Park. commissioner Franklin stated that a skateboard facility is preferable to having skateboards on the street and involved in traffic accidents. There was consensus to place the item back on the Council agenda for hearings to consider both Congress Springs and the Civfc Center, tentatively at the second meeting in January. B. Master Piaa Priorities i The. Parks and Recreation Commission submitted its list of trail priorities for the near term and its top park priority in the 1995- 2000 year time frame as Kevin Moran Park (attached). CLEVENGER/STDTZMAN NOVED TO ENDOR68 PLAIT. Passad 3-0. C. Council/Commission Communications Commissioner Ward requested that the Council try to signal its intentions regarding specific desires and things to consider when the Commission is working on a project so that work will not be done which will not be favorably considered by the Council. While sensitivity to potential political opposition to the Commissions plans should be taken into consideration, they should not be a substitute for the Commission giving the Council its best advice. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern shout the City going forward with the Ravenwood Park site purchase without the Commission being consulted. Time was ~a problem, but whenever possible the Council does try to get Commission endorsement. 4. Negative Deciara~ioa - Amebdmant to County Solid Waste Management Play regarding revision to the Guadslupa Landfill operating permit - shredded Auto Waste Disposal • There was consensus to set up a meeting with County Supervisor Diane McKenna prior to the December 4, 1991, Council meeting. 5. Civic Center improvements - Capital Project No. 956: Award of Contract for Communications System Installation BTUTZMAN/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DECLARE TEL-LAN/MICRO BOLUTIOHB TO HE TH8 LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, AWARD THE CONTRACT TO THE FIRM IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,847.80 AND AIIT80RIZ8 STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANfiE ORDE1t8 UP TO $2,400.00. Passed 3-O. 6. Draft Letter to other Cities in Snata Clare County concerning Reflective Noise from Sovadwalls There was consensus to authorize staff to send the letter, with a sentence added regarding the fact that other cities will probably hear from their constituents if they have not already. City Attorney Riback reported on securing a court order for erosion control and winterization on Tract 7770. ®001/002 ~ 10/18/2005 14:10 FAX 4088681281 CITY OF SARATOBA .. I • • t~G[aJ'4 VV r JY~S 1 , , '+. n•ti.t •!.' ' " S : Vr.,',.L,r,,1Ji, %.' ~ 1"i. n, 'f' •..'''Li, 5:••r ~~: .,, ML... •~,i1 ;t i1„ , ~ ' r~ ~ ~/ ~ ~1 1 y 4Y , • " r; , / . ., ~ , ~ 1, ..[ , , ,1 '. ,, A't t l ' • 1 Nei."I t. r':k t}Ia wk"h4t?+y ~ I',">S:Y".~1Nn .'J L . l;f,~l.e~ r •,1k..u~ 7„ i. ;~ ~lny t r ~ ryl ; ''[~t 1 .t''•.., ,4 ' . ~ , ,r Y '; t Yr "+\:t-r' r~,+ ,. ~ f4 , fIR, ,' t'. ,., 1 \. „ r : ~ ' ..;I.ti; :r, t ~ ,; ' 1 .1 ' 1 t`~{ ... 'L N,t 1! f "YiMwFJ:YN'4•YAI'. 1•IIM:h' if I ~ , , ,, n 1 .. w;, !t t. g. ~F1,,h~,.f~l: ,yr "a ' ~~ ~' i • F ' ~ ~ 1 v '1 '' L. i. ~l, ~1'4,i J: ' w~. .1• \R FC ~, y !'t ~ r .t (s, .Jr rte r .j Y.'.' l I ~.rt rc. ,L• ~5 , , l. A N•. ,ptb ~/~~ ~T'W ° :Yi!,"T:ir"',Y~Y '`llY~ ii r1 - . ,+t ~ I1 , y l~, ~ t~ il "'h.'t . Ti _9.. ''t?T~ dr ''. 1 , P.. r.. ~.I'.. , , . - r ..t :. 1 fM u i "•~~~ rY "w] wa'r!N i,+ ~r1lf, f ',1 .. .hti AIL ." ~-.. '$~.. ice. i - 1 L u ~ ;, / iu _ _ ~.~.~ . .. L.... ate, caa anl hl U ! ~ I I _ } y Thl 5 n . n li:l ft 1 1'I.n p:. d.,. t:I I ays Cil C R1, ttl~ Flc1.L rAF sqi It t !r,n.N :'.;~ I '.-' 'I tR~ Iar [ o 0 d LI 1 4~J 1 I 1, 1 ~ ~ 1 I S he l nil J nr[~J[L ~ e J ' I' ' J I LI t o I( c l r nil 1 J' 1 f}.5 rr 1- 1" 1 J 1 ll J 1 1 0 (It 1 II "l m I nuW - J S I 1 i 11 I •I /~ I/~. - 1 ~ ,j . lml. r i1 1 +'I yl Hupp a OL I pl nlicom u 1 , cJl I t ;. ~e. J..rl] J 1 I'rl 1 I d q- 1 r: 11 ~ LrpuW r01 f ~n .1 a -1 1 1 :J ['u irJ b! Sani ]. .k G t IAZ Ln 1 t,lttlnul mc '[J I J e ~ V I 1 1 I L,lu, I IC I , _, r . mr~q my . lp u ll ,r,;,t ;a7rJ I'nll<1 I,m, I.. 1. hn Iu 1 ~. rrnn 1 r I ~ 1 .. 1 ~1'' +~•~1~ IIa+I. rv rvol Ae 1 . .I, 1 „ - I .1., ul 1 I ~-l r >I I . 1 LII - ~ •' Y .. ehrr )~ 1 fiWllu nil r . r er, ~u I~Jw n i , I 11 -mr 1. ;,:J I A . I. , L rl' bmll 4 ,_ ulfl 1'_J; 1 ball l J I ll 1 U I rI. Pnrpll ~ oLmul unll .:3 .I Ir ._ 41 J [ tll 11 ~ L vLb~L n' 1,:R I- .m C II 11 1 ':1 1 1 1] `YYI ll 11 1 1 r y Ir r v ` Il+ln' Ilu door 1, al_ .1 kll~ (A r, '1 J,r rr I 1 ~1 I1111 ,'1rJI 1.iC)I Y1 Il"` nln:nlr I ,su - I y nl lJOOlmlal 1 R. . II I 1 .11 ul ' ~ ,RI nJ - , 1 I Y a I I l e - i J r ti iAcnn Jr ~, G'umly I r I l tl ,: I I 1 r ., <.-1 t d n~ 4V u.lr um 1 ,_ c 1 I rl :. 1 4;n i.L ly C cl,- 1 1 t r ,] .call t ~r: ~ 1 a t, r~~ t.n(..I. ' ' •Cnrr rJ S H.:' I J' I InnnO , J 4 1,; 1 p I r mb, J 'I tli, tl1 ULL 1, m of tl 1 - I .1 1 / -I : u 11, - I ;~h Y, ar, ~ I I I. ~; 1 I ~~ , ,~ li'., .... 'v-.. .... rt lslou rc c u J :..nJrel .c.,nJ I 1 ,I IJa~: i l l l.,l ~~;~ u. u ~ , . ~I ~ ' ~: __ _ _- __ -_ _ _ -.- , ~; Optimis t ~iu~~ ,- m~ reco ni "~, ~ e 1 t,~'] ]~ 1.I.., ~ fi , z s + ~' ~' - 1; ~ 1.1.1. 1. 1 r I I r Ir 11 I,, I w. good si u de¢t~ ~~" ~ I ~. - __ ___ I Iv[ 1 tn, 61L. n t 1 : 1 1 [1 1 ~. I 11. I ~ ~ SO U(r ? dun q J11 hn11UL l~ G }4'uth ~:. 1 ~ o t. ~ , 1 r, r .... „1,,: 1 I„fir z Ajr/Inr'a rirl;llir'.!. G,:(. <'i~" .J yam. ~ Tip .~' ;4 a4~;iS ~.'' ~~- ~~ r 1 I c; ,I [II ~, I n. lr , l~ I Allpl 1 T 1 1 u Ilzn 4 ~IJo ~'{')•. t I II Ir. l 11, I,.lu 1. .ul ,I-~~ A,J,}J I I "Yaurt [II ' t ,rt nn 11 ry m on ly ekmm '~•, Iti ~~ ~lyJ L ~. ~, I I r ,~, aan ", y 11 npll9l I J rl I n 112'1 ~ nc ~i1111 ur , ~~ ~ 1 ~I 11 I I 11 1 1 up ~ rffnaL-n _ ~ i i ~ ~ 1 m 1 II. IAn In'.. ~: r OnN 11. Ir DI - 1 U I , ' t ~ Jp ~ ~ ~ I ~~ 1 . , IKC 1 :rLrvll ll. ,J rl 1~IL,I(J QI 1 nuS"rr s.[r ~ Y JI"I .'r.I'J J _,t rl rnr ~' ~i ,.rl nd a~ l I . - 1 hl,+ K II m l FJ 11 , 1 I II I 1 LI JI ., r l I ! Ih 1 n ] 11 11 1, J 1 - ~ [ n r [1 1 ] -n.Il (. ' rol elt a d Yout Ir,f Il ^u l ,.. J~~i rL ul nt IJ ~ l i ~ 1 ~, II I I. i lc V I IM I U DL . 1 Jklhl 1) r-1 Ir r "Mr.~ ~ ~ ~ ~' :1 rt 1 Sa : s .bhl V c l 16'emJ e TI { . {} ,~ liA:.uL a i i ."; r t I Ib , -J] du ] -m1111 tl -.7~r 4 ! 11['k I •~I ~~ ~ I . , e 11 1 •c LG f Il,r- I I Illl I "11 l t.,n 11 Ill ,aloe. r n 111rWr Ow' 1tl din y d' `~4'/~h IlSanlo- ~ - ~ ~ ~1 r , y I q <,- [JV IY: r„c.+ J 'r PIIIv _o Jno- ~ IPi + / ~ _ .. / Iicnlo'tl c nrl ate L'ICnI SIUJ III 1 vaJ rlrm ~ .{.,, t' sy, LcJy rl<IJ[11 + J J: rt (°I th n~~vspa~ d < 4hIP 1Jyl rnJ Rrnolu rep I e~ InIJ dcl I 1 ~ , IS InH 1111 {~{~"' ~wf ~ r 1 , ~1 }~la~k a, IJ l lY r[~ np;cn I ,p lu b J Ila I SIIUeI:p clJ ml lodnm A F . ~1 -chAhm O' v F t A`+7~Cd ll C o i' + ~ ' + C 1 . 1 m I pip ncplb COV r C IoinmcN M 1 a+~ 1 J1 in np lprr March lViS anJ b nl 1.111~tl p .m mnr,lme[ S.A IicJwmvI LLJJIrx k 'U o n wc - j I n n , Jmw nQl I .1~ ^" hlwlpm JC 1 ..... .. ...., td~ '~ - y r r1L:`.- ~rhur rWuughour lnc SJO/a r. f Ipornl VnIlcyJrce. - mnulo Cn,nelnrd Ar.uluuunnnhrL 6 - nCau3 r hna AnnieSLm w L e¢Mh•pnu. J Mlrnndruw.r unJ t pm mrm rr yn1,.Y:~, ~d cnl J.a acre Sru CI" pmiann .irlrraffic olr, presillml . ' w;,... 1 MnreewneJ utn'ep,prrs 1hr ~•- earulyn ploVep•U lsnaenligyl Ifni/CnGrun,'Sr irni!/ion rrr,*,;na'n/nnpUieEn,n urnr:nn,,., n..r. mum. Iurrallumlq'nanM Pnn[7dnc - rl~ . -SChnm, • . nna'1u )i nnrn nn u;+d.,,.b•.,.r r. r ~rnrarfl. n r l U i ,,„r ll' i Onhu frm in $nnln porn v,u r. Ldd l11 r tatrnli nruJmllif r ~. ~ ~ Haan febougOp 000 I nasa.mn¢n opl Oof0lJOCjnh01di0 d ¢ ~ r:iueoa weak. Nam or /g wr/rnrursmun Gn,rnrenunnLW L.rt or ti,p n rlm,n oeo l] 1'IwIhA la SUru[o,a,lA~W4 mLA/~nrhnlyAy J.Aknn r.Mr/.lnblrtln/m ve r ~.. :olio nimdnr ix;lurrntrnrinmry2rmn/.rnrmaf+,rr rbinarrntrrrn.r/nnp g r „r..r vPr. u•eutcl'u1: ]'r'"""' rmrf b,.:d , , v . . elu4e ieaonr alttc ¢m wumral rnicarn. .... 1 Attachment 6 ~~ 4 `= t~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ r: ~ ~, n.:,r: ~ ;:, ~ r 1•' MMV V' ~ ' W Q .' IVi~F ~t MEDIT17TON- '- .., i~ `~" j ~ ~ "` Yd ~M ~~ ~ r ~i: - ~ , _, ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ a r.~ ~ ;Mi "~ ~ Y t h ~ ~ '1 .. ~Sv ~+' C i ~ ~a : C ~-~ 1 f t! ` Y ~' `I Attachment 7 ~< .~:_-~ d y N ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 'q w ~ H . d ~ ~ 3 `" h 0 yE ~ ^ a °: db a ~ o ~ ae a a ,x, h m a S~ 5 ~ 4 t i. ~ . ~ ,, es ,~ t ~ ~ * ~ ~ u ~ ~ yk ~ • , t Ey ~ . a 3 .~~ Y d~OVe; s~Zti ~Y b~ 7 0. u '^~ O ~ '= A • ,~~, b0 O .~j V '~ a 'a d .. z~ Attachment 8 ~ ~ ~' ~ O~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~~~ ° 1371 7 FRUITVALE AVENLE ~ SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 55010 Incocporsted October 22, 196G December 20, 2005 Dear Saratoga Resident: C'~OL!NCIL MEM1iERS: Aileen Kao Kathleen Kinp Norman Kline Nick Strait Ann Wa/tonsmith I am writing to let you know that the City Council will be discussing a report summarizing the results of the Kevin Moran Pazk Task Force who over the course of 5 meetings considered various development options for the Pazk. If you aze interested in this issue please attend the January 4, 2006, City Council Meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. ff you cannot attend and want to forwazd your comments please email the City at kbo el azatog_a.caus. Sincerely, John Cherbone Duector of Public Works a~ '' i. ., y ~.~--~ KMP :°+~~ KMP i J ~~ T J