HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-1992 City Council Agenda packetPrinted on recycled paper.
Background
April 15', 1992 Meeting Date
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Sri
Or7TVW of2
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
Subject: Alternative to Reimburse the City's Loan to the'.Landscape,
and Lighting District for Purchase of the Ravenwood Park
Site
Last year the City annexed an area to the LLA- 1..District to
purchase a parcel of land on Ravenwood Drive for a neighborhood
park. The land was purchased in August 1991 for some $325',000.
The 77 parcels of land in the annexation were assessed $110 each
a year for 30 years to repay 75% of the. cost of the land. The
remaining 25% to be paid by the City from the City's park
development fund. The total payback over 30 years would be some
$254,100.
The City has now received a petition requesting the City to.deannex
the area, ending the'annual assessment, and either sell,•the.land
and reimburse the 77 property owners or fund the repayment in some
other way. One alternative suggested was to sell the property
owned by the City at the northeast corner of Quito Road and
Pollard. Another alternative suggested was to build the park at
the latter site and,sell the Ravenwood site. A third alternative
suggested was to-combine the ,City site at Quito and Pollard with
the 3.6 acre parcel to the north, allowing for four. lots to be
developed rather than three, with the City receiving consideration,
for this combining from the property owner in the form of a payment
to partially offset the assessment.
A fourth alternative presented by the City Manager on: April 1,
1992, was to consider entering into an agreement with the property
owner to rezone the 3.6.acre parcel to R1- 20,000 or 'R1- 10,000
(zoning which would be more similar to the zoning to the north,
east, and south of the property) and have the property owner. pay
the cost to reimburse the City for its $325,000 expenditure under
a development agreement ordinance when the land is subdivided
sold for development.
'The City. Council .directed the City Manager to meet, with the
property owner and Mr. Borello, a.neighbor who originated the idea
of possibly combining the lands for development, to report back to
the City Council'and to agendize, a discussion of this item with
neighborhood notification.
April 15, 1992
Page 2
Discussion:
The planning department has laid out a subdivision using both the
R1- 20,000 and R1- 10,000 standards. Under an R1- 20,000 scheme, 6
lots can be created. Under an R1- 10,000 scheme, 7 lots can be
created. To recover the $325,000, each lot would have to pay
$46,500 for a 7 -lot subdivision and $54,000 for a 6 -lot
subdivision. Since current Quimby Act fees are $8,000+ a lot, the
net difference would be less of course. This alternative does not
suggest the need for an immediate subdivision of the property since
currently the City would not get its total repayment for thirty
years. Typically development agreement ordinances have a term of
many years, 20 for example. A scenario as to how this would work
is as follows:
1. An amendment to the land use element and a rezoning to R1-
20,000 would be initiated by the City.
2. Simultaneously a development agreement would be prepared which
would guarantee the zoning and development standards for the
property would not change for the term of the agreement. In
exchange the landowner would agree to pay to the City, on
close of escrow, the net difference between the current Quimby
fee and the cost of the Ravenwood parcel ($46,000 per lot)
plus the Quimby Act fee in effect at the time the subdivision
is approved.
3. Once the general plan amendment and rezoning are adopted, the
development agreement ordinance would also be adopted.
4. When the property is subdivided, the City would receive its
Quimby Act fees upon recordation of the final map and $46,000
per lot upon close of escrow of each lot.
To date I have had no response back from either Mr. Borello or Mr.
Santoro. Not only must the owner be open to this proposal but the
neighbors in and around Ravenwood should be as well if such a
proposal is to go forward. I hope the Council can get some gauge
of that on April 15th.
Harry eacock, City Manager
jm
Jody M. Durket
13891 Raven Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
March 25, 1992
Mayor Willem Kohler and Council Members
Dear Council,
cc: Saratoga News
Parks and Recreation Commission
APR 10 1992
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
I feel compelled to write to insure that you understand my position on
Ravenwood Park. I live within the Landscape and Lighting District assessed to fund
the purchase of the park site. Although I am not pleased to have to "pay" for a
city park, I -feel it is so important to preserve open space and create safe- places -for-
our children, parents, grandchildren, friends and future generations, that I will pay.
I am concerned, given the latest events, that Ravenwood Park may be in
jeopardy. We have worked so hard to get to this point I hope the council will stand
by its opinion that our area needs a park. Also, by the recommendation of the
Parks and Recreation Commission that the Quito Pollard Site is not safe or
appropriate for a neighborhood park. My children need a safe and accessible park.
I am glad that the council has looked to the future in deciding we need the
Ravenwood site preserved as open space. You have demonstrated an under-
standing for the families that live and those that will live in the Ravenwood
neighborhood. I estimate that there have been at least 25 children age six and
under who have moved into and /or were born into the Ravenwood neighborhood
recently.
I find it ironic that many of those that signed the latest petition use the
future park site regularly to walk and exercise their dogs and as a place for their
grandchildren and visiting children to play. I believe the majority of those people
would again support the park especially if the Landscape and Lighting district was
abolished.
I know your decision to make possible Ravenwood Park was not an easy one
and it may not be easy to follow through with, but it is the right decision, the best
decision for our neighborhood and a great step for Saratoga.
Thoughtfully,
ody M. Durket
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
13 April 1992
MEMORANDUM
RE: 15 April 1992 Open Council meeting
Our property was arbitrarily and selectively indentured for thirty years as a
result of the City Council actions, to purchase a mini -lot on Ravenwood Drive for a neighborhood
park by creating the Landscape and Lighting District LLA -I. The current elected officials and
their designated agent, City Manager Harry Peacock, are now responding to a large majority of
resident petitioners who want release from this long -term bondage. The City response has been
outlined in the announcement of this meeting (April 15) signed by the City Manager.
__The-- agenda- ou ned- in -Mr. Peacock's- letter has nothing -to -do w -ith the petitioner- -s'
primary request. It, from my personal point of view, obfuscates the primary request and intent
the petition.
For those of you who did not attend the Council meeting where the petition was
discussed, or have not seen it in written form, 1 quote the specific text of the request:
"We, the undersigned members of Saratoga Landscape and Lighting Assessment District
LLA -1, hereby request that the Saratoga City Council perform the following actions on our behalf:
"(I) Dissolve the Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 designated for the purchase
of the one -half acre Ravenwood lot to use as a park site...
"(2) Reimburse area residents for any taxes they may have paid or may have to pay as
current members of Saratoga Landscape and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1."
The petition also suggested that the Council could dispose of the lot in anyway it
chose. The memorandum from Mr. Peacock dated April 10 relates only to the disposal of the
property.
But -again THAT is not to the point of our petition. The petition specifically asks
that the Lighting District be dissolved and money collected for the purpose of purchasing a piece
of unwanted land called Ravenwood Park be refunded.
This current tax assessment increases the property taxes within the district on
average between 6 -16% annually, illegal under present California law. It can and will be adjusted
annually, just like any number of other tax items on our billing.
How the Council body and its employed agents responded to our _request, while_
interesting, is not actually our responsibility.
The immediate problem seems to be personified by Dorothy Parker's observation
about pride going before a rise. Dissolve the special lighting district created to buy an unwanted
park property, reimburse the illegal tax assessed to pay the City of Saratoga back for its
purchase, pay for the park site in the same manner as you did all the other mini parks within the
community or dispose of it -your choice.
Marcia Chamberlain
Quito Oaks Way, Saratoga
Printed on- recycled paper.
Background:
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: April 15, 1992
SUBJECT: V -92 -002; 13852 Upper Hill Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
Discription:
The applicant is requesting that the City Council reconsider the
Planning Commission denial of their variance to allow a partially
constructed, 6 ft. tall, black chain link fence to extend into a
required front yard setback where a 3 ft. tall fence is allowed.
On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission denied by a 5 -0 vote,
the request for variance approval to allow the 6 ft. tall fence to
encroach into the required front yard setback. The applicant
stated that the fence was needed to prevent the deer from
destroying much of the landscaping and vegetation on their
property.
The Commission stated that they did not feel that the 6 ft. tall
fence would serve as a deterrent to the deer and explained that the
problems associated with the deer are not unique to the applicants'
property alone. Many parcels in the hillside areas are affected by
the deer.
The applicants' have stated that based on the unusual configuration
of the lot and the orientation of the house, they understood the
front yard to actually be their side yard. They also stated that
their hillside parcel limits their yard area allowing no rear yard.
Staff was not able to make the required findings to approve the
project and thus recommended that the Planning Commission deny the
application.
Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Riggs, Assista Pla'ier
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Adopted Resolution, V -92 -002
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/26/92
3. Staff Report dated 2/26/92
4. Correspondence
RESOLUTION NO. V -92002:
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAMSON; 13852 UPPER HILL DR.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Variance approval for a. 6 ft. tall chain link
fence, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof
required to support said application, and the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
Granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other proper-
ties in the same zoning district in: that •all property owners
within the City's residential zone districts are governed by
the same regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Williamson for
Variance approval be and the same is hereby denied.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 26th day of February, 1992, by the
following vote:
ATTES
eta
File No. V -92 -002; 13852 Upper Hill Dr
;g n g *1�:�.�� iE�iY�. r ro;. h w9 ir
AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, MORAN, TUCKER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FAVERO, FORBES
ni g Commission
Orsos
a rson Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of February 26, 1992
Page Ten
8. V -92 -002 Williamson, 13852 Upper Hill Dr., request for variance approval
to allow a six (6) ft. tall, black chain Zink fence to extend into a
required front yard setback where a 3 ft. tall fence is allowed per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject parcel is located within
an R -1- 40,000 zone district and is 1 :005 acres in area.
Planner
Walgren presented the Report dated February 26, 1992 to the Commission.
Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 9:53 p.m.
John Williamson, applicant spoke in favor of his application and objected to the staff
report recommendation to deny the application. He also objected to an anonymous
letter submitted to the Planning Commission which objected to his application. He
stated that he was not requesting a granting of a special privilege because other
properties in the are have chain link fences.
Commissioner Durket explained to Mr. Williamson that the staff report was only a
recommendation and that the Commissioners make a decision based on their own
conclusions.
Mrs. Williamson, applicant, spoke in favor of the application,She stated that the fence
was for the purpose of retention of privacy and to keep the deer off the property. She
also stated that their property was atypical and she referred to a list of neighbors who
were in favor of their application.
TUCKER /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:02 P.M.
Chairperson Moran inquired with the City Attorney regarding whether an unsigned
letter in objection to the application could be considered credible and could be
considered in reviewing the application.
The City Attorney assured Chairperson Moran that the letter could be used and
admitted in to the process.
Commissioner Tucker explained that the Code limited fences in the front to 3 feet in
order to avoid creating a tunnel -like effect.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she believed that even an 8 foot fence would not
keep the deer for entering the property.
Commissioner Durket stated he was in favor of the staff recommendation for denial.
Commissioner Bogosian concurred with Commissioner Durket and also stated that
many residents have the same problems with deer on their property.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of February 26, 1992
Page Eleven
BOGOSIAN /DURKET MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION V -92 -002 DENYING
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO. THE FENCING
REGULATIONS. Passed 5-0.
9. DR -91 -070
Neuhaus, 12246 Woodside Dr:, request for design review
approval to construct an 882 sq. ft. second story addition
and 441 sq. ft. of first floor area to an existing 1,677 sq. ft
one -story residence per Chapter 15. of the City Code. The
parcel is approximately 9,750 sq. ft:, and is located within
the R =1- 10,000 zone district.
Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 26, 1992 to the Commission.
CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBUC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M.
Mr. Neuhaus, applicant spoke in favor of the application and explained that because
he preferred to maintain the space in his back yard, he opted to build a second -story
addition instead of adding on to the back of his house.
CALDWELL/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBUC HEARING AT 10:17 P.M.
DURKET /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR 91 070.
Commissioner Caldwell asked that the motion include an amendment to Condition 6
to require Planning Commission approval of the landscape plan instead of the
Planning Director's approval and also in Condition 6 the addition of the words "at a
minimum" be added prior to the words "..the placement of two (2) 24 inch box...
Both Commissioners Durket and Bogosian were in agreement to the amendments to
Condition 6.
Chairperson Moran stated that she could not support approval of the application
because she felt that the neighborhood consisted primarily of single -story homes and
that the proposed two -story home would be out of character with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Tucker stated that she also could not support the approval of the
application based on her inability to make the findings in regard to height and bulk.
THE MOTION PASSED 3 -2 (Moran and Tucker opposed).
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: v -92 -002; 13852 Upper Hill Drive
applicant /Owner: Williamson
Staff Planner: Susan Riggs
Date: 2/26/92
APN: 503 -30 -017
Director Approval:
Syr_
Z7 (2)
29- 7 9
75 (21
505-20 "22
1 3/135, :'ol
S✓ f 0, )4
503 -29 104
15449 (.75)
403 50 21
50 7 1934
20907 (I)
Ent -29
13 977 <71)
304 6o -2o
21459 (3.
'505 29 -6I
503 -2 0
i
,.s
3634 (49)
503'50
p
21443 CB)
5 8 9
21 485( A
5 0 3 -2
tot ;4s
C44)
soy -5o
13841 (64) 1t
50!•5.
1384
401 -1
17 9 73 C65)
503 5 0- 15
■}477144)
503 -50 -16
W
Z
/4 0 5
503
.L0g4)(4)J [044:)
5 -1 1 6.3
MALCOM
209 57 13441r
5.3 -fb -l1 1.1.50.72
130520*) 11510 (5o)
501'5.-70 303 50-)7
13470 OM)
5o3" so- 21 13 (51)
005
1/465CW
503.5.L6 13817(12
54) `'4 3
1309i.C5f
501' So -17 13554 (S})
503-So'76
139041•*)
.3 40 -26
4041 (A) Oct
13852 UPPER HILL DR.
145 of (441
001 -50-37
*05/0.49
O
V
J
4
38420}4)
7-50 -08
1)
s.5 50- 07
1396op3z
5203• 50 01.
3478 (AO
503.30 05
13
517-5
:31194 l7t)
x1 -50 o3
13902(310
5.3.90
13920
50'1 50.
(17
20111L)
40)-44.14
1
0 5$-1}
20725U7)
0)
2o z3
(1!.)
50'1• 55
24
20755
(15)
501'
25
'2015
(I4)
Sol 5*
9 4
20743135 2015!
50343.13 S0)
t 20760 20140
Q sos-49-al 5.5 49
11
sos 06
0724
(12)
0,03
29
13954
So3.40-)
0 ,C
File No. V -92 -002; 13852 Upper Hill Dr.
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 1/30/92
Application complete: 2/04/92
Notice published: 2/12/92
Mailing completed: 2/13/92
Posting completed: 2/06/92
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for variance approval to allow a 6
ft. tall, black chain link fence to extend into a required front
yard setback where a 3 ft. tall fence is allowed per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. The subject parcel is located within an R -1- 40,000
zone district and is 1.005 acres in area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application by adopting Resolution
V -92 -002.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution V -92 -002
3. Plans, Exhibit "A"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
File No. V -92 -002; 13852 Upper Hill Dr.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density
Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 1.055 acres
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Black chain link fence
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics: The site is located at the end of Upper Hill
Dr. near the intersection of Trinity Ave. and is an interior lot.
The residence is situated on a level pad which then gradually
slopes upward to the south and west of the building pad. The
property is heavily wooded with a variety of mature trees.
Variance Discussion: The applicant was in the process of erecting
a 6 ft. tall, black chain link fence along the side and front
property lines, when a "stop work" order was issued by the City's
Building Department. The stop work order was the result of a
citizen's complaint and was based on the fact that a large portion
of the fence encroached into the required front yard setback.
Section 15- 29.010 of the City Code limits fences to a maximum of 3
ft. in height in a required front yard setback. The existing fence
would need to be a minimum of 30 ft. from the front property line
at the proposed height of 6 ft. There are also fencing regulations
which limits the length and area of enclosures for fences in
hillside districts. However, since this parcel is located in an
R-1-40,000 zone district, this would not be subject to the hillside
restrictions.
Based on the configuration of the lot and the orientation of the
house, the applicants understood what the zoning ordinance defines
as a front yard to actually be their side yard. On this premise,
they began construction of a 6 ft. high fence within the front yard
setback. According to the applicants, the deer in the area are
destroying much of the landscaping and vegetation on their
property. They were hoping that the 6 ft. high fence would serve
as a deterrent to the deer.
Staff is able to recommend the finding for extraordinary physical
circumstances based on the configuration of the lot. However, this
request is clearly a grant of special privilege in that all
property owners within the City are governed by setback regula-
tions. In addition, staff feels that there are other fencing
File No. V -92 -002; 13852 Upper Hill Dr.
alternatives available which would meet the applicant's objective
without necessitating the need for a variance. Further, if the
fence were to be moved out of the required front yard setback, it
would continue to serve as a barrier to the deer while keeping the
majority of the applicant's property secured.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance
application based on the finding that it would be a grant of
special privilege.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application without prejudice by adopting
Resolution V -92 -002.
70
1
1
1
1
1
13852 UPPER HILL DR.
EXHIBIT A
WILLIAM B. CLAYTON, JR.
LAURENCE J. McEVOY
MICHAEL E. STONE
SUSAN J. CRANE P.C.
TODD L. CF)AMER
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Request for Variance /V- 92- 002(APN 503 50 017)
Williamson; 13852 Upper Hill Drive, Saratoga, CA
Dear Commission Members:
WBC:gj
LAW OFFICES OF
STONE, CLAYTON McEVOY
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
February 25, 1992
Very trul ours
I have been contacted by a neighbor of the applicants to
communicate to you some concerns over the request for variance
approval to allow a 5' chain link fence on their property. I am
certain, with the due diligence that the Commission members have
historically shown, each of the members have either visited or
viewed the proposed site. With this in mind, it should become
obvious the purpose for the 5' chain link fence. The purpose, as
I view it, is to keep the deer from their natural trails in
migration over the hills and from eating landscaping. It is not
believed that it can be justified in any other manner. Security
does not appear to be an issue, and this fence began its
installation without any permit thereby avoiding any City scrutiny.
By looking at the neighbors surrounding the Williamson property,
Commission members can observe the ability of the deer to move
between parcels is currently unrestricted. The proposed fence is
an unnecessary restriction of this movement. While the existence
of deer may be considered by some to be a "problem it must be
accepted as one of the conditions of property ownership in this
City, in compliance with City rules and regulations.
My client would respectfully request that you deny the variance
approval for the 5' chain link fence. If you do not, it can be
expected that a rash of application for chain link fences
surrounding properties will be unleashed, resulting in a severe
disruption in the ability of these animals to migrate through and
around the area. Once you start it, where will it stop.
Thank you for considering the comments I have been asked to express
to you.
i tavt*gr
CREEKSIDE BUSINESS MALL
1475 SO. BASCOM AVE., SUITE 111
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 -0684
(408) 377 -9100
FAX (408) 371 -7514
%Wes Is R
Date Received: 3 fZ
Hearing Date: `f/ jZ
Fee M:5; CYO
Receipt No.: a a S 7 7
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: f-tL A WILU,\YA,L0
Address: 3g tLtk) F t SCR (24 CA 5 7t)
Telephone: LO 0.0-67-7
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant:
Project File Number and Address: \4 i3gSZ geM D 46
Decision Being Appealed: 0� v�
1.0 15 Attmlivr cirrkf txnao kr b' Leo a
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached) poem bo gar 44 it Mptqet
StC, t. X 1051 W Cdirt eAi1w .►.i unt
LK.
(AA, 0E, s \U -iJ it kimo.
C,g V Ar9 06 a f o utu cr 'mac to
v:Ate
*A pellant's Signature
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15)
CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
Page 1
2or v1 •■1
SI I>t, vlE•N
SitM 4 13Pfc.K ViEwl
ED 51D gPccK v►.vJ
k S D e, sv
t ofx#4
SIDE VIOv..!
Stp VIEv)
AC i
ft.c V I E.v..J
15Pv_, Vv4
L. S i4 P.
rt k_ Loc,. -fl o
bIp N or view
S ri ro
t t: t s
So' F k (.K
Printed on recycled paper.
UR= cD2
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070,
(408) 867 -3438
M E M O R A N D U M
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: April 15, 1992
SUBJECT: Cancellieri Appeal, UP -92 -001, 14445 Big Basin Way
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
This application proposes to establish a liquor store in a vacant
structure located at 14445 Big Basin Way. A use which involves
the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages requires a Use
Permit in the Commercial zoning district.
The item was originally heard at the 3/11/92 regular Planning
Commission meeting. A motion for approval resulted in a 3 -3 dead-
locked vote (Moran /Tucker /Durket for, Favero /Forbes /Caldwell op-
posed, Bogosian absent). Due to the tie vote, the item was auto-
matically placed on the 3/25/92 Planning Commission agenda for a
revote. Once again, the motion for approval ended in a 3
tie (Tucker /Durket Bogosian for, Favero /Forbes /Caldwell opposed,
Moran absent) and, as provided in Section 2 -15 -050 (b) of the
City Code, the item was thereby denied.
Both meetings were characterized by written and verbal opposition
to the proposed use. Most of the objections centered on whether
or not the Village could support an additional liquor store and
the potential negative impact that such a facility might have on
the immediately surrounding area (minutes from both meetings are
attached for reference). A petition with roughly 500 signatures
opposing the use and numerous letters of objection were received
by the Planning Department (all correspondence is attached).
Planning Staff was limited to evaluating the project in terms of
the appropriateness of the site for the use, compliance with
zoning ordinance standards and whether all of the required Use
Permit findings could be made. As indicated in the staff report
(attached), it was determined that the site was suitable for the
intended use, that the proposal was in compliance with all ap-
plicable zoning standards and that all of the findings for ap-
proval could be made.
Recommendation:
Since all of the required findings can be made, Staff recommends
granting the appeal and approving the application to allow the
establishment of a liquor store by adopting Resolution UP -92 -001.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated 3/11/92
2. Resolution UP -92 -001
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/11/92 and 3/25/92
4. Correspondence
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
cancellieri
2
ectfully Subvitted,
orge dlhite
Assistant Planner
File No. UP -92 -001, 14445 Big Basin Way
CASE HISTORY:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Use Permit
approval to operate a liquor store in the Commercial- Historic
(C -H) zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Use Permit application by
adopting Resolution UP -92 -001.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution UP -92 -001
3. Correspondence
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
gw /dsc
IZICUTIVS SUM MAR!
Application filed: 1/3/92
Application complete: 2/19/92
Notice published: 2/26/92
Mailing completed: 2/27/92
Posting completed: 2/20/92
UP 92 001, 14445 B tsin Way
ZONING: C -H
STAFF ANALYSIS
=UAL PLAK DESIGNATION: Commercial
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to operate a
gourmet wine, spirits and gift store in am existing 2595 square
foot building located at 14445 Big Basin Way. The building was
the former location of the Village Hardware Store and is
presently vacant. Retail stores are a permitted use in the
Commercial Historic zoning district, however, the sale of
alcoholic beverages is a conditional use and requires Use
Permit approval by the Planning Commission.
Staff has examined the submitted plan and visited the site on
several occasions. As proposed, the project site appears to
adequately meet the needs of a retail liquor establishment. The
site is located in Village Parking District #3 and, therefore,
needs no additional parking for the proposed use.
The applicant is proposing no changes to the exterior of the
existing building. After visiting the site, however, Staff
feels that the entire structure and the permanent accessory
building should receive new paint in a manner consistent with
the Village Design Guidelines. A condition to this end has been.
added to Resolution Up -92 -001.
The applicant chose not to include the design for any new sign
age as part of this proposal. A condition has been included in
Resolution Up -92 -001 to require that any new signage be consist-
ent with the permit requirements of the Sign Ordinance and be
resolved prior to occupancy.
The operation of the proposed liquor store requires that the
applicant /tenant obtain a license from the Alcoholic Beverage
Commission. Staff has included a condition for the applicant to
provide proof of such a license prior to occupancy of the site.
It should be noted that a petition and a number of letters have
been received in opposition to the proposed liquor store. Copies
of these letters are attached for Planning Commission review.
Staff has reviewed these documents and concluded that virtually
all of the correspondence relates to personal and economic
concerns. Staff is limited in reviewing this application to an
evaluatiom of the appropriateness of the proposed use on the
site and to ensure that the applicant will take the proper steps
to obtain the required licenses to operate such a facility in
the City of Saratoga. It is inappropriate for Staff to make any
determination of the potential economic impacts that this estab-
lishment will have on existing businesses in the Village.
While acknowledging the Staff fe4m this use is
reasonable and appropriate for the site. Further; Staff believes
that the all of the required finding= can be made, in that the
Up -92 -001, 14445 Bic, .asin Way
proposed use meets the objectives of the Commercial Zoning
District and the provisions of the Village Plan by encouraging
the establishment of small scale, pedestrian oriented, retail
business in the Village core.
RECOMMENDATI0N: Since all of the required findings can be made
Staff recommends approving the Use Permit application by adopt-
ing resolution UP -92 -001.
RESOLUTION NO. UP -92 -001
A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT
Cancillieri, 14445 Big Basin Way
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application for Use Permit Approval to operate a
retail liquor store; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly
noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were
given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:
(a) That the proposed is in accord with the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
(b) That the proposed and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate
conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential
impacts.
(c) That the proposed will comply with each of the applica-
ble provisions of this Chapter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the
application of for use permit approval be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. All signage for the proposed liquor store shall comply with
the regulations of Article 15 30 of the City Code and the provi-
sions of the Village Design guidelines. Any required sign permit
shall be obtained prior to occupancy.
2. The applicant shall remove the temporary storage shed that is
located to the rear of the site prior to occupancy.
3. The applicant shall paint the main structure and the adja-
cent, permanent storage building in matching or compatible colors
that are consistent with the recommendations of the Village
Design guidelines. The colors shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
1
UP -92 -008, 14445 Big Basin Way
4. The applicant /tenant shall obtain the required license to
operate a liquor store from the Alcoholic Beverage Commission. A
copy of this license shall be submitted to the Planning Director
prior to occupancy.
5. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held
to be the liability of the City in connection with the City's
defense of its actions in any proceedings brought in any State or
Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the
applicant's project.
6. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to
estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation,
liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to the City per
each day of the violation.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or
said resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Conditions of this use permit must be completed
within 24 months or approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, Coun-
ty, City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this llth day of March, 1992, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENT
Signature of Applicant Date
Chairman, Planning Commission
Secretary, Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 11, 1992
Page Seven
SHALL REVIEW THE DESIGN REVIEW APPUCATION AT THE TIME IT IS MADE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE AND ITS
PROXIMITY TO THE OAK TREE WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE TREE'S
HEALTH. ANY STRUCTURE APPROVED FOR THE SITE SHALL NOT BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH OF THE TREE. THE APPLICANTS SHALL
PROVIDE STAFF WITH VERIFICATIONS OF THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE
TREE AND ITS CANOPY DIMENSIONS; 2) THE APPUCANT SHALL POST A
SECURITY DEPOSIT IN AN AMOUNT DEEMED SUFFICIENT BY THE CITY
ARBORIST TO ENSURE PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TREES.
The motion passed 5-1 (Durket opposed).
The Commissioner took a break at 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:17 p.m.
7. UP- 92-001 Canceilleri, 14445 Big Basin Way, request for use permit
approval to establish a liquor store in an existing building located
in the Saratoga Village within a Commercial Historic (C -H) zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planner Walgren presented the Report dated March 11, 1992, to the Commission. He
noted that many letters of opposition and a petition had been received regarding this
issue.
The City Attorney outlined what kind of factors should be considered and the kind of
information that is acceptable in the public hearing process when reviewing the
application.
Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 9:28 p.m.
Warren Lampshire, commercial real estate broker representing the property owner and
the potential occupants of the building, explained the type of business proposed and
spoke in favor of an approval of the application.
Mrs. Cancellieri, applicant, spoke in favor of the application and stated that because of
the condition of the economy that finding a renter for the building had been very
difficult.
Roberta Savage, 14481 Big Basin Way, spoke in favor of the application and the new
business. She stated that the business should be allowed to open and take its chance
in Saratoga.
Harry Lulia, owner of Saratoga Wine and Spirits, spoke in opposition to the application
stating that the license to operate a wine tasting would take a long time and therefore
the business would be a regular liquor store and that there are too many liquor stores
in that vicinity.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 11, 1992
Page Eight
Mr. Crawford,12471 Green Meadow Lane, spoke in opposition to the application
stating it was too close in proximity to other liquor stores. He also submitted an
additional list of name to the petition and an additional letter.
Marcus Bryant, 14419 Big Basin Way, read a letter of opposition from Sandy Miller
and he spoke in opposition to the application. He also spoke of various problems that
occur near liquor stores and bars.
George Kirk, 20270 La Palona Avenue, expressed concerns about the proposed wine
tasting to take place on the site and about any precedent an approval would set for
future wine tasting establishments.
Charlie Mc Fall, 3396 Londonberry Drive, stated that a duplicate business such as the
proposed would not attract new business to Saratoga.
Shawn Ebert, 13427 Christie Drive, owner of a nearby bookstore, expressed safety
concems and spoke of two incidents that related to the sale of liquor.
Don Coulter, 13674 Sara Hills Drive, stated he was not in favor of another liquor store
on Big Basin Way.
Tim Grabo, 14425 Big Basin Way, spoke in opposition to the application stating that
there were already problems of underage drinkers and litter from patrons of existing
liquor stores.
Leonard Sullivan, expressed opposition to the application stating that another liquor
store would just increase the already existing problems.
Linda Woodruff, 14425 Big Basin Way, also spoke in opposition to the application.
Rolland Hobart, owner of proposed liquor store, explained that the proposed business
is a fine wine business and that the hours are from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and that
they and their employees are very conscientious about not selling alcohol to minors.
Gene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed store stating it
would not be harmonious to the other existing liquor stores.
FAVERO /DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:25 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
Several Commissioners stated that Mr. Lulla had contacted them previous to the
meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 11, 1992
Page Nine
Commissioner Durket stated that he was in agreement with most of the applicants'
comments and was in favor of giving the proposed store a chance and that it would be
unfair to exclude a new liquor store. He stated he was in favor of the site being
occupied as opposed to vacant.
Commissioner Favero stated that he felt that the City had some responsibility to be
concemed with the economics of the existing businesses since the preservation of the
character of the Village depended on the economic viability of the existing businesses.
He also expressed concem that the added liquor store in that vicinity would not
perpetuate the desired image of Saratoga.
Commissioner Tucker stated that she did not feel the new store would be detrimental
to existing businesses and she could therefore not make the findings to deny the
application. She also stated that if the application were to be approved that she would
be in favor of adding some additional conditions.
Commissioner Favero again stated that he felt there was an obligation to the existing
businesses and residents since such a strong opposition had be expressed. He
stated he was opposed to the application.
Commissioner Forbes stated that he also was opposed to the application.
Commissioner Caldwell addressed the City Attorney asking about the amount of
information and type of documentation needed to build a foundation for decision
making on this application.
City Attorney explained that the decision would need to be based on findings and the
findings need to be based on fact. She also stated that competition is not something
that can legally be regulated and therefore the findings could not be made on issues
of competition.
Commissioner Caldwell expressed concerns that if a conditional approval was granted
that the same conditions that were designed to protect the residents could also be a
nuisance to the residents.
FAVERO /FORBES MOVED TO DENY UP- 92-001 BASED ON THE FINDINGS:
1. THAT THE PROPOSED STORE IS NOT ECONOMICALLY
DESIRABLE,
2. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Commissioner Durket inquired as to whether the application could be approved with a
condition that after a certain time period the use permit be reviewed to determine
whether continuance of the granted use permit would be permitted.
Chairperson Moran expressed agreement with Commissioner Durket's suggestion.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 11, 1992
Page Ten
City Attorney suggested that the motion be amended to have staff prepare a resolution
containing findings that an action be taken when the resolution is before the
Commission (interrupted at this point by Commissioner Favero).
Commissioner Favero objected to the City Attorney suggesting an amendment to his
motion and he requested that his motion be voted on.
City Attorney continued to explain that additional findings based on health and safety
and also on issue of compatibility or incompatibility of the store to the neighborhood.
She again suggested that a resolution be written by the staff to provide findings to
support denial of the application.
Commissioner Favero again stated his objection to the City Attomey's suggested
amendment and again asked that a vote be taken on his motion. He stated that there
was enough opposition expressed during the public hearing to support denial.
A discussion commenced regarding the motion, the legality of the motion, the findings
the motion was based on, proposed language for the findings and the options of
holding the item over to allow time for a staff draft of a resolution to deny the
application.
The City Attorney explained again that the finding must be based on fact and with an
allowance of time the Staff could draft a properly worded resolution for denial.
Commissioner Caldwell offered the following as findings to base a denial of the
application: That the proposed business would not promote a stable attractive
commercial development which would support a pleasant shopping environment and
compliment the essential residential character in that current residents experience
safety and litter difficulty of the existing liquor stores in the community; and the use
would not encourage a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants and etcetera
including residences, since there are already two existing liquor stores in the very
close vicinity of the proposed liquor store and because of the small size of the village
an additional liquor store would not promote the so desired mix of uses.
The City Attorney stated that Commissioner Caldwell's findings were the type of
findings that would need to be made, but advised that the findings should be based
upon facts and she again suggested that the Commission allow staff time to draft a
resolution for denial of the application.
Commissioner Favero stated he was not in favor of holding the item over to allow for a
new resolution because he felt staff may not present a totally unbias resolution. He
also suggested that if this were done, a new resolution written, that the City should
hire an paid, unbiased attorney to review the resolution.
Planning Commission Minut...i
Meeting of March 11, 1992
Page Eleven
Commissioner Forbes amended the motion to add the following findings:
3. IT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA
4. THAT THERE ARE PERSONAL SAFETY RISKS.
Commissioner Favero agreed to the additional findings.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would abstain from voting on the item because
she was in favor of holding the item over to allow staff time to write a resolution for
denial.
Chairperson Moran asked if Commissioner Favero would like to withdraw his motion.
He did not.
The motion was reiterated in its entirety.
FAVERO /FORBES MOVED TO DENY UP- 92-001 BASED ON THE FINDINGS:
1. THAT THE PROPOSED STORE IS NOT ECONOMICALLY
DESIRABLE,
2. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
3. IT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA
4. THAT THERE ARE PERSONAL SAFETY RISKS.
THE MOTION DID NOT PASS 2-3. (Chairperson Moran and Commissioners
Durket, and Tucker opposed and Commissioner Caldwell abstained).
CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION
DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GIVEN ALL THE TESTIMONY AND
ALL THE DISCUSSION AND ALL THE PROPOSED FINDINGS MADE AT THIS
EVENING'S MEETING. STAFF SHALL MAKE THEIR BEST EFFORT TO DEVELOP
A DOCUMENT THAT IS LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE. The motion did not pass 2-4
(Moran, Durket, Tucker, and Favero opposed).
DURKET/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE UP -92 -001 WITH THE FOLLOWING
ADDED CONDITIONS:
1. THE HOURS OF OPERATION BE UMITED TO 10:00 A.M. TO 8:00
P.M. MONDAY SATURDAY AND 10:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. ON
SUNDAYS.
2. THE BUSINESS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING LITTER
FROM THE AREA SURROUNDING THE BUILDING AND THE
ADJACENT PARKING LOT.
THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY UT.
4. THE SIDING OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE REPLACED WITH WOOD
SIDING MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
VILLAGE. THE SIDING SHALL BE PAINTED WITH STAFF'S
APPROVAL OF THE COLOR.
Planning Commission Minu._s
Meeting of March 11, 1992
Page Twelve
5. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE AREA WHERE THE
METAL SHED NOW STANDS AND IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
Commissioner Favero amended the motion to include that a security guard be posted
at both the front and back door at all hours of operation.
Commissioners Tucker and Durket were not in favor of Commissioner Favero's
amendment.
Chairperson Moran offered an amendment to the motion that a 1 year review period
be placed as a condition of the use permit approval.
Commissioner Durket was not in agreement with Commissioner Caldwell's suggestion.
The City Attorney reiterated the motion as stated above.
COMMISSIONER FAVERO MOVED THAT AN AMENDMENT BE MADE TO THE
CONDITIONS THAT STAFF INCLUDE IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION MEANS OF
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
THE MOTION MADE BY DURKET/TUCKER DID NOT PASS 3-3 (Commissioners
Favero, Forbes and Caldwell opposed).
It was explained to the applicant that the tie vote would automatically trigger the item
to be agendized for the next Planning Commission meeting unless the applicant
appealed to the City Council.
The Commission took a break at 1128 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:35
p.m.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
1. Memo to City Council and revisions to Design Standard Ordinance
After a report on the issue was given by Planner Adar, Commissioner Favero
suggested, due to the late hour, the item be held over to the next Planning
Commission meeting on March 25, 1992.
There was unanimous agreement with Commissioner Favero's suggestion and the
item was held over. The Commission also requested staff to prepare a redline version
of this ordinance and of future draft ordinances.
2. Planning Commission Retreat Discussion
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 25, 1992
Page Three
DIRECTOR'S ITEM
1. Review of Memo to City Council and Revisions to Design Standard Ordinance.
FORBES /DURKET MOVED TO MOVE THE REVIEW OF THE MEMO TO CITY
COUNCIL AND REVISIONS TO DESIGN STANDARD ORDINANCE TO THE END
OF THE MEETING AGENDA. Passed 6-0.
PUBUC HEARINGS
4. UP -92 -001 Cancellieri, 14445 Big Basin Way, request for use permit
approval to establish a liquor store in an existing building located
in the Saratoga Village within a Commercial Historic (C -H) zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 3/11/92 to
allow for a re- vote).
Planner Walgren gave a brief report and explained to the Commission that they could,
if they so desired, vote on the motion as made at the last meeting and as it appears in
the March 11, 1992 minutes on page 11. The motion was read into the minutes as
follows:
DURKET/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE UP -92 -001 WITH THE
FOLLOWING ADDED CONDITIONS:
1. THE HOURS OF OPERATION BE LIMITED TO 10:00 A.M. TO 8:00
P.M. MONDAY SATURDAY AND 10:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. ON
SUNDAYS.
2. THE BUSINESS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING LITTER
FROM THE AREA SURROUNDING THE BUILDING AND THE
ADJACENT PARKING LOT.
3. THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY LIT.
4. THE SIDING OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE REPLACED WITH WOOD
SIDING MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
VILLAGE. THE SIDING SHALL BE PAINTED WITH STAFF'S
APPROVAL OF THE COLOR.
5. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE AREA WHERE THE
METAL SHED NOW STANDS AND IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
Chairperson Caldwell distributed and called the Commission's attention to a sheet
which provided language for findings for denial of the application.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 25, 1992
Page Four
Commissioner Bogosian stated that even though he was not present
at the meeting of March 11, 1992 at which time the application was first reviewed, he
had reviewed the staff report and the minutes and was comfortable voting on the
issue.
Commissioner Durket stated that he felt that there were no facts on which to base
findings for a denial.
Favero stated that there were adequate facts presented at the public hearing to
support a denial.
Chairperson Caldwell re -read the above motion.
FORBES /DURKET MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBUC HEARING AT 7:57. Passed
6 -0.
Diane Diezen, 14407 Big Basin Way, spoke in opposition to the application stating that
the proposed business is located too close in proximity to the highschool and would
not promote the desired image and standards of the community. She also inquired as
to whether a feasibility study had been conducted and expressed concerns regarding
safety issues.
Commissioner Durket asked if the application had been withdrawn as many had
heard.
Planner Walgren addressed Commissioner Durket's question and stated that no formal
request for withdrawal had been received.
Mr. Lampshire, representing the applicant, stated that the application had not been
withdrawn. He spoke in favor of the application and stated that denying his client's
application based on the reported problems in the area with relation to existing liquor
stores would not solve the existing problems.
Bob Cancellieri, applicant and owner of 14445 Big Basin Way, stated that he had
visited the business establishments of the proposed tenants and found that they ran a
respectable business. He supported an approval of the application and stated that
competition was good for the customers and that other types of businesses had been
allowed to open in Saratoga regardless of whether there were already existing
identical businesses.
Harry Lulla, owner of Saratoga Wine and Spirits, stated that he ran his business
according to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission regulations and spoke in opposition
to the application.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 25, 1992
Page Five
Resident, 12471 Green Meadow Lane, spoke in opposition to the application stating
that the location of the proposed liquor store was not a good location because of its
close proximity to the highschool.
Since there was no one else wishing to speak Chairperson Caldwell closed the public
hearing at 8:16 p.m.
Chairperson Caldwell stated that she had received letters of opposition from other
business owners and a call from Harry Lulla prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Bogosian stated that he could only deny the application if he could
make findings that the proposed business posed a public safety hazard and since he
could not, he would be supporting the application.
Commissioner Favero reminded the Commission of the intent of the Code to preserve
the character and health and safety of the community and the object to promote a mix
of businesses. He therefore stated he could not support approval of the application
based on the concerns expressed by the general public.
Commissioner Tucker stated that she could support approval of the application for a
use permit. She explained, for the sake of the public, the purpose and intent of use
permits.
Commissioner Forbes requested that the motion as proposed above be re- stated.
Chairperson Caldwell reiterated the above motion.
THE MOTION DID NOT PASS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: DURKET, TUCKER AND BOGOSIAN
NOES: CALDWELL, FAVERO AND FORBES
CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO DENY UP- 92-001 FOR REASONS THAT THE
PROPOSED USE IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SITE IS
LOCATED, IN THAT RESIDENTS AND VILLAGE MERCHANTS TESTIFYING
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND WRITING LETTERS TO THE COMMISSION
HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT:
1. THE OPERATION OF AN ADDITIONAL LIQUOR STORE IN THE
VILLAGE WILL BE TO THE DIRECT ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL
DETRIMENT TO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS NOW POSSESSING
FULL RETAIL UQUOR UCENSES AND TO THOSE MERCHANTS IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROPOSED UQUOR STORE SITE.
TWO, LET ALONE THREE, ESTABLISHMENTS RETAIUNG A FULL
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 25, 1992
Page Six
LINE OF UQUOR ITEMS WITHIN LESS THAN A FULL BLOCK'S
DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER WOULD NOT FURTHER THE
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ESTABUSHMENTS TO LOCATE IN A
MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER. TO
GRANT THE PROPOSED USE PERMIT WOULD THEREFORE
CONTRAVENE SECTION 15- 19.010(B).
2. THE OPERATION OF AN ADDITIONAL LIQUOR STORE IN THE
VILLAGE WILL NOT PROMOTE STABLE, ATTRACTIVE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO AFFORD A PLEASANT
SHOPPING ENVIRONMENT AND COMPUMENT THE ESSENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE CITY. THE EXPECTED UTTER
AND PERSONAL SAFETY PROBLEMS ALREADY EXPERIENCED \BY
RESIDENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING UQUOR
STORE, SUCH AS PEOPLE LOITERING WITH OPEN LIQUOR
CONTAINERS IN AND AROUND NEARBY ESTABUSHMENTS,
EMPTY CONTAINERS DISPOSED OF OUTSIDE NEARBY SHOPS,
AND THE CONGREGATION OF UQUOR STORE PATRONS IN THE
NEARBY PARKING LOT, WILL DETRACT FROM THE PLEASANT
SHOPPING ENVIRONMENT SOUGHT IN THE VILLAGE AND WILL
POSE ADDITIONAL LITTER AND SAFETY PROBLEMS, FOR THOSE
RESIDING AND WORKING IN THE VILLAGE. MOREOVER, SOME OF
THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED TO CONTROL OR MITIGATE THESE
PROBLEMS, SUCH AS ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT UGHTING WILL
BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ESSENTIAL RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF
THE VILLAGE AND A FURTHER NUISANCE TO THOSE RESIDING
NEAR THE PARKING LOT. TO GRANT THE PROPOSED USE
PERMIT WOULD THEREFORE CONTRAVENE SECTION 15- 19.010(C).
3. THE SARATOGA VILLAGE IS A SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREA
ENCOMPASSING AT MOST SEVERAL BLOCKS; THE COMMERCIAL
ESTABUSHMENTS IN THE VILLAGE ARE CONCENTRATED ALONG
BIG BASIN WAY, WITH RETAIL ESTABUSHMENTS FURTHER
CONCENTRATED NEAR THE EAST END OF BIG BASIN WAY. THE
OPERATION OF AN ADDITIONAL LIQUOR STORE IN THE VILLAGE
AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION WILL RESULT IN A HEAVY
CONCENTRATION OF RETAIL UQUOR STORE ESTABUSHMENTS
AT THE EAST END OF THE VILLAGE. SUCH A CONCENTRATION
OF LIKE RETAIL UQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS CONTRAVENES THE
VILLAGE PLAN OBJECTIVE OF ATTAINING A MIX OF SPECIALTY
SHOPS, RESTAURANTS, CONVENIENCE SHOPS, SERVICES AND
RESIDENCES IN THE VILLAGE. TO GRANT THE PROPOSED USE
PERMIT WOULD THEREFORE VIOLATE SECTION 15- 19.010(G)(3).
(B) THE PROPOSED USE AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
THE PROPOSED LIQUOR STORE WOULD BE OPERATED OR
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 25, 1992
Page Seven
MAINTAINED WILL BE DETRIMENTAL. TO THE PUBUC HEALTH,
SAFETY OR WELFARE, OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO
PROPERTIES OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY IN THAT THE
EXACERBATION OF EXISTING UTTER AND SAFETY PROBLEMS
DESCRIBED ABOVE POSES A DIRECT THREAT TO SAFETY AND
WELFARE OF EXISTING VILLAGE RESIDENTS, PATRONS AND
MERCHANTS, AND POSES THE THREAT OF INJURY TO VILLAGE
PROPERTIES.
THE MOTION DID NOT PASS 3-3 Durket, Tucker and Bogosian opposed).
Since a tie vote automatically re- agendizes the item for the next Planning Commission
meeting, BOGOSIAN/TUCKER MOVED THAT THE PUBUC HEARING BE CLOSED
ON THE ISSUE, THEREFORE THE PUBUC HEARING WILL NOT BE RE -OPENED
ON THE ITEM AT THE NEXT MEETING. PASSED 6-0.
The Commission took a break at 8:32 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:43 p.m.
5. DR -91 -072 Saratoga Pacific Oaks, 19216 Crisp Ave., request for design
review approval to construct a new two -story 5,520 sq. ft.
residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject
property is 40,006 sq. ft. in area and is Lot #18 of the San Marcos
Heights subdivision (cont. from 3/11/92; application expires
6/20/92).
Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 12, 1992 to the Commission.
Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the application and
presented a picture board showing the site and the various views from that site. She
also explained the issues of the proposed design, the developer intent to maintain
compatibility among the homes in the subdivision and landscape plans.
Since there was no one else wishing to speak Chairperson Caldwell closed the public
hearing at 8:55 p.m.
TUCKER /FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE DR -92 -002 AS PER THE STAFF
REPORT.
Commissioner Durket stated that he believed that the homes proposed for the
subdivision were progressively getting larger.
Commissioner Bogosian stated that he was initially concerned with the appearance of
mass and bulk, but after using the aid of the visuals felt that the proposed design was
compatible with the previously approved homes for the subdivision.
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Councilmernbers:
/4
APR 81992 2
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
CORINTHIAN
♦CORNERS♦
ANTIQUES•OBJECTS OF ART
April 6, 1992
re: Appeal of Denial of Request for Use Permit With Respect to
Establishing a Liquor Store at 14445 Big Basin Way, Saratoga
As owner of Corinthian Corners Antique and Fine Art shop in the Village
of Saratoga, I urge denial of the request for a liquor store at the above
location. I urge denial on the basis of safety.
I attended two hearings before the Planning Commission wherein several
store owners who work late at night, and tenants in the area, complained
about individuals drinking late at night in the back parking lot. Shop
keepers were concerned about safety and the tenants about noise, as well as
litter. Having another liquor store would probably compound the problem.
I do not object on the basis of competition. Stores providing outstanding
service and goods will survive, no matter what the competition, to the ultimate
benefit of the Village as a whole. Conversely, businesses not providing
outstanding service and goods will not survive. Eliminating competition so
that an existing business can survive is counterproductive.
In summary, I do think there is a safety problem with liquor.'] stores,
and I urge the denial of a use permit for another liquor store.
Sincerely yours,
Gr/7!
Ann Fitz
(408) 867 -4630
20506 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
The 1
conditional use
UP92-001. or
Wines Spirits (14429 B W ho Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big l�asi) Way are existing gene off sale Ian aicoholic retail stores
adequately meeting the needs for sucfi S c onsumers. An ad 'lion general off sale
retail liyu� r store will not provide a n service for the community and may create a high
potential for alcohol abuse and related problems. Further, a third retail liquor store will not
contribute to the mix of retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the
two existing stores.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village.
Name
(Print)
(.c,,,r -6! Q.iC.F
Lisp4 1
1.1 �1C1t`
PROPS p PSiiriON
S P�04 1 j4�A3 att4 WAY
(formerly %Mop
of
for of f beNe Seretop
14445 B g Way
Signature
k 6 BUSINESS
t13x
i y Mr, issuance of a
i br►Hardware).
i etal. No.
t 8 7- 1 11111K IMMI T= 1 7 1 11 1
1
I •.4ai; •r
iI,I1 4 l/, r
0\, S .S. .Jim /7”g iy;4,03
i r:�. r
Vrilltalr4=11 WAIVOIL.
•iii i_._ MAN
MIP WA 1111
tc 1
/44N1 S H) HAN) MA)
MOWN A
,.t are
F �l<LXINF ve
L *vet
4./
1
it$1
OR
Y r e, CH
&4o �ls� Lr.
n4
Iy t ;4 9141tAi 04h -SJ. M kQ ec. 11 5
SCE S L0-en Sh
M.5"1 S ii/i /4 ,Ch
GAS 5?d
c0.
of a conditional ule_ permit for sale of r lied The undersigned concerned citizens of hereby o the issuance
Reklu f r a Mr.
a� No. UP9
T.001 for the location 1 Big comedy 1
Sarat Wines and trite (14429 Big. B and Way) Sara Buy and
Save Mar144440 Big Bai<in W are off sale 1 alcoholic
beverages) re story adequate meeting for goods by
consumers. An additional general o sale retail liquor store not provide a
needed service for the community and may create a high potential for alcohol
abuse and related roblems. Further, a third retail liquor store will not contribute
to the mix of retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the two
existing stores.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in
Saratoga Village.
y_y
linrilgth _i
.411
l�
5 dbAk
ova 4pa v
le
1(1 it .1 '71t rFWLf.thig;l4m? t
WNW' IIIMMAINNI
a a z/ i.� e/•.) 68
FAIMM
it
1
r I
r-,04t c. 41(
/kcrf/dETy Gr
o /loo V/tk
ilUtekt 117 7 Gf.
K
Bre
Name
(Print)
PETTTIOP
PROPOSED 0 ED FOR OR 105 BIG WAY
(formerly i
Saratoga re)
Signature
DRESS
e a r I Let t Avg Avg S+
Y ■t
Bgihj
21 o c o Sa� (4 I sia
14149
',Al tr.
(,1:l
"S A,e
Po. &x AreAra &4, c 4-(0?I
9
t/
Sa,yal
.a 4/2el i 4ur
PEITTKIN
OPPOSING LIQUOR SME
PROPOSED FOR 140$ BIG WIN WAY
(formerly Sara mama*
conditTo use permit rot s oeverr
UP92-00I or thb- iocadon 14445 Big Basin Way (f Rett e tal o N f o a
u ndersitneld,.__co .of Saratop
Saratoata Wines and Spirits (14429 Big_Basin Way)
(14440 Big Bu Wily) are existing neral off sale lallanalcolto and Save Market
adequately meeti nune needs for sucl retail stores
retail liquor store ma not provide a neecasei by COMMONS. An don general off sale
rvIce for the corn:pun and may create a high
potential for alcoho abuse and related problems. Further, re 11 liquor store will not
contribute to the m of retail establishments in the Villtige in such dose proximity to the
two existing stores.
Village.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Name
(Print)
PA wo.49 Solir"efet./
Signature
Saralmi
1-1 RESIDENCE-ANDJOR
AUSINESS ADDRESS
gf Afk.
F
is aiet, RIME I f I r
A Igniffillign
l I I I Mr
M.•• 4140.44•3
1
il `.4111 1 1/1!tral111
)1111' a. A.-AL Jo.
b10 ill .1110111W.IIIIIIIIIr Mgr
MNIEFAIV.
gym
4.. h
4%
ir 1
4
Ar gi 5-4.
a -.6 4
°ME 111m71,11w="1"="1"1"nr
1 .7 /001
144e CI.
1
ratif..4111111
i/Mraffill111111r47,4",,AP
,..11111/ 101.77WAltale
Plf21611R7111111 r
tow s
4r
ProrAtrAFFAIIIMEIr
DCA/
1
IA,
fou
r .OPM/ArAr.11111IMMR7
For4
Be" ii
.1
L—
a
S'
12:TPz_
..a. ragas 3Ag. L
111MAirmee...77111111 MIMI
4
cot& r7; sof-
644Z oct.
it.S kb'
-s u (61,
OPPOSING �LIM*.. S. JRS
PROPOSED w5 BIG BASIN WAY
Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizetis of Saratoga
condition use_ permit for sale of alcoholic beau--
UP92-001 for the location 14445 Big_Basin Way
Sarat Wines and Spirits (14429 Bit B 'n W
(14440 Big �in Way) are existing ay) and Sara Buy and Save Market
adequately meedne. th need. for sucil
$e o sale (all alcoholic We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a tIlird retail liquor store in Saratoga
retail liqu9r store will nit a n service for the community and may create a high
potential tor afthol ab and relat problems. Further, a third retail liquor store will not
contribute to the mix o retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the
two existing stores.
Name
(Print)
Signature
Sara
r
BUSINESS ADDRESS
O ose he issulince of a
Ham) ekht etal. No.
�IW
J
fit.. %AL&
;!f «WA�
III F ara
I
ie
r
l
U
e I ble
/s «.sw 4
r.
tow 0,v f-
f
Le% ArAtkal
r
/99.i z 17uR44A.•e7,
ZZ1
1
ao o s
it
2 1 S
N It
OPPOSING LIQUOR SPORS
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratop Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratop gppose the ienuancc or a
conditions use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as a Jul Mr. Rekhi MI. No.
UP92 001 for the location 14445 Dig Basin Way (fofmerly ratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basco Way) and Saratooggas Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) are existing general off sale all alcoholic oevera retail stores
adequately meeting, the needs for suc� goods by consumers. An additional" general off sale
retail liquor store will not provide a needed service for the community and may create a high
potential for alcohol abuse and related problems. Further, a third retail liquor store will not
contribute to the mix of retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the
two existing stores.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village.
Name Signature
(Print)
Than e, O veAulsc
fireg
Gd
7ar., Om ag,.: e5EIs/
t RESID D /OR
33 BUSINESS ADDRESS
•Zo •j4
044os sr /A
IMMY 11111 11hilIMMr /r i a o
ofs
/4
ZSL/U r AAA C./3
mattimp rem,
r L E. 474' e
A_MAPIN
OPPOSING LIQUOR JRS
PROPOSE R 14“5 BIG BASIN WAY
3sntep Hardware)
The undersigned concned citi o g�s of Saratoga hereby moose the issuance of a
conditional use tt for sale of holk (di by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for thelloeatmn 14445 Bilk Way Sfraaop Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big_Bagin Watjnd Sara r. Buy sal Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) are existing generil off sale lan a l retail stores
adequately meeting the needs for and g consumers. An e 1, general off sale
retail liquor ire will not e a needed gene comet ty ay potential for alcohol abus� provide problems. further, a third retail liquor store ll of
contribute to the mix of retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the
two existing stores:
Villa e e thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
8
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESI13 ND OR
3 BUSINESS ADDRESS
J
ttliVEITZEINI
WI
/A.., 1
FA% 1 111
WM. .t;171111
w_ mm"
r
I•1
ScHEIRMIN
I1•
f
Z
/1
1� 11 ,f�C.1)
1e 11 cz�.
7
L
OR,v
to
/9
S c h
n
4f1 1P.Pce
I
gi
���i
I�
•Ado
-�If� a= X 51.7 L..
6
s ue
C o A 1 ,17 r3 guru,
l l rte er s► i q
/3:40/ d .v, va, �c s
0
L
J
s Si �5a77
Eu liv6
rrrio
u i fo ss dti of Saratoga
U co P9 O O hh��11
UP92-001 .1114446 Blasin way (four
Saratoga Wines tend Srits (144 Bi Ba n Way) an4 Save Market
retail stores
adequately meeting rife needs for sucli by consuinen. An general off sale
retail liquor store will not provide a n service for the comm and may create a high
potential for alcohol abus6 and related problems. Further a th re d liquor store will not
contribute to the mix of retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the
two existing stores.
W te hus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
/1dd�/1 r�is w�iw �7ev esr p M2.� ww www� 29
Name
(Print)
1
def-vz
Lan' :e SMFL�i'r'l. -i
'P OR'.
I A:
.ij; 1 ►:RE f.` MI
VNIFIMPIPIE
111 1 111111111111
ip
1
it 2 4/3111 itIMP
I
x
•ir,
Z-o
tai
LAJ
a hL�
rI ea r/
asaitC
Z TA/. G110ry
MUSS &e 4&m W a S.
!44 sC. a AC 7
Slloormee
144'
r/.t
if 00
W/11
A F «R,v47
A ipt s1IV
hitseC
4nue
PlrITTION
PROPgarium 14 as B I R6 WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hard WA
Signature
by Mr. e e Na
■y BUSINESS ADDRESS
an ;L cp&sr
ti
2Asso
PETITION
PPOSING PROP FOR 40
4 Ish WAY
��fP
The undersigned concerned ci of Saratop hereb the issuance of a
condidonal use permit for sale of alhol by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92-001 for thb location 14445 Big Basin Viiay (to Hardware).
Saratosa Wines and Spirits (14429 Big BaAin Way) and Sara Buy and Save Market
(14440 B n Wig) are neral off sale all alcohol) retail stores
adequately meeting needs for suc goods by consumer. An do a general off sale
retail liquor store not provide a idea service for the community and may create a high
potential for alcohol abt and related problerps. Further, a third retail liquor store will not
contribute to the mix o retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the
two existing stores.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village.
Name
(Print)
0
emarzem. Eft _,,MM./dA
±111111
*gra
irlifiirlAW'
J
1%1:-. 1
a Jr
4.
I
S
f1 11
u .1 1i• :1 I 1
s t
`7
CUP&.e L. Co1,,.u1f".
L154 tAvANGAR
*Al
1(1111.1u.
,i Lb 'h. it
1 )1 4
Signature
lie
t •.4 .I
k4. RESIDENCE"AND /OR
2- BUSINESS ADDR SS
i`IV/ L
-A) 7e e Le' J t J fix o 6
Jet Jo u I f I`
`•1V `I
i9 VIA riot rg. -WAITOO
22.$et at Oasts, w 2_ gu
Jl-
OPPOSING WQQUORSMRR
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardw,ra)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby 9pporie the ;nuance of a
conditional use__ permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied fiir by Mr, Itekhi etal. No.
UP92.001 for thb location 14445 I3ig Basin Way (formerly Saratoga I lardware).
SaratooaWines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoog�aa Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Base Wa_) are existing general off sale all akoholic retail stores
adequately meet t needs for such goods by consumers. An additionar general off sale
retail liquor store will not provide a nee service for the community and may create a high
potential for alcohol abuse and related problems. Further, a third retail liquor store will not
contribute to the mix of retail establishments in the Village in such close proximity to the
two existing stores.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village.
Name
(Print)
11
1
/M.!h44111
f
,Y.eSsfi
,tr
t_
Signature
BUSINESS ADD
i442, dam,'
:1 '1
4�
I 14..
It
/wt 14 Lc, KI►,.i' u
1.
1U
1 Li 171
y ne A•tat7014 e. OM ALVA,/ 7 filArth ij_
1;161,7(SW/ire
1 1 I 4 i 4 I' Ijrf
56 raft s r I Pe/ 1- Votiir2f o Q'10-dide hiya-
I
Stig 40_1: a I 1-__unilece35ary.,4tthikai-
Sarya is_ zog;
.a(10~±n1C_Civ 4.5/A
---Sa/125___*_1
elCOA91 U '7 zw34so/3
rit7lit4r
ti,'d"i. 11100Z- yea 'A y61 hme.
4.C
e 804W Allay
Sweater (Al- 92Y70
P 1Qn r c� (,p i m i.."5 ior1
6d-ti 6 14fret.colsa..
/311/7 trtx c. ait
6tret4900.- 04 9
3I slq�
o //Aler,1 TV1a 1 &ern
a m a-*wr ocvn me rr 1i n4 and a, rd1Q -I4've, neweemm
►`Ui1taa item �am�ryin thej 1 r>la.a.
ba5rAez6 un 5 1 _der fe� .53 ��»d,Jion
I�vv be it rmeci 4 Pla.o eAuni l'S6ie7 -1
11 9
Srt� L'G'r t d GZ r
rytVW' 1 r ym 5- o I'bou. a./ (ow 417:.s pr ;eess 4 pr -eceed X
4;1 1 b "Or& &cI 6clos nia o r Gl i sSa rti cam. Aar' ey 5-1cn
bae6 56s a5 u ll. /5 40 ckt.t. rF ra
B ;g .6 n Latii Ci2e5 nod rti_. ed I n -ktr quer
harclitat‘ii S U dep 54er'e. men 5 shoes 5 rie, 64-e,
1144-I& CS, '&r i %1 down-town. need --In do
0-- beA4-er3eb ra a .4► t73 bu.�si tee uses
(5tort400fr Y d QQ1:4-rG n r.&
n t•
q
ndti m; l /e,y
a5b Peubs5
J.0 I 3'0 zd
f. /4 1, .,rt
March 1, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Gentlemen:
As owners of Big Basin Floral at 14435C Big Basin Way since
April 1, 1991, and co- owners of Marjolaine French Pastries at 14441 Big
Basin Way since October 1, 1983, my husband Joe Novak, and I would like
to make you aware of our concern over the prospect of yet another liquor
establishment opening up in Saratoga Village. This plan would not contribute
to a healthy mix of businesses in the downtown area. Instead it would be a
detriment to the safety of people using the back parking lot after dark. Our
concern is for the safety of our employees, especially at our floral shop.
There presently all the employees are female and during wedding season (April
through September) and the holiday season (October through December) we work
late into the night, many times alone. Many nights I have left the shop alone
after midnight and experience much trepidation when having to walk from the
shop to my car, especially knowing that there have been unsavory individuals
and groups of young people hanging around back there. One of my employees
was even followed by one of these unsavory characters and scared her terribly.
Anything you can do to prevent more of the same "types" from hanging around
after dark would be greatly appreciated. Therefore we want it on record that
we oppose the establishment of another liquor business in the Village.
If as your title implies that you are the Planning Commission for
the City of Saratoga, we would like you to reconsider your plan to allow a
third liquor establishment in the Village. We need a good mix, of businesses
here, ones that would enhance and complement each other not compete for more
slices of the same pie. Until recently there were three bakeries ,there are
now three flower shops with rumors of a fourth opening up, and two cleaners
with rumors of a third about to come in, almost all within one block of each
other! We need more variety and a better mix of businesses to attract people
downtown. As business people please help us to survive, especially in these
recessionary times.
Thank. you for your time and consideration of this request.
rely yours
Mergers
Owner
Big Ba Floral
14435C Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
Beverly Hill
14425 Big Basin Wy. #1
Saratoga Calif. 95070
Dear Sirs,
It has been brought to the attention of many of us here in Saratoga,
that you are considering bringing in another liquor store. I find it
very hard to understand why you would bring in another business
that is more than well inhabited in its field. One full service liquor
store is surely enough for our wonderful three block village.
I believe this liquor store would cause a rash of new problems
within the village. One, the teenage population, waiting out side to
ask people to by their booze. (Not that they are to blame, but lets
face it, there is no place for them to, shall we say "hang We
really do have enough people coming from long rides in the hills
already half crocked stopping to pick up more booze. There is
enough broken glass around during the weekends in the back
parking lots from broken beer bottles and such. The parking lot
would really become an unsightly place in view of all tourist and
gum
Let's face it when you have an over kill of liquor stores in such a
small area you always have a ring of new and unwanted problems.
This store would become a prime place for that sort of uasavoriness
to populate and hang around. People in our comamtmity already
have to take guarded action in the protection of their children. I
know of a few folks who allow their children to come in to town
for ice cream, videos, or a visit to the book store. It must be very
hard for them to understand that you would even consider such an
unacceptable addition to the village.
Please think long and hard over these issues, I am sure I'm not the
only one in town with them. That makes it twice as important. For
the village growth and the children.
Planning
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Dear Ms. Tucker:
February 18, 1992
Re: Application No. UP92 -001, Rekhi at al. for conditional use
permit, sale of alcoholic beverages at 14445 Big Basin Way
Saratoga
The undersigned, Harry Lulla, Otto Crawford-, Leonard
Sullivan, and Hung Nguyen by this letter hereby object to the
application for a conditional use permit for premises at 14445
Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware) for the sale of
alcoholic beverages from that location.
The undersigned are business owners and property owners in
the immediate area of 14445 Big Basin Way.
The reasons for the objection include but are not limited to
the following:
1. Saratoga Winos and Spirits, and its predecessor,
Saratoga Liquors, located at 14429 Big Basin Way Saratoga, has
been in continuous operation as an off sale general license
liquor store for over 30 years, maintaining a high level of
service and goods provided to the residents of Saratoga,- and to
other consumers. The grant of an additional permit for an off
sale general license liquor store in such close proximity to
Saratoga Wines and Spirits, will not provide a needed service to
the community, and may create a high potential for alcoholic
abuse and related problems within a close proximity to other
retail liquor establishments.
2. In January, 1992, Saratoga Buy and Savo Market,
located at 14440 Big Basin Way, applied for change; of ownership
through the Alcoholic Beverage Control division of the State of
California, for a change of ownership of the beer and wins
license. A general off sale permit was also applied for by the
new owners. Previously, a general off sale license, allowing sale
of hard liquor, was not utilized by the former owners of Saratoga
Buy and Save Market. The conditional use.. wait allowing
alcoholic sales-from that location was thus extended to the new
Buy and Save owners by the City.
Planning Commissioner
Febuary 18, 1992
Page Two
An objection was not raised by the undersigned to the general
off sale permit for Saratoga Buy and Save. However, the grant of
a third conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic
beverages within close proximity, would create an intolerable
situation for the existing retailers, and possibly a nuisance for
the general public.
3. As there exists two retail outlets for provision of
alcoholic beverages to the public within close proximity in the
village, the approval of an application for a third retail outlet
within the same area would be an overburdened use for the area,
and also create a strong potential for abuse. The retail mix of
businesses in the Village would also be ignored. It is our
opinion, based on many years of experience that it would be
impossible for all three retail liquor stores to succeed. It is
certain that there would be failures. There never has been and.
never will be sufficient business in the village to support three
liquor stores, and it will be extremely difficult for two stores
to succeed. Alcoholic beverages sold at the retail level are
distinguished from other businesses such as restaurants which
serve alcoholic beverages with meals. All retail liquor sales are
of basically the same products, although brands sometimes differ.
No objection is made herewith to the restaurant sales of
alcoholic beverages.
We believe that the issuance of a use permit in close
proximity to the two existing retail alcoholic beverage sale
stores, will defeat the purposes of the City zoning regulations
as the services to be provided by an additional liquor store will
not be required by the residents of the City for good
consumerism; it will not provide a mutually beneficial
relationship to the other stores; it will not provide a stable,
attractive commercial development affording a pleasant shopping
environment or complement the essential residential character of
the City
In summation, the undersigned submit that the addition of
another retail off sale liquor store in close proximity to the
two existing retail liquor stores in the village, will be
economically devastating for all retail liquor stores in the
area, and will lead to failures. We believe that the City should
support a business which has continuously existed in the Village
for over 30 years and not issue a permit to another business
which has not previously existed in the City. The existing retail
liquor eaitablishmenta continue to provide high quality goods and
services to the consuming public. The public will gain no
additional benefit from another store in such close proximity.
Planning C011111iCil iones
February 1 'hr :8, 199=
we thus urge the planning commissioners to not issue a
conditional use permit for general retail liquor sales at 14445
Big Basin Way Saratoga.
Hung N en, Owner
Saratoga Buy and Save Market
cc: All Planning Commissioners
Planning Director
dCOLLA
Harry Lulla, or
Saratoga Wi s and Spirits
m ac
Otto Crawford, Property Owner and former of Saratoga Liquors
rmer
rd Sulliban toy Owner and
Proprietor of the Bank Club
March 8, 1992
Planning Commission
City Planning Staff
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commission:
This letter is in opposition to the conditional use permit
for the sale of alcoholic beverages at 14445 Big Basin Way.
There is no need for a third retail liquor store in the
Village. Parents of teen and preteens have been active in
our community trying to reduce the amount of teenage
drinking. Our police have been active in trying to reduce
the incidence of driving under the influence.
we urge you to not approve this permit. There is too much
alcohol abuse already. Our community efforts have started to
work. Please don't undermine them.
Thomas Alfred ruck
15040 Encino Court
Saratoga, California 95070
RECEIVED
MAR 0 9 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
SARATOGA DRUG STORE
14413 810 BASIN WAY
(406) ee7-3423
RAY ROSSI, PHARMACIST P.O. BOX 146, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 96070
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 SARATOGA AVE
SARATOGA, CA 9S070
FEBRUARY 24,1992
MY NAME IS RAY ROSSI. I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF SARATOGA SINCE
1970 AND AM OWNER OF THE SARATOGA DRUG STORE AT 14413 BIG BASIN WAY
IN THE VILLAGE. IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST
FOR A USE PERMTI TO OPERATE AN OFF —SAL* GENERAL LIQUOR STORE AT 14445 BIG
BASIN WAY. THIS IS ONLY A PEN DOORS AWAY FROM BOTH AN EXISTING LIQUOR STORE
AND THE BANK BAR. IN ADDITION, THI BUY N SAVE MARKET DIRECTLY ACROSS THE
STREET ALSO HAS A LIQUOR DEPARTMENT.
I FELL IT WOULD BB A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO ALLOW THREE ES?ABLISHMUUTS THAT
DEAL PRINCIPALLY IN LIQUOR TO BECONCENTRATID IN ONE SMALL SECTION OF
SARATOGA VILLAGE. WHAT RIND OF IMPRESSION WILL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS GET
AS THEY STROLL ALONG OUR BEAUTIFUL STREET. SURELY SARATOGA CAN DO BETTER
THAN THIS!
THE ISSUANCE OF USE PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENTS DIALING IN LIQUOR IS
ONE OF CATEGORIES SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE REGULATIONS ON GRANTING
USE PERMITS BY THE CITY. THIS IS RIGHTLY SO. I? IS AN AREA TEA? REQUIRES
CAREFUL SCRUTINY AT ALL TIMIS AND IT IS CLEAR TO MI THAT THERE IS SUFFICBNT
JUSTIFICATION TO DINT THIS REQUEST.
I URGE THI PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO REJIG? APPLICA ?ION OF A USE PERMIT
FOR A GENERAL RETAIL LIQUOR SALES AT 14445 BIG BASIN NAY.
RESPECTFULLY,
RAY ROSSI
19447 VIA MADRONAS COURT
SARATOGA,CA 95070
Sincerely,
VLt
Marcus R. Bryant
February 25, 1992
Plane ommissioner
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Beautiful. Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Application No. up92 -001, Rekhi et al. for conditional
use permit, sale of alcoholic beverages at 14445 Big Basin
Way Saratoga
Dear Ms. Caldwell:
As a business owner at 14419 Big Basin Way, I feel that
Saratoga should not be known for competitive liquor pricing.
This would be the result if you allowed another retail liquor
establishment within the village boundaries. Six feet to the
right of my business is a bar, 30 feet further is a liquor
store (Saratoga wines and Spirits), across the street and
fifty feet is a grocery store that sell liquor (Saratoga Buy
and Save) and now there is an application to open another
establishment directly across the street from the grocery
store, or 150 feet to the right of my business.
with liquor on the decline. And at present most
AMERICANS are becoming more conservative with their spending,
I don't feel that a business of this nature would increase
the tourism that we as business people need.
Please walk along big basin way and talk to US.
14363 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 200 Saratoga, California 96070 (408) 88700 Fax:
(4011) $07 41100
March 3, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Saratoga Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Commission Members:
Sincerely,
Frank Behnke
RECEIVED
MAR 0 4 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
I am a past President of the Saratoga Village Association, I am also the
owner of a Six Unit Apartment Building at 14590 Big Basin Way and a
Commercial Building at 14573 Big Basin Way in Saratoga. I am also a
partial owner of Property at 20656 -20660 Fifth St. Saratoga and help
manage my parents 5 unit Apartment at 14655 Oak St.
First, I should say we miss our local Saratoga Hardware Store. It was
convenient and the personal service was great. In a small area I don't
see that it is necessary to create additional competition with another
Liquor store. It may be beyond everyones control but it is just too
bad the Hardware store had to move and now be replaced by yet another
Liquor store. When we have to pay a Handyman to go all the way to
Orchard Supply Hardware store it costs more and eventually the residents
will pay in the long run and the City loses it's Sales Tax Revenue.
The direction the Village is going there may be two more vacancies with
more Revenue loss. We need a balanced mix use in the Village, to make
a balanced Community and not put additional Tax burden on the small
existing businesses, schools and residents, not to mention the image
the Village will portray.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
2.29.92
Planning Commissioner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Application No. UP92 -001, Rskhi et al. for conditional use permit,
sale of alcoholic beverages at 14445 Big Basin Way Saratoga
Commissioner,
e(`•
I have been a resident of Saratoga for over five years. I have become
accustomed to the safe and friendly environment in which I live and
raise my 9 year old son. I know quite a few people in town so I feel
safe allowing my son to go down to the bookstore or the bakery or
wherever he might want to go, by himself.
I understand that the new owners of Buy and Save Market has requested
a full liquor license and that the request has been granted by the
City. With the prospect of two stores carrying an off sale general
license for hard alcohol, how could the City even consider a third?
The thought of another liquor store going in on Big Basin Way is
absurd. Saratoga Wins and Spirits has more than enough business to
support the town of Saratoga. What will visitors think when they drive
through the village and the first thing they see is two liquor stores
within a hundred feet of one another? Not a pretty picture is it. Is
this how we want to represent the town of Saratoga? Is this the kind
of environment we want to raise our children in?
With all the problems that society has to offer the youth of today, is
it not to our best advantage to think of the example that we
setting for them? Is there not enough alcohol abuse? As a citizen of
Saratoga, and a mother, I urge you to deny this application. 1 feel
that we must do what is best for the town of Saratoga and set the
right example for our youth.
LindaJsan Woodruf
14425 Big Basin Way #3
Saratoga, California 93070
cc: All Planning Commissioners
Plannng Director
t's
4.11
JO:
The Inn at theTides
2 1 I
12 a-- c,f e d'14-
4 4 "t/te-7--c,; 1 P-..- iA)
d
-1
1
li...,, /Lt.' ,d. eL.,7 i .i. i
i,..• L .4 3 at
(2.c. 4
,j, -v.,' 4, i 'T
f--r-t- i' 2 4 c 47/4-, -1,--:
t4. 1„c /j. 1 ilj 4-P'l
4•25-•,,, I- -1. et-A2-v— i 1 __,/k4
A i ',X f.. li• 0 I 1 `-4 il: I1A-1 %-i 4%te")
lAfgA4 4."." /4 /P a 7‘,2-3" lilt el...‘,#--•e S .1,,,--:
41
-4--
itA41‘eleit •11-/A- ‘j2" 3 Y ''S‘' init'‘ P'
4 -6,4"- )"•-•;"*P e'-'4,.. A -z--12.4.y•---- 4,:41-1..■ /1,-.‘ 1, ..4-(1./;:i.,..e
l A 1-4'1. .'9 ;1 X-4 i‘10-.-4 icl-el-dk- !frt .r.,.. 2 f,,,
f it,4) 14*4 -r-/-4 15."-e44.vf--t f 4 e l 5 Ar-c-444,
IP% &VIA
amiliacA iseVen
.0.1
P.O. Box 640, 800 Coast Highway, Podgy Bag California 94923, 707 875.2751
Saratoga Bookstore
14435 Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
City Offices
Planning Comission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Stanley Eisner
Planning Director
Mr. Eisner:
February 18, 1992
I am writing to you over my concerns of a second liquor store, already in
process of a lease agreement in the village area.
There are four reasons I'm opposed to another liquor store within the Village:
1) We already have an established liquor store in the Village (Saratoga
Wines Spirits). The market here can not support two competing liquor
stores. Saratoga Wines Spirits is struggling due to economic
conditions. I am also aware that Buy and Save Market currently carries
wine and beer, and was granted a liquor license this month. There are
now to places to buy liquor :in the Village. If this second store is
approved the ultimate result may be two busiess driving each other out of
business. The result would be two more vacant buildings in town. We
can not have main street turn into a grave yard of vacancies.
2) There is absolutely nothing to be gained'by another liquor store.
What will this business contribute to the community of saratoga?
3) This second possible store will sandwich me between to liquor stores.
I feel this would harm my business because it is already undesirable
for some customers to frequent my store, due to Saratoga Wines Spirits
drawing undesirable people to this area.
4) All my employees are women including myself. With so many places to
purchase liquor in such a small geographic area, my employees and I will
not feel safe. Saratoga Bookstore is one of the few stores open during
the week til 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. weekends.
Please consider the reasons for my concern of a second liquor store. Saratoga
should attract businesses that are needed, that contribute to our community,
and not put anyone out of business in accomplishing this.
Sincere fr
/l am //4
To the Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Saratoga Ave
Saratoga, Ca 95070
r
February 27, 1992
1 am writing against the opening of another liquor store in Saratoga
village. As a manager of the Saratoga Bookstore just a few doors
away from the now empty building, I am very concerned for the
safety of our employees. We are one of the only retail businesses
open late at night both weekdays and weekends. Our current
employees are all female and must work their shifts alone. We have
already experienced problems with intoxicated individuals and
groups wandering into our store from The Bank. Our employees must
walk to their cars late at night and we have already seen groups of
teenagers and "unsavories" loitering in the back parking lot. Another
store selling liquor, regardless of caliber, will only increase the
potential of danger and harassment to our employees and diminish
the tranquil atmosphere of the village.
In addition, The Bank, Saratoga Wines Spirits, (just two doors
down from us) and Saratoga Buy Save Market, (just across the
street from us) not to mention the restaurants offering drinks and
wine provide more than ample selection for residents and visitors
Surely the commission can see the village needs a healthy variety of
stores to encourage thriving business, not repetition and
competition among similar businesses.
Once again, I oppose the proposal to open another liquor store at
14445 Big Basin Way for the sake of our employees and customers
here at the bookstore, as well as for the health of our Saratoga
businesses. It seems the least attractive of any alternative.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Glenda Lesondak
Saratoga Bookstore
14435 Big Basin Way
14457 BIG BASIN WAY
Dear Council Member:
I am writing to you in advance of the City Council meeting of April 15, 1992, where an item on
the agenda will be to hear an appeal to overturn the Planning Commission decision of March
25, to deny a conditional use permit for the sales of alcoholic beverages at the location in the
Village known as 14445 Big Basin Way. (The former hardware store.) By the way, the
Planning Commission Staff approved the "conditional use permit (see enclosed copy)
At present there is an agressive campaign by Otto and Betty Crawford, who are the property
owners of the building where the only liquor store is located, and the former owners of the
only liquor store in the Village. As the former owners they carry a note for the present liquor
store owners to pay for the purchase of the business.
This campaign started prior to the first Planning Commission meeting of March 11, and when
no decision was made at that date, on March 25, 1992, the Commission denied the
conditional use on the basis of, statements, letters, and a petition, to the effect that the sales
of alcoholic beverages are a detriment to our Village. The reasons given in the letters and
testimony before the Planning Commission, claimed and vocalized terrible things were
happening in our Village due to the inappropriate activity of the present alcoholic beverage
sellers, and they plainly wanted no more of it. They never said that the present sellers had to
stop selling alocohlic beverages, which their claimed problems come from.
Since March 12, I have been walking the property very frequently, daytime and evenings,
behind the Bank Bar.
The claims of the "campaign" are flatly wrong and untrue. I am very pleased to report that
we do not have littering, drunkeness, loitering, nor drinking in cars, and at no time did I see
anyone supplying liquor to a person under age. Further through a study by the City
Manager's office, the sheriff's department has not been called frequently as claimed, nor for
that matter it seems the sheriff's department do not have a record of any calls in recent
months.
It is therefore extremely clear to me that the petition, letters, and general statements, claiming
all kinds of terrible and bad things for our Village are untrue. We should observe carefully as
to who and why the letters, petition, and untrue statements have been generated.
The facts are clear:
WARREN LAMPSHIRE
April 8, 1992
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
1. The only liquor store and the building in which they are located, will feel a profound
ECONOMIC effect through competition. The only liquor store is in a building
owned by the same people who hold the note on the only liquor store.
I believe competition is good, it may improve the operation of the ONLY other LIQUOR
STORE. There is absolutely no question that the citizens of Saratoga would benefit by a high
quality Premium Wine Liquor store, and there is every reason to believe that the citizens
may shop Saratoga, specifically the Village, instead of traveling to Westage and other points
away from the Village.
APR 9.1992
SARATOGA, CA 95070 408 867 -2582 FAX: 408 867 -6357
r
It has been said that we have another liquor store in the Buy Save Market so why do we
need three liquor stores? It should clearly be understood that the Buy Save Market sells
jug wine and beer. The Buy Save Market is a grocery store. 1 urge you to visit this Market
to see first hand their attempt to be a liquor store, when basically they are a grocery store.
It has been rumored that Mr. Tony Rekhi of Rekhi Bros. Incorporated, no longer has an
interest in locating his fourth store in Saratoga. Part of this statement is true. Mr. Rekhi has
said if Saratoga City doesn't want him, possibly he should look elsewhere. However he has
asked that I search for another location in the Santa Clara County. He has already paid the
fees for his Alcoholic Beverage Commission license; but if the City Council of Saratoga grants
the conditional use permit, he will reactivate his plan to locate in Saratoga. His plan includes
an expenditure of over 50,000.00 to establish another Premium Wine and Liquor store, to
add to his Millbrae, San Mateo, Cupertino stores.
Now, I would like each Council member to know, and yes this a counter to Commissioner
Favero, who proved to be one of the most rude people in. City of Saratoga government that I
have had the displeasure to know. Commissioner Favero stated he did not want FREE
ENTERPRISE and then went on to say that "the guy who said I did not want FREE
ENTERPRISE is the same guy who lost his commission
Sincere
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL, I HAVE THE LISTING TO
LEASE THE BUILDING I HAVE A BACK UP OFFER UNDER CONSIDER-
ATION FOR A DRY CLEANING PLANT, FOR THE SAME LOCATION!
This is a Permitted Use according to the zoning of the building, NO PLANNING
DEPARTMENT APPROVALS ARE REQUIRED, and no approvals needed by or from
Commissioner Favero. Council members, my commission is assured, but that is beside the
point.
The point is Mr. Tony Rekhi was first; his business acumen is exceptional; and he operates a
successful premium business; he has a sound financial plan; with the resources to back up
that plan. I believe he would be a tremendous asset to the Saratoga Village community.
In closing, I have heard one Council member say in the past, you can have all of the
petitions in the world, but THIS Council makes the decision. I respect the job each of you
have, and the job that you do, and many decisions are extremely difficult. However you may
vote on this conditional use permit application, I will respect your decision, and we will
proceed from there.
Thanks for taking the time to review this lengthy letter, and I hope I have presented a clear
picture to you. I have tried to address every issue in a most objective manner. I will attend the
April 15, 1992 meeting, and 1 would be pleased to answer any other questions either before or
at that meeting.
Warren La pshire
ecnl: copy of excerpts of Staff Report.
cc: Mr. Robert Cancellieri, Owner 14445 Big Basin Way
Mr. Tony Rekhi, Rekhi Bros., Inc.
Harry Peacock
Michael Riback
c1
zZ
et--r4/L.eo e
t a-z-
ati
F
April 8, 1992
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Application A.P.N.: 503 24 054
Attached are signatures on a petition opposing the issuance
of a conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages
at 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware Store).
The attached petition is worded differently and is in addition
to the petition previously submitted to the planning commission.
It is also signed only by residents of Saratoga that are
registered voters.
Also attached are zoning regulations that signatories believe
are basis for denial of applicaiton.
Sincerely,
OTTO CRAWFORD
Property Owner
P.S. to Staff:
Please keep this written communication separate from the petition
previously submitted to the planning commission.
Sections:
15- 19.010
15- 19.020
15- 19.030
15- 19.040
15- 19.050
15- 19.060
Zon qg Regulations
ARTICLE 15 -19
C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Purposes of Article
General regulations
C -N district regulations
C -V district regulations
C -H district regulations
Continuation of nonconforming uses
sss
S15- 19.010 Purposes of Article
In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the commercial
districts are included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes:
(a) To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores and service
lid establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the City.
(b) To provide opportunities for retail stores, offices and service
establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public _and_ in n ut y
beneficial relationship to each other.
(c) To promote stable, attractive commercial development which will afford
VIC pleasant shopping environment and will compliment the essential residential(
haracter of the City.
(d) To provide space for community facilities which may appropriately be
located in commercial areas.
(e) To provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial
development, including off street parking and loading areas.
(f) To protect commercial properties from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke,
vibration, heat, glare, heavy traffic and other objectionable influences, and from
fire, explosion, noxious fumes and other hazards.
(g) To implement the Saratoga Village Specific Plan, as adopted by the City
on May 18, 1988, and thereby achieve the following objectives with respect to the
Village:
(1) Preservation and enhancement of the small- scale, pedestrian
character of the Village to make the area more inviting to
potential shoppers and diners;
(2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape
quality of the Village;
Supp. #11, 10/89 Page 15 -87
§15- 19.010
S15-19.020 General regulations
City:
IX)
(4)
Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops.
restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; and
The following general
(a) Permitted uses.
commercial district:
Supp. #11, 10/89
Conservation of historic structures.
(2) Service establishments.
Zoning Regulations S15- 19.020
regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any
(1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens.
V and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages.
(3) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations
prescribed in Article 15 -40 of this Chapter.
(4) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off- street parking
facilities as set forth in Section 15- 35.020 of this Chapter.
(5)
Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a
permitted use.
(b) Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed in any
commercial district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of
this Chapter:.
(1) Restaurants.
(2) Markets and delicatessens.
(3) Any establishment eru
(4) Hotels and motels.
(5) Bed and breakfast establishments.
(6) Institutional facilities.
(7) Community facilities.
(8) Game arcades.
(9)
a ed the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Gasoline service stations on sites abutting Saratoga /Sunnyvale
Road, Saratoga /Los Gatos Road or Saratoga Avenue and accessible
directly from such arterial road; provided, that all operations
Page 15 -88
,aA41.v
a -45
-,7 1 Pe Y 7e S =1 /v
.4 e.,1-1-
AD (724.1.4.2.5,./7
fit f•. 7
,.3,2__( V/i4 6.ti .2 �i
Onl/2/.
�f` iz
,5% ‘0,; .4r .err `f•)
,.Lam r tec
6 f
L/ 5y, 51 �fc"
A���� /94, Z,D,
/4/.5 0,-9.,.. s ,e2
l.I
z.1' 762,1 6 ',A[,
V
y,e_cl( t,r !(CLLty
i{ dlt%f/' ,F J/ `4 r
v
J ,l r C,
/l
45 2/ 74--,
Sq= 13".
2
//i_'L./ r'.
L
i, (//l /'7
-4i,k-ti ,C A.0
H k N R, LtA 1-4
1 q- 1 CA c,t (�ti tit
(r
1 7,/1"-‘
2-::/--<:” /�Lu, /riVA
1
N i it t: 1d (eoki, c' u-t is
�.G�c L. ,C t� t r- t -....t
1 1 -160 '7 °-E 3 'L t--
i/ J .E ez -,--(7
V I `t.`i..., Q G-- -s PIr� C 3 4
5/Q j c 0. l f
77
K r
el M`XJ
41
/5L 4 4 6 3 00k g)1 saru105-9
Al 11,1cc C k
4
i yi (5 Octi< f- Sacs -do,-
rhtiia_ CO p e
Cae" ac
1L,4(y5 0a4C cf Savrt -1V�
ib, �,11
I g S0�C 0 6 -0
h/�
7 1
/T6O,1 0 fl Se,6e' 4
f i 4 v
no.A A/4
0 F
/A' r
Dive_ ,S �oXi er c/e
7 -R
/V(2 6 6 it ..r cAo
eresk 6 p1 P,-d
�J r p n
ly(ogq I I— sa v.1 h r�
AMA de.— ON;
d am
1ti0(i .2 °c:_
6ll.ifov'i47
r( -4bSS oP ST. L4 A
CUM I A
'Ltit. Y c�c ant �t c.;c�7
1
I q(e)G7(,, (mac 7! 4
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am Saratoga residen an re voter.
Name Signature
INA (Print) 0I p; t1`Q.���¢C-IZESIDENCEAND[OR
BUSINESS ADDRItSS
6 12, s t- oLN. a\< ST RG.E 7 C
'VA; 07Z.) LS 0F? t-r (DN C,C► I C)KTS
X
_ocAt, btNike
mot-' Ik_—
1324 LA On A
A.� ,A.2..
-2.2-57
j,
WIWI
fE a. /3
03 CII A��
o z 61 ,i G
S"
i G (7N
I�(r
_sVI 1 011-1.1 A
O
Z1o6j
p r
ie57 Nt tuk/k D2 3P0 at a
L
r
5� 4 0/_,174- I /t�C
Sit ti.an,G A
.12c, qll
`;mil r'
Y 0
au 6
C/
ko
_a
Ili c 10 Fl
I
a, i /Le 41 4c
Iridil 7111PJAMIE
r 1 I C
r 0I
_i-' .�14
!1 i �'rG_
F', J� -t c
1-_- ;SA E,/
(92 4 L
A--t/<_
�A,v r 66l.dsm ith
l .ice e.�
CAA: Sr
i��� 1TZSr tvtniol
ra
t' 3 Qohn
ce_ -L ►t
M
1 53 6ZIL.
i
i1�
L.
71fi1
A
I
1
di
1
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 1445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village Lama S�zatoa resident an registered voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
(1G-- A fro l b
SeI
iU A 1 i
i
q rck- toASc r
rr Plir-_ 0
0y60 co-IA
f
tt' V -zC'rn t b,, 1
153(0 1 Nor'}O., Rd
C I_
6: c4-N•5
�n r
r -3 6'7 U na t
t
x ei sse/ ��4/.A,s
a// l'
c �vo-, %ice
IP0.0 e ck oiL -(41.6 j t
t C 9'6 Poi 1-os1� I 5�,Ke
Lei n-- 2 o to i lt. 1
114t-s V' VVsr4 ---ib e,
%)A1_� 1., J r x urn,.,._
y
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional liquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am a Saratoga resident and registered voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
c4
7 0
41
GA
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQpUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will nof provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am a Saratoga resident and registered voter.
Name
(Print)
7 6
n 1
V
r
e
Y1F�
'1
Lrc /u /'o✓J7w C�
c
l
G 4
Bz qsr
/i /6
L p.. •Taco /AL
In
l `1 A A6 /1(1
1y\t„cw 1 t J
S E s) y d
1,tJ (AIJ6J4LAA.
/h/
1- //6S4- L
Signature
;22-5 t(, /2J
HA COVE (L-
RA`( De rTUtiL
7■/ .4 CG
,a-.d ,i:C ryL 4
P -1
RESIDENCE AND OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
,eo
/c 3c'. (-4/ It 5 4 r
2z7 7 7
2Z Got /2_6
1 j(ytLI/ fir
/39/3 6447/ 1?
ik.l0 GvJa
/2/ 43/;/
Z I 5 J4,t) w
izva, 4A-•
is
I CA ,tri7
n
/7 JS�ICmaM VG 5..��.�- j..' gin. 5="<<;t
/4 �LL Cell �iii:
�l�
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional liquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am a Saratoga resident and registered voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND/OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
3- c 7
/0
4d4
f <2 ,4;_-(45- J r7mma
t t(((f f 0 4,C cr S',4 ,«-eTd`sv
A
1 C39 w.,,„ S
f,i► ir L !1,,
1 3 9 g P l �6
t' i c
s
�c 9 s 1 4)
_..f, w r
AM'I �r�i_� W�i/9.M
r 4 'r ci J
1 l 1 ►f:W ►��iN. vim.
4 '_r s.a'n �1,
5 05 I,I,
v 4- e .F-2d 1,--
)0A,(ib of l.(itt g W ETA
1 A U 6'e e? a-ID act a5
etjLo(W o
wirsinr
2ackc---S of <-1 0 Y'
e i r l ,R,(' :,Oh4.s'"'
6 /^./r.4 loAG.5 j C
'tea/ v �i
c l cC
v4i 1 L.ws 4
0 d c t o 4,+1 C
Angreffriorvew.
wymiwiimme
N c4 A
4.
t 11 111.-
€uo,_ /141
Ir
Ir
2-7,
zZ,D/ 5 IA ,s7-#7 141 avec- e,
Ltd ,,rt
6 69 h .='y",
4. FP" Air..,,
I Ma 1 MI
C1 1 Gar,/ Ml� !,�i' n iF'
ii i 'fi` �.►i._ 7
ufs �_i I
f'{? 7 U cl
7 ..06-4-D,/yA,4- id r 7 f
d ..�ri •L
/5 7
1 rte/`
t VVl7l
/6
I Nio,
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional liquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am a Saratoga resident and registered voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND/OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
3- c 7
/0
4d4
o rT• Co. ANt<CCo
alt_ c,,‘ 2
11'+-t I k &L CD; M LA bt v
/o
1 l L
f
�6?• V
/1 P/,
,2 -0,1-60 G. i 4
t 1,i At
411 ol r c CO 21 l0
I 3,,:,),-e k l_ (e_ e rr c:
1'42-L
l 7 n o
/-40 r v);/4 0.rn
/y 'AD
INIWINIMInallffe
4/ Z e
e4ezV d o g-
J
c
l 'Y' •P n
16/6)- AZicZa -l1- 74-1 ja
U.2.4_ W v
4 1
ISD
CL_ 7 L
j-
II e l 41
WI
.'3
,Z)G33 �r—
'Q. -.2 p 1 G
U Ate_ o
2._ 1_0 Ab....�,e,. -1.-- _g
A.
s
�o
7; -a-
GdU .—d,
MICMII
r
iT.M i k Ste n RItkerto
q c
Iy3 X15 1 tt ,�Ci C.
'Matt' O. u. V
f Q.
14. 41► .i t
1 IM
/a' d4'4—
rigAMMIME
0lo/
--OU i S L CI If
11(
(Cf Z() L`.0 Gt ,uu i ri CO
'is /r n); oD e_.e is k_
-(i2L' [.e.,,..
!c) .r ,.t c,- iec,. (/L. J r
i t
r i FVC
B L L I
a l 3 s _a
CA
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND/OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionarliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I,am a Saratoga resident and registered voterl
7 vi C, sc> .,S: W `Y 23 UAf S�.ei=
U/' Sty ida A�c.2 1, L c,
CtL cos' �q?� 30 Sar.i-0,�- lc!� r• c.�`
.1I 1 ✓i?V v// 1 4
f l
lo dt far" J_a*NMIIIrWd,erAilrali___-d, 1,
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. im a Saratoga resident and registered voter,
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
�+r�
397/ J, .��f T 7 S 4 1 z) c
4 4\
95�R
l/
f Z, J''
M 1
1
WM LIMN,
�f YS
V‘fil '6 (2_ _C-
4, N
NW/P.'
L�
77.2m 7A1'740 s
(7-
/So P a....A...A- -,2 ��4,4v'
A ee, Pf /r✓.S L III
J1 d% /-itz# P1Z 'C7
n III
.r c Fic�C s�.:r�r�
)--00.2i 6- /5'47_e_ a
a
L[� ��jG ir/M 7
7,20 s ,1,
1
V l 1
L t1 1126111111M" s
s
i
I� .i y
y4 i.r✓ /.G/4i 1 CA
_41 l
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. im a Saratoga resident and registered voter,
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
�+r�
397/ J, .��f T 7 S 4 1 z) c
4 4\
95�R
at .i 0 4 4 4 4
Gl�D
1-12.._)
t Y t. c c
f4
Al t•-! 2- f;,, ,t,(
e �e�,
/yY ?e>
D,e.� et-
/1v� l 0
11 (pia
6 7c,
(Q u o y
1) a
l
A l`1nei ,0• I6).
S'er01o
v
L. V ,1,
1�&�� r� 41
)tizeN 1144-€N,ere
i.ir.u.ic A6. f
1YG;2_(2 a'D I
44.,,Lt
S !a-LinJ
l i t
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit,for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am a Saratoga resident and registered voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 144 5 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional liquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village as Saratoga resident and registered voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND!OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
%0
W ,1 i/
6, ii.,
r*1OAii( )ttt A,.. Y
i( (1r i1 1 6 !1-
/3 7gc( /4}6 n; (2 r. f_'_:)/
L
/v5 90 ,5,- -9 4 S Gv.— 5
4ei'
2 0 j�, e s ties c 4 9 `a 7a
AI d _vr,
.3 4 5 ►I c
�or
g
I III ,dl
;yi,,t. i /q
9 (/t q obA I v
cl /S
�)2 v,,, ✓,,L S' I UL.a
`(le,e Si rn‘.7
/6 Jo4ez•--fr7i -t- f
u et n. t'll
4
/977 -5- P?K�■-,� i2z
(r, Pr "o u Nf.= a
o
n
I LLC Z C 16- c f.1 71,K, rt-
7'-
-a k�
r R 6 o 5w., se 1 I�
4 L /1;'(
C'NT� S Fc LC yN
„.i,.
z0 t A
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 144 5 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional liquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village as Saratoga resident and registered voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND!OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
%0
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 1445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village L.am.a SazatQga resident and registe voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDR ESS
S
2
Jet
660
r
rv� I
L L
All 1��,�/'
L� .rrP� MI6 a--
2 Fd7rsT /4'6 5 <ka
h �vtn e
R obert_ l uneme1?l
�`J �•w.^.e
i- UG 6AZ)
l
/Y0 /iP /a' i r e Jr
.,ifs gf G�
4j
/.3 S- 4. .:.i 113
!1(\;'L k
1 G
6.7 S 1- 1- -S i,
C. �t,
c 56/
.61/ Mi. s<y;
P E0R 7
hi,.,
o€ y,- ,,,,„,...i.,./..es. o s
0
441,
A.5 46 g/(Ee e:7
A91Di �tn.c,-Ti
t p A P Nl1At17)f■\t
I if afiq /I, (SVA,A_ (2( .D ,SQct k
-e a
Al__ v cL 14U:
o S Orr \e., R &,;(d
r
A
t s z 4 4 9 i
rvp.,,, fo,,,_,
7.2.,-,,,,zi„pt,„t„) 6 s_,,/,:
c t z.)L L F vrTT
J9) IAA,..
4.0 -7 '7 H; /Zit, .+o2 1) K _5ffKH1
W
i i c
o C
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 1445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village L.am.a SazatQga resident and registe voter.
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDR ESS
S
2
Jet
660
r
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 144 5 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional liquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village_ I amA S,aratQQa resident and registered vote
Name
(Print)
Name
(Print)
Signature
PETITION
OP POSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionarliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus o ose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village =sa i esident and`register+l d
Signature
4 d i
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
f■iz R.if4-
/-5ys� /a4
Q
Jahn irxice.0 Cvoq
9 20i7b Vic \fira- I,L ,)t 4
L:*vdJAMD ,5I.Lu✓a
A..06 -G�i4U l)iF 1) R,
,�P,�
c +c
t2 C /Q,7i ,v
fr..
2 o 7 L 0 5 5,7 /S' S
-IAN IN (NYC 1
rer..a..-
l't., a7 wesrcotf 6,,
6 'a Ha- S 4l) I V 4 V
r /Ou- �1 AbL,te
dl 0 57e Ct2 2./A-4.,
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 144 5 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additional liquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village_ I amA S,aratQQa resident and registered vote
Name
(Print)
Name
(Print)
Signature
PETITION
OP POSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionarliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus o ose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village =sa i esident and`register+l d
Signature
4 d i
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
f■iz R.if4-
/-5ys� /a4
A
4tni 4cA cer )1
(9Ion A�' s i t L2-) ri.�.{
l9 J9u)7'... A ie
'V E Eh A h A Lh oTR4 h1, 1
190 PS /9-t, W 0-_,59,)
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am a Saratoga resident and registered voter,
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE ANDIOR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
0.
lak 1 2.87S 61,.. .K" Jr
i., ,J(
ac�gN yam.
c,t S. A c (A Jr
i `C a. 0 r a rw-c,t 1 1. r,..
1111
7 --:)t-`.,:,L 1,
fr""'='1
610 L, cry, 1 4!x- :A.
(Foloat �:w,c4
�i -1,;,
06.7o Lov,,,:1'A rL -1
�1 (pti4P (r'1 nla
,f(* n
Row /1D /A/,¢ ,4 1/ 5.1-4/9
1_
..mi l
i�a -D
k_ ,..-5.___
la 165 `Cy:: 6.t Flc5.,-11i1 G
/N1 >t 7* 1/
ltd/ �,L -v, l �,,ni
3
<7 v :'�,-c P -�,(�7 =�2��' -/-a-
lig L ci `t.'
_IssV
r....0 l c5 S4- LSI
/2/L l'l1
100W(..._,
'/$0 giddily T)/yaee ,,56ty
S,aSav\it \u -k�\c
0 ��k,l;uL,
ia.(o35Sasra- cc��.0 12 ,'1
_,rc,��r�.
Name
(Print)
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQpUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for such goods by consumers. An
additionalliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. Ism aS resident and re istered voter.
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
1
w
e1 i G.-). j
CIAo`f' ICI%S
I45"do PRA' vAI art_ S4A
...So7.
v °litiLf La" S4N,
V
1 3 fo s1 Pj,tlp- un
2 d
oAnn 1 t�
�L
et- 1:
At it r
I c o r a..
IC vIo
`tQ
G: a v.
`?J `?J
fd3 I -has s
Cz i
I
li
/AA
a ,b'a
s o-e, /n'"
c/
lib 75 /J/ ,A&
f
t&
I
IDS nK)'2,i/ Jn,
S L'!'1
L�iII
r a ,e
j 0
O 1 i -/v
`'I
wi, A
VOS Ii
Lt LL IIV �b5S1ik NGC
1 Mc, A OsY fi L(Wi sn .9 b
f 7 G O m, -d. s'�IL
a
4
..c il.
--Awe _..f i
4t 4 r 4
7
L4...
/i t/ 3 r--
i� GW
�'1 �O-77
O S7e o'!✓ ,4
ilk oil
v
i. .QFI�C.
7
�r
1 iiib
M11111�!11,Ta
IA
1 1
/0 J �ew
c
,e
h1 al
'e._
41
40.(()2 f✓q -✓sha I
/r3W/ eke- 3
Name
(Print)
Signature
RESIDENCE AND /OR
BUSINESS ADDRESS
PETITION
OPPOSING LIQUOR STORE
PROPOSED FOR 14445 BIG BASIN WAY
(formerly Saratoga Hardware)
The undersigned concerned citizens of Saratoga hereby oppose the issuance of a a
conditional use permit for sale of alcoholic beverages as applied for by Mr. Rekhi etal. No.
UP92 -001 for the location 14445 Big Basin Way (formerly Saratoga Hardware).
Saratoga Wines and Spirits (14429 Big Basin Way) and Saratoga Buy and Save Market
(14440 Big Basin Way) adequately meet the needs for su goods by consumers. An
additional -lliquor store will not provide mutually beneficial relationship to other stores; and
will not afford a pleasant shopping environment and may create objectionable influences.
We thus oppose the issuance of a use permit for a third retail liquor store in Saratoga
Village. I am a Saratoga resident and re iist d voter
1-0
e 70
wee
4--
Los Gatos High School
April 9, 1992
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for your attention,
---i0'..,,,,,,,,,,A.4.,--,____
L.D. Hirschklau,
DATE Program Coordinator
cc:
Gene Zambetti
Karen Sherwood, CASA Saratoga
(Community Against Substance Abuse)
Los Gatos Saratoga High School District
17421 Farley Road West Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -2520 Fax (408) 354 -7875
APR 1 3 1992
As Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Education (DATE) Program Coordinator of the Los
Gatos Saratoga High School District I am concerned with the message given the
students in our District should the Planning Commission of Saratoga grant the
licensing of a new liquor store on a street which already houses two stores selling
alcoholic beverages.
Availability of liquor and other drugs is one of the factors leading to greater use by
adolescents. Furthermore, a city that allows a number of liquor selling establishments
within its jurisdiction is exhibiting tacit approval.
We are models for the youth of our community. It is our responsibility as adults to send
a clear message of living a healthy, productive lifestyle and I am sure that the Council
Members of Saratoga wish the best for their youth.
DISTINGUISHED CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE
Saratoga High School Mark Twain High School
GOVERNING BOARD
Robert W. Allen
Diane V. Carlson
Nancy O. Crampton
Robert L. Dunnett
Gretchen Newby
SUPERINTENDENT
Tod R. Likins, Ed.D.
Adult Education
E.
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: City Council Members
As a psychotherapist in Saratoga, I am concerned regarding the above use permit for the
Village of Saratoga. I welcome this opportunity to share my concerns listed below:
Saratoga takes pride in providing high quality education and care for its youth. Allowing
this use permit would give a mixed message to the youth.
April being Education Month for Saratoga would be incongruent with the principles of
a Drug Alcohol free youth.
Saratoga being a planned community, highly esteemed for residential and business, the
use permit appears incongruent to allow for a mutually beneficial relationship.
As a therapist providing High School groups therapy for the youth of Saratoga and
Campbell Another liquor store sets up the youth to "shoulder tap" adults to purchase
alcohol for minors.
Pathway on Saratoga Creek to Wildwood Park is already established as a meeting place
for alcohol and drug usage safety problems already exist and would increase.
As a therapist working evenings, safety for my clients and self would be at risk.
Saratoga's Village design plan may need a feasibility study to assist in appropriate
planning procedure based on what's financially feasible for the City versus vacancy.
Thank you for your consideration and appropriate action for the youth and business within
Saratoga.
Sincerely,
Ms. Diana Die z an, MFCC
Otaw,Ozetizinani, Zit ,TO
Marriage, Family Child Counselor
License #MB23603
RE: UP -92 -001
Cancellieri
14445 Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
14407 Big Basin Way, Suite G Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 3453 (408) 252 2086
April 14, 1992
Overview:
Printed on recycled paper.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: April 15, 1992
SUBJECT: Site Modification #91 -008 Denial
McCormick, et al; Tollgate Road /Deersprings Ct.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
Description:
The applicants are requesting City Council consideration of the
Planning Commission's denial of their application to install a
private road entrance gate. Based on the absence of existing
standards or criteria regulating this type of proposal, this
application was made to the Commission at the discretion of the
Planning Director for review and for policy direction regarding
future such requests.
At the January 22, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the Quail
Ridge neighborhood homeowners requested Commission approval to
construct an open wrought iron electronically controlled gate
across a privately owned and maintained road, at the entrance to
their development. The attached staff report assessed the
proposal's compliance with applicable General and Specific Plan
policies and objectives for the Northwestern Hillside Residential
(NHR) district. The accessibility of existing pedestrian/
equestrian easements, visual aesthetics and emergency and general
services access issues were also discussed.
At the public hearing, the Commission heard testimony from Quail
Ridge homeowners expressing unanimous support for the gate. The
residents felt that the gating of Tollgate Road was necessary to
alleviate road maintenance problems and incidents of trespassing
and vandalism. The Commission, however, did not find that these
concerns were unique to this particular neighborhood and that by
granting the permit, an undesirable precedent would be set. The
attached resolution to deny the application cites the perceived
incongruity of the proposal with the following Northwestern
Hillside Specific Plan (NHSP) goals and objectives:
"Access shall be compatible with preservation of rural
character and reduced density of development."
"The City's irreplaceable hillside resources shall be
protected and preserved."
(Summary of Goals, Policies and Action Programs of the NHSP, pg.1)
Based on the conflict between the private gate proposal and the
NHSP goals, the Planning Commission denied the request 4 -1
(Bogosian /Durket /Moran /Tucker for, Forbes opposed). Included in
the denial motion was a directive to staff to incorporate language
into the Circulation Element of the General Plan discouraging the
gating of private roads.
Recommendation:
Uphold the Planning Commission denial of SM -91 -008 and direct staff
to proceed with amending the General Plan per the Commission's
request.
Respectfully submitted,
wte.s GOotItteAA
ES WALGREN
Associate Planner
JW:cw
Attachments:
1. Resolution SM -91 -008
2. Planning Commission minutes dated 1/22/92
3. Memo from City Attorney
4. Appeal Application
5. Staff report dated 1/22/92
6. Plans, Exhibit "A"
ATTE
Secretary, P1 nning Comm ssion
DENIAL
RESOLUTION NO. SM -91 -008
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
McCormick, et al; Toll Gate Road /Quail Ridge Court
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has received an application for
site modification approval of plans to construct an electronically
controlled private drive access gate; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
1. The proposed improvements are not consistent with the general
plan goals and objectives,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of McCormick, et al,
for site modification approval be and the same is hereby denied.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, on this 22nd day of January, 1991, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: DURKET, BOGOSIAN, TUCKER, MORAN
NOES: FORBES
ABSENT: CALDWELL, FAVERO
Ch ir, Planning Commission lo
�L1
_vwc ''ar+aylc"M aa®ns
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page Seven
Commissioner Tucker stated she could support approval of the addition, but she
could not make the findings to support approval of the fence.
TUCKER/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE V -91 -014 IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION
BUT NOT THE FENCE.
Commissioner Forbes stated he also could not make the findings to support approval
of the fence and added that the fence may possibly pose a traffic hazard.
Commissioner Durket questioned staff as to whether they had concerns regarding
traffic visibility problems as a result of the proposed fence.
Planner Walgren explained that staff had taken the traffic safety issue into
consideration, but after investigation staff was convinced that there would not be a
traffic visibility problem.
Commissioner Durket asked Commissioner Forbes if staff's reply had changed his
mind about prohibiting the proposed fence.
Commission Forbes maintained his position and stated he still believed that the fence
may be a traffic safety hazard.
Chairperson Moran restated the motion for approval of V -91 -014 as per the staff report
dated January 8, 1991.
Commission Forbes clarified that the motion for approval was for the addition, not the
fence.
The motion carried 4 -0. (Commissioner Bogosian abstained).
Commission Bogosian rejoined the Commission at the dais.
8. SM -91 -008 McCormick, et al; Tollgate Rd. /Quail Ridge Ct. and
Deersprings Ct., request for site modification approval to allow
the neighborhood residents to construct and maintain a private
entrance gate within the McBain and Gibbs subdivision /NHR zone
district. This application is being made at the discretion of the
Planning Director for Planning Commission review and approval.
Planner Walgren presented to the Commission the Report dated January 22, 1992.
The public hearing was opened as 8:25 p.m.
Sv�'a aitM a t o ri V nti'.� .m� tm 1. :2 '.r;.�3;r..:
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page Eight
Bob McCormick, 21424 Tollgate Road, directed the Commission's attention to the
petition signed by all 13 Tollgate Road property owners in favor of the application. He
also spoke in reference to concerns of additional maintenance, liability issues, and
peace of mind.
Frank Saude, 14599 Deer Springs Court, spoke in support of the application and
reported several specific incidents which prompted him to call the sheriff.
Theresa Achbar, 21425 Tollgate Road, expressed support for the application and also
spoke of various acts of trespassing and vandalism.
Sandy Reed, 21417 Tollgate Road, spoke of the excessive traffic and the need for the
proposed gate.
Mrs. Santacnoce, property owner immediately below proposed gate site, spoke in
favor of the application.
Jim Huang, 14590 Deer Springs Court, expressed support for the application. He also
spoke of excessive traffic and parking problems and of people wandering around the
area at night.
Bob Araidi, 21437 Tollgate Road, addressed the Commission in support of the project
and cited various incidents. He also answered questions of the Commission in regard
to the problems occurring in the neighborhood.
Shawn Blum, 14598 Deer Springs Court, spoke in support of the project and
expressed concern regarding the incidents reported by the previous speakers and
their effect on street maintenance and property owner liability.
Commission Tucker inquired as to the liability of the homeowners on the private road
and if their liability differed from anyone else who resides on a private road.
City Attorney stated that the liability is not different on Tollgate Road than on any other
private road.
Chairperson Moran asked of the legality to park or drive on a private road.
The City Attorney explained that the answer would depend on the circumstances and
document which created the private road.
Planner Walgren explained that the road is much more clearly defined as a public
road and that the road was built by City specifications. He stated that an offer of road
dedication has been made, on which the City will probably act, and the road will
become a public road.
Commissioner Bogosian asked if the application would need City approval if the road
was clearly a private road.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page Nine
Planner Walgren stated the City would still retain its authority and discretion to review
the request.
TUCKER/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:01 P.M. Passed
5 -0.
DURKET /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DENY SM -91 -008 AS RECOMMENDED IN THE
STAFF REPORT.
Commissioner Forbes stated that his first inclination was to vote for a denial, but after
hearing the public testimony, he supported the application.
Commissioner Tucker stated she would vote to deny the application because she
found difficulty in making the findings (particularly finding 1 in the resolution) and felt
that an approval would grant a special privilege therefore setting a precedent for
future requests for security gates. She also stated that the issue of additional
maintenance went along with the responsibilities of residing on a private street.
Commissioner Durket agreed with Commission Tucker's comments and added that
the problems experienced by the neighborhood were not unique to that particular
private street.
Commissioner Bogosian stated he also would be voting for denial and agreed with
Commissioner Tucker's comments. He suggested a larger, better maintained sign to
distinguish the private street and also to take up the need for enhanced security with
the Sheriff or City Council.
Chairperson Moran stated that a gate would set the neighborhood apart from the rest
of the community thus discouraging trailway and pedestrian access. Chairperson
Moran also suggested that the Commission follow -up with staff's recommendation in
the staff report to incorporate consideration of the gating issue in general in
consideration of the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Commissioner Forbes stated although he was sensitive to the concerns of setting a
precedent, he felt the residents' need for the gate overrode this concern and therefore
felt the request should be granted.
Chairperson Moran asked that the original motion be amended to include
recommendation #2 of the staff report.
DURKET /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION STATED ABOVE TO
INCLUDE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION 2 FROM THE STAFF REPORT. The motion
carried 4-1 (Forbes opposed).
MICHAEL R. NAVE
STEVEN R. MEYERS
ELIZABETH H. SILVER
MICHAEL S. RIBACK
MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUBION
FREDERICK S. ETHERIDGE
WENDY A. ROBERTS
DAVID W. SKINNER
STEVEN T. MATTAS
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA J.SALTZMAN
TO:
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK SILVER
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
GATEWAY PLAZA
777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
by: Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney
RE: APPEAL: SM -91 -008, Quail Ridge Ct. Gate
INTRODUCTION
PENINSULA OFFICE
1220 HOWARD AVE.. SUITE 250
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 -4211
TELEPHONE: (415) 348 -7130
FACSIMILE: (415) 342 -0886
REPLY TO:
San Leandro
City Council DATE: April 8, 1992
Residents along Quail Ridge Ct. and Toll Gate Road proposed
to install an electronically controlled gate across the Quail
Ridge Ct. entrance to their subdivision. The Planning Commission
considered the request on January 22, 1992 at their public
hearing. At the hearing, residents along the subject streets
explained their concerns about vandalism and trespassing by non-
residents. The Planning Commission denied the gate request. The
applicants appealed the denial to the City Council.
At the. Planning Commission hearing, and again in connection
with the appeal, there has been some uncertainty about the proper
procedure for considering the gate request. The applicants have
indicated they feel the city has no discretionary permit
authority over the request. The purpose of this memorandum is to
clarify the procedure required under both the subdivision and
zoning regulations for the gate project.
The project area is within the McBain and Gibbs subdivision
and is located in the NHR zone district. Because it was a
hillside subdivision, the original tentative map for the land
division was accompanied by a site development plan pursuant to
sec. 14- 25.100 of the City's subdivision regulations. The site
development plan must show all "existing and proposed...man -made
structures Had the gate been proposed with the original
subdivision, the gate structure would have been shown on the site
development plan and would have been reviewed at that time.
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael S. Riback
RE: Quail Ridge -Toll Gate Rds. Gate Appeal
DATE: April 8, 1992
PAGE: 2
At that time, the City would have reviewed the gate for
consistency with general and specific plan policies, with
subdivision regulations, and with zoning ordinance use and
location provisions. In addition, the City could have examined
the effect of a gate on traffic circulation, on emergency access
to and from the site, and on visual resources, especially in the
area of the scenic easement. Depending on the type of gate
chosen and its proximity to homesites, noise and vibration might
have been examined.
The gate was not proposed nor reviewed at that time,
however. For this, as for any other affected subdivision project
revision, the appropriate vehicle for reviewing the newly
proposed structure is through the City's site modification
procedures. This conclusion in reflected in the staff report for
SD -1354, through which the Planning Commission approved the land
division on January 24, 1979. (See attachment 1). Item IX.E of
the adopted conditions notes the Planning Commission must approve
any modifications to the site development plan.
Upon review of the site modification for the proposed gate,
the action of the City is to approve, conditionally approve or
deny the request. The decision whether to approve the gate or
not, in turn, depends on whether the Council finds the gate
request complies with general plan, specific plan, zoning and
other applicable policies and provisions.
ZONING REGULATIONS
The proposed gate is a structure under the definition in
sec. 15- 06.670; more specifically, it is an accessory structure
under that same section. Under sec. 15- 14.160, construction of
any accessory structure in the NHR zone district requires design
review approval. Furthermore, under sec. 15- 14.120, accessory
uses are further subject to "special rules" in sec. 15- 80.030.
Again, the conditions of approval for SD -1354 reflect these
requirements. Item IX.B states that all structures are subject
to design review approval (although the project was then in the
HC -RD district).
The City may approve, conditionally approve or deny a design
review request. The design review decision focuses on whether
the project allows the City to make the required findings in Sec.
15- 45.080 (as am. by ord. 71.99).
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael S. Riback
RE: Quail Ridge -Toll Gate Rds. Gate Appeal
DATE: April 8, 1992
PAGE: 3
CONCLUSION
The City unquestionably has discretionary permit authority
over the proposed gate. That authority is grounded in the City's
subdivision and zoning regulations, and in conditions of approval
for the land division. The status of the subject roads as
private or public is irrelevant to this conclusion since the City
has the ability to regulate land uses and structures on private
property. The private status of the street may, however, be a
factor in the City's policy decision whether to approve the gate
or not. Another factor may include the nature and intent of the
scenic easement and how the gate will affect the easement. Still
another factor will be the whether the gate is consistent with
general and specific plan policies applicable to the project
site. These and other factors will be discussed by staff and
reviewed by the Council when the appeal is considered.
If there are any questions on this memorandum, please do not
hesitate to give me a call.
cc: Harry Peacock, City Manager
Paul Curtis, Planning Director
Virginia Fanelli
mnrs\273\memo\gate.mkf
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK SILVER
Michael S. Riback
by: Kathleen Faubion
SD -1354 McBain Gibbs, Inc., Tollgate Congress Springs Road, TTilM*Lve
Subdivision Map Approval 20 Lots
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Tentative Subdivision Approval
.for 20 lots on 45 acres at the western ends of Tollgate Road and Canyon View Drive
4 in the HC -RD zoning district.
The hillside site contains slopes ranging from gentle to very steep. The greates
portion of the site is orchard with riparian oak woodland at the northern end. P
gently on the site is an existing house with two water wells and a septic tank.
of Lot #1 and a small area of Lot #3 are an area designated "Md unstable ground!-
by the Congress Spring's Study, which is non buildable by Ordinance. Several areal;
within the lower lots and Lot #17 are characterized by soil failures which the CiO4:
Geologist has recommended for corrective grading. "The level of slope instability
diminishes considerably toward the eastern edge of the development" per the City
Geologist. Additionally he has stated that the ridge lines are the most stable
grounds.
OCTOBER 6, 1978
Exhibit "B"
All homes are conditioned to Design Review and are to be placed according to the
Site Development Plan. The water tank for this project will be placed on the adj
property owned by Parnas Corporation.
The project lots range from 1.1 to 5.5 acres in size, with the required depths, widths
and frontages. Scenic easements have been placed on many of the lots with conditioning
for no development (similar to Parker Ranch).
Access is proposed to be provided by 1)A long cul -de -sac extension of Tollgate Mead
2) eventual connection to the property adjacent to the west (Parnas Corporation) for.
a maximum of 6 proposed residences near the lower portion of the Boisseraac propergj
and 3) an emergency access to Canyon View Drive. Public Works staff has expressed
the following concerns about the streets:
1. The 70 ft. inside radius at the southern end.
2. The 15% street slope above to 70 ft. radius.
3. The lack of vertical curves at grade changes (main concern is
at hump southwesterly of Deer Springs Court).
4. The lack of a secondary public street connection.
Two additional access proposals eventual connection of Tollgate through the Parnas
Property.to Pierce and extension of Canyon View Drive to Tollgate have been presented
and have been determined to be geologically sound.
The proposed subdivision street layout calls for removal of approximately 30 heritage
size trees. The access proposal to Pierce Road will increase the number of trees to
be removed.
STATUS: An Environmental Impact Reportw s certified by the Planning Commission as,
adequate on October 25, 1978. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the Comnty.
of Santa Clara Recorder's Office when this project is approved. sus
DRAFT FINDINGS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and
all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The Planning Commission is responsible for making the necessary findings accordin
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission must mss one
or more of the following findings with Exhibit "D in addition to-previous findin
N (a) Changes or alternativhs.leave been required in, or incorporated into,
such projes which mitighte or avoid the signifiosat environmental
effects thereof as identified in the en pleted environmental impact
report.
Such changes or alternatives are whin the responsibility and juris-
diction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted
by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(c) Specific economic, social,or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental
Impact Report.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1354 (Rahibit'.Irs4"
filed December 1,1978) subject to the following conditions:
ATTACHMENT 1
'STAFF REPORT
RE: SD -1354, din Gibes, Inc.
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated April 11, 1977.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Street improvements on 50 foot right of way to be 26 feet.
B. Existing topography to be retained to avoid excessive lot fills.
C. Protective planting on hillside cuts will be necessary.
*Janaa 19
ryy s 1
OCTOBER .6, IOW.
Page #2* 04
D. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by Department
of Public Works (the system shown on Tentative Map is not approved as additional
installation will be required).
E. Dedicate a 2 ft. wide strip in fee to the City at all locations where streets
adjoin property not within this development.
F. Diainage from the improved portion of Lots 11, 12 and 13 to be conveyed to
public street.
G. Provide secondary access road to Canyon View Drive. Offer to dedicate 50 ft.
right of way and improve to "Minimum Access Road" standard.
H. The "structural section" of the road bed to be 1257 of the "gravel equivalent"
as determined by standard design practice.
I. Prsvide adequate sight distance at all driveways as approved by the Director
of Public Works.
J. Applicant to erect barriers at hazardous turns as determined by the Director
of Public Works.
K. If this development occurs prior to SD 1373, in order to provide temporary
secondary access, the applicant shall construct a minimum access road along
the alignment discussed in the letter from Terratech to Bill Heiss, dated
December 13, 1978 and shown on the attached map labeled "Alternate Road Alignment
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DEPT. OF INSPECTION SERVICES /BUILDING DEPT.
A. Geotechnical evaluation of each lot required prior to building permits.
Applicant's geotechincal consultant should speak to all matters that may be
affected by or have effect on the proposed development. Applicant's geo-
technical consultant shall review all site, pool, grading, drainage and
foundation plans for each lot and provide a written statement to the City
certifying he has done such a review, and that the plans in question are
consistent with the recommendations of his report. Building permits will
not be issued until this statement is received.
1
B. A grading plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved prior to building
permit at time of Design Review. (This plan to be prepared by a licensed
engineer). This plan is to be accurate to within 0.5 foot and be such
such scale and contain detail as to allow accurate determination of slopes,
cut and fill quantities and limits of grading /excavation. Cross sections and
calculations shall be submitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accord-
ance with city graddag ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report. All
grading is to be contoured.
C. All slopes either stripped during or created by construction shall be treated
adequately for erosion control. The gracing plan shall contain details of bow
this is to be accomplished. This work shall be. completed prior to final inspection/
certificate of occupancy. No cuts and fills are to be undertaken pr left open
at a time of year subject to significant rainfall. Erosion.controlleasures shall
be. installed when rainy season or occupancy, whichever occurs first.' Earthmoving
e
equipment to b fitted with noise reducing mufflers.
All engineering str�uc components, foundations and retaining walls over 3 feet
1 in face height shall be toed by a registered civil engineer.
E. All structural fill shah•' eyed into side slopes, placed on stable existing
ground stripped of all organs /deleterious material, and compacted to a minimum
907. relative,clompaction. `N atrucpural fills shall be likewise placed except
to a sdnimimm 85% -relatiNke d e0actiOn.
F. A drainage plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved prior to building
permits. This plan should address all potential runoff reaching, created by
and leaving the site (including water from paved and roof areas). Plan shall
show method of collecting, carrying and disposing of all such water. Water shall
not be directed onto adjacent private property without proper authority (existing
natural water- course, private storm drain easement, etc.).
G. Existing structures on property shall be brought to code or removed. Demolition
permits required.
H. No new structures or roads are permitted on Lot #1 in the area designated
grated "Md"
in the "Can
gress Springs Ground M Potential Map Such area is to be
dedicated as open space. Owner is to sign required liability statement concerning
this area.
I. A soils report,.as built plan, shall be submitted to City describing what corrective
work was done in areas of unstable soil.
J. All grading shall be sufficiently observed by applicants consultant so as to allow
the original geotechnical report to be validated and to insure intent of the report
was fulfilled. A letter stipulating this is required prior to occupancy permit.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to
issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified.
Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall
be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform
Fire Code, Appendix E).
B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double
seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street
or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 121% With-
out adhering to the following:
Driveways having slopes between 121% to 15 shall be surfaced
using 21" of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base.
Driveways having. slopes between 15% to 171 shall be surfaced
using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate
base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length.
Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
C. Construct a turaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 -foot inside
radius. Other approved type turaround must meet requirements of the Fire
Chief. Details Shallbe shown on building plans.
D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 -feet.
E. Provide a parking area for emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or
as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
F. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire pro-
tection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants.
G. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of deli-
vering 1000 gallons per minute for 2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance
Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade
Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall
be 1,000 gallons per minute fr3m any three of the six hydrants flowing with
20 psi residual.
Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) bs.g
sit Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.. �t
I Developer to tnstaii 6 bydis ib that meet` Saratoga Fire c*ffc
tions and deposit $1,365.00 to cover hydrant rental for a i' of five (5)'
years. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building
fiF%^ permits.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANITATIONN DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of
Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated March 20, 1978.
B. Annex to Sanitagion_.District No. 4 prior to Final Map Approval.
VI. 5PE1RC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH BEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers inetalIad.arli eeanected
developer tocone of the existing trunk sewers of the S era County S ati7
District No. 4. Prior to- final approval, an edequater shall be peetsd with
.aid 4j j t to aware lerIna
'.9
STAFF REPORT
R8: SD -1354, MCBain Gibbs, Inc.
January 19, 1979(revised)
OCTOBER 6,1978
Page #4
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing wells and septic tank on Lot #t are to be abandoned to county sta$larde.
An $800.00 bond to be posted with City to insure completion of work. ti
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location
and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
A. Dedicate trail easements as shown on Tentative Map.
B. Equestrian trails to be a minimum of 8' wide with additional land if necessary
to go around obstructions. Other approved width to meet requirements of Parks
and Recreation Commission. Trail grading to be done by developer prior to
issuance of building permit. Pathway to comparatively level from side to side
and unobstructed.
IX. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT
*A. Prior to Final Approval, submit CC&R's which state:
1. No pools (excluding spas) are allowed on Lots 1, 2A, 4, 14, 16,
18 and 19. Pools on remaining lots to be allowed only through a
modification of the Site Development Plan.
2. Recreational courts may be placed on lots only as allowed by the
Planning Commission through the Use Permit procedure.
3. Residences require Design Review Approval. Individual house
design to be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with the
physical environment and compliance with Site Development Plan.
Complete plans for all on -site grading to be included in evalua-
tion. All grading to be contoured so as to for smooth transi-
tions. All grading to be smooth transitions between natural and
man -made slopes.
4. Fences, walls and hedges are allowed only per City of Saratoga 's
HC -RD zoning district regulations "proximate to the principal
structure and in no event to enclose or encompass an area in
excess of 4,000 square feet
5. Scenic easement restrictions as shown on Final Map.
6. Mitigation Measures as stated in Exhibit "D
7. Residences on Lot #6, #7 and #13 shall be single story in design.
8. All cut and fill slopes landscaping shall be maintained through private
maintenance agreements with the City.
B. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required prior to
issuance of permits, per HC -RD Ordinance.
C. Design Review Approval for the following is required prior to Final Subdivision
Approval:
a. Treatment of pedestrian /equestrian easement.
b. Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in height.
c. Treatment of emergency access road and barrier.
d. Native type landscaping for graded areas with slopes of 3:1 or
flatter and exceeding 20 ft. in height (toe to top) or with slopes
steeper than 3:1 and exceeding 10 ft. in height (toe to top).
Landscaping maintenance agreement for these and landscaping of
cut and fill slopes to be signed prior to Final Subdivision Map
Approval.
STAFF REPORT
RE: SD -1354, McBain Gib Inc.
October 6, 1978
D. Enter into Scenic Easement Agreement with the City for the scenic easements prior
to Final Map Approval. Neither the CC&R's nor the Scenic Easement Agreement are
to be amended without the written consent of the City of Saratoga and they are to
be enforceable by the City.
E. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission Approval.
F. Tree removal on lots subject to Design Review with residences. Trees near
grading area to be fenced for protection during grading.
G. Special architectural mitigation measure for the residences shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission prior to Final Approval.
H. Scenic easements to be shown on Final Map per the following written statement:
We hereby reserve an easement for the use and benefit of property
owners of the tract for permanent open space an and over those
certain areas designed as "Scenic Easement" on the written map,
which are to be kept open and free from building and structures
and other improvements (including ornamental landscaping, fencing
and decks), but subject to the rights, limitations, powers and
obligations as set forth on that certain Scenic Easement Agreement
dated and which is being recorded concurrently
herewith. Public access is not implied or intended.
I. Slopes on east facing side shall be graded to no more than 3:1 maximum slopes.
J. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully support landscaping.
K. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face height.
L. Cuts and driveways, visible from viewshed, shall be hidden behind houses end /or
screened.
M. If any evidence of potential archeological significance is found during site grading
operation, the work shall be halted until the significance of the finding can be
evaluated by a qualified archeologist.
N. House design shall incorporate energy conserving features including active /or
passive solar design techniques.
X. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
B. Design Review Approval of the water tank on adjacent parcel is required prior to
issuance of building permits.
APPROVED:
Planning Commission Agenda: 10/11[78
as modified at the Planning COmission Meeting on 1/24/79.
L
Kathy "Kerdus Assistant Planner
Project Address:
APPEAL APPLICATION-
3 /6?
'Date
PPLICATION-
'Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee: 1 9/ -5.
ta, z S S
Name of Appellant: ("tl%OJ ptcle &T At- 16u,C -eC D. QUA-
Address: 1q-PI &A-r -6 1) 5 6 r (t f7e
Telephone: 1 M/2V 5 3- 4,
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant:
Project File No.: X 1 1 00
Ti c �D— Qt)AiL DEVe i
Decision Being Appealed: DrA)i ti OF EA).414-AJ1E GPi
Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be
attached) 0) lt)e- rC `rfFAT fF& COMM TAE D i Abn" ft�h' C E�c1 0Ol -f�
1_& P A t .SJ FUND 1 A fp C A OF M U Pet n c- CM D 1 'r► o N S "T b
A-N G6 rIV E1)CCiS0 0 6 WE re&l BASED
AGR 4en)-r5 Itt fiD6 )vr CM 1 p )O P A-Te (2OA
14 5 S/ D A) 5 U NO belo O uk itr7 r &M 5 lz ee 5TK l C7'
j-CC655:7 i56 4) 7 t5e6C(6c f G- jA-nrr &A SoGN /1- CC655.
/4L, QaaJ )&Jy j'
Ap /i lant s Signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal, please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN
(15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
.Application No. /Location: SM -91- 0 0 8 Toll Gate Rd./ Quail Ridge Ct.
Applicant /Owner: McCormick, et al.
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: January 22 19 92
APN: 503 -28 -117 thru 124 503 -62 -23 thru 26 Director Approval:
Toll Gate Rd./ Quail Ridge Ct.
File No. SM -91 -008; Toll Gate Road /Quail Ridge Court
CASE HISTORY:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for site modification approval to
allow the neighborhood residents to construct and maintain a
private entrance gate within the McBain and Gibbs subdivision /NHR
zone district. This application is being made at the discretion of
the Planning Director for Planning Commission review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the attached analysis and direct staff
regarding the recommended alternatives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Application filed: 9/4/91
Application complete: 10/4/91
Notice published: 1/8/92
Mailing completed: 1/9/92
Posting completed: 1/2/92
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution SM -91 -008
3. Area Trailway Map, Exhibit "B"
4. Private v. Public Road, Exhibit "C"
5. Correspondence
6. Plans, Exhibit "A"
General and Specific Plans:
Trailway Access:
File No. SM -91 -008; Toll Gate Road /Quail Ridge Court
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Tubular steel posts with metal
pickets proposed to be painted off white.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The Quail Ridge area homeowners have submitted
to City staff a proposal to install an electronically controlled
private entrance gate at the location indicated on the attached
Exhibit "A This particular section of Toll Gate Road /Quail Ridge
Court is a privately owned and maintained access road serving
twelve parcels. The applicants have submitted a petition indicat-
ing that there is unanimous support for this gate among the
homeowners. While the City does not currently have a review
process set up for this type of request, planning staff felt that
it would be appropriate for the residents to submit a site
modification application for Planning Commission consideration. To
staff's knowledge, the only similar gated private road is located
at the Three Oaks Court subdivision. The Three Oaks Court gate,
perimeter walls and fencing were reviewed by the Commission at the
tentative map stage for that proposal. The following is a summary
of staff's analysis of this proposal.
Staff has reviewed the City's Land Use, Circulation and Open Space
elements of the General Plan, the Area B Specific Plan and the
Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan (NHSP) for policies or action
programs which would affect this proposal. With the exception of
the NHSP general goals of ensuring that access shall be compatible
with preservation of the rural character of the hillsides and that
the City's irreplaceable hillside scenic resources be protected and
preserved, staff has not found any goal, policy or action program
which specifically addresses the gating of private roads. It is
partly because of this absence of existing policy, and the
sensitive and precedent setting nature of this request, that staff
has scheduled this item for public hearing consideration.
Attached as Exhibit "B" is a map indicating existing pedestrian and
equestrian easements within this area. The trail system runs along
the north side of Congress Springs Road, crosses through the
Saratoga Heights subdivision open space parcel, and then continues
through this subdivision terminating at the end of the emergency
access road. This easement crosses Saratoga Heights Road and
private properties west of the proposed gate and follows along the
west side of Toll Gate Rd./ Quail Ridge Ct. up to lot #6 (see
Exhibit "A The left side of the proposed gate would obstruct
this easement. If the Planning Commission finds that a private
Aesthetic Considerations:
File No. SM -91 -008; Toll Gate Road /Quail Ridge Court
access gate is appropriate for this neighborhood, staff would
require that a revised proposal be submitted for Commission review
allowing unobstructed access along the west side pedestrian/
equestrian easement.
Staff has noted that the current design of the gate would have an
abrupt appearance, particularly the left side which would be the
most visible from adjacent downslope properties. The applicants
are aware of this concern and have proposed to provide a modified
design incorporating columns and /or stepped -down end elements. A
condition of approval would also require that a revised design
incorporating landscaping be reviewed and accepted by the Planning
Commission at a regular adjourned meeting prior to the issuance of
permits. A dark earthtone color scheme would also be required.
Of greater concern, however, is the nature of the request itself.
Staff feels that it is important for the Planning Commission to
consider whether or not the City wants to encourage the gating of
private roads. This type of development may be considered
inconsistent with the City objectives to retain the rural character
of Saratoga, particularly within the hillside districts.
Affected Agency Review:
A set of plans have been routed to the City's Engineering and
Traffic Department and the Saratoga Fire District for their review.
The Santa Clara County Sheriff's office has also commented on the
proposal. Since the City does not anticipate accepting the private
section of Toll Gate Road /Quail Ridge Court as a public street (see
Exhibit "C the Engineering Department will permit the residents
to control its access.
The Fire Department and Postal Service will each have master keys
to access the development while other services, Sheriff, PG &E, San
Jose Water Company, etc., will need to be assigned an identifica-
tion number by the homeowners. In the event of a power outage, the
gate would unlock automatically for manual operation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing, initiate deliberations and then direct
staff regarding the following alternative actions:
1. Approve the request with the conditions contained in the
resolution and direct staff to continue to require site
modification review and approval for any similar future
proposals.
2. Deny the request and direct staff to develop language to be
incorporated into the Circulation Element of the General Plan
discouraging the gating of private roads.
v
\i EDESTR I AN
.QUESTR I AN
'TRA 1 L S AND
PATHWAYS MAP
zacir LEGEND
I
1 l
i
1
GENERAL PLAN TRAILS
PATHWAYS ADOPTED 1977
DEDICATED TRAIL EASEMENTS
(PER RECENT SUBDIVISIONS)
PROPOSED TRAIL EASEMENTS
FINAL TRACT MAPS WITH
ACTUAL T RA I L LOCAT I ON NOT
YET ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL)
1
•t 1Y
1
1
£4RA T0614
/IE/GH Ts
DRIVE
W6(2o)
f W/4 -4
CO
CD
p
o T i
n
o
S
A
A n
-r
.SCALE= =_30
r_
A D AUTOMATIC GATE COMPANY
DESIGN ENGINEERING SALES SERVICE
July 2, 1991
Janis, McCormick
21424 Toll Gate
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 741 -5506
2490 MIDDLEFIELD RD.
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063
(415) 365 -8828
CONT. LICENSE #414436
Ref. 910702 -I
Re: Iron Grille Gate, Fencing, Electric Operator, Vehicle
Detector, Visitor Entry Phone, Electrical Meter Service,
Electrical Wiring and Conduit for Access Gate for Quail
Ridge Toll Project
Dear Ms. McCormick:
For orientation purposes, we will be viewing the project from the
outside looking in.
Base Bid.
We will furnish and install a 14' wide gate which will be
centered within the 26' wide roadway and will slide to the left
to open. The gate will be positioned approximately 15 into the
property from the property line. On each side of the gate
opening will be 4" x 4" steel tubular posts which will be placed
in concrete in the asphalt roadway. On the right hand side will
be a 10' x 6' iron grille fence section, and on the left hand
side will be a 15' x 6' fence section. At the left hand fence
section area we will also have to excavate and remove a part of
the existing dirt bank so as to allow the gate to slide in its
open position. This is an area of approximately 10' in length
and 6' in width and 3' to 3'6" in depth. A removal and cut would
be in a diagonal position and the excavated material would be
scattered on the adjacent property, not removed and hauled away.
The front of the iron grille gate be supported on a 4" vee
wheel which will roll across the driveway on a 2" x 2" angle.
This angle would be supported on a 12" x 24" concrete footing.
The reason for being 24" deep is we have to provide this depth
for the conduit for power source which needs to placed across the
roadway to the operator. We will need to excavate from the gate
operator location to the right hand curb. All of the excavated
material would be removed and this area backfilled with concrete
•Janis4 McCormick
'Ref. 910702 -I
July 2, 1991
Page 2
which would be troweled flush with the asphalt roadway. We would
also have an excavated trench cut out to the stand for visitor
entry phone, with this material to be removed and the trenched
area to be backfilled with concrete. It will take a couple of
days to do the excavating and placing of conduits and angle
ground track, at which time we would want to hold the vehicle
traffic to a minimum. I understand we have to bridge this area
with plywood ramps, but we would like to eliminate for those
several days large trucks that may have to come in.
Iron grille specifications. The iron grille gate would be
fabricated of two 2" x 1" top channels which would be arched and
punched to receive the 5/8" vertical pickets. The top of each
picket will have a #218 cast spear. The picket and spear
combination would extend 6" above the top frame and approximately
4" below the bottom frame. The gate would have one 1" x 1/4" vee
truss. The iron grille fencing would be constructed of the same
material, but the top of the fencing would be level. All of the
iron work would be primed and painted semi -white for visibility.
The iron grille fencing would have additional posts placed in the
asphalt and dirt landscaped area for support.
A Doorking Model 810 electric slide gate operator would be
mounted from a steel base with support post placed in concrete in
the asphalt roadway. We would weld on the inside of the sliding
gate a 2" x 1" channel to conceal the operator drive chain.
Operator specifications. 1/2 horsepower, 120 volt single phase,
adjustable clutch, permanently sealed bearings, solid state
controller with solid state limits. The solid state limits not
only control the full open and close cycle, but can also signal
the door and operator to reverse its direction if the door should
stall on opening or closing. The operator is equipped with a
solenoid locking device that goes into automatic unlock in case
of power failure. This locking device is also controlled with an
on /off switch.
A Model 15 Safety Security Loop System would be installed. The
15 loop system consists of 3 loop configurations and provides for
the gate to close automatically after each opening. One loop
will be placed directly on each side of the gate with a third
loop placed into the property. The two loops are safety loops
and hold the gate in the open position so the gate cannot close
on entering or exiting vehicles. The third loop will be located
up the driveway approximately 40' away is a "Free Exit Loop" to
give an advance signal for exiting vehicles.
A Pulsar Model 9931 radio receiver will be installed in the gate
operator. This receiver will work with the Pulsar Model 9931
transmitters. There are no transmitters included in the Base
Bid. They may be purchased in quantities and will cost as
follows:
.!Janis# McCormick 410
Ref. 910702 -I
1 5 $25.00 each
6 15 22.50
16 50 20.00
July 2, 1991
Page 3
A programmable timer will be installed so you can select the
times of day you want the gate to remain open such as for commute
traffic morning and evening Monday through Friday, then be closed
all day Saturday and Sunday. This timer also has battery backup.
A Doorking 1810 Entry Control Phone will be mounted from a 4" x
4" steel tubular post placed on the left hand side approximately
12' in front of the gate. With this phone you have to lease a
phone line for which there is a monthly charge also a one -time
installation charge for the hookup of this phone line. A D
will provide a 3/4" conduit from the entry phone to the operator
then across the driveway in the concrete footing. From there it
will be located in the dirt landscaped area running parallel with
the right hand curb down to the telephone interconnect or ground
box.
With the entry phone, you have the capability of programming up
to 20 different phone numbers. Each home would have its own 3-
digit access code number. The phone displays a back lighted
sheet where the residents' names and code numbers can be typed or
printed. The entry phone also provides up to 32 individual 4-
digit access numbers that can be used as an auxiliary means for
residents or for various service people who may have to gain
entry.
We will furnish and install in front of the entry phone a 4" x 4"
steel tubular post as a protective post. This post will be
placed in concrete. Four additional posts will be placed as
follows: one on each side of the gate on the outside, and one on
each side of the gate on the inside. All of these posts will be
placed in concrete and filled with concrete.
A KS -2 fire control keyswitch will be installed so the fire
department will be able to open the gate and lock it open.
I have contacted P. G. E. representative Mr. Tsujimura,
408 725 -2011, at 10900 Blaey Avenue, Cupertino, with regards the
electrical power. A D Automatic Gate Company will have to
provide a meter service and main with load center breaker and
conduits from the meter to the P.G. E. ground vault that is
adjacent to the existing transformer. The meter supply and its
hardware would have to be located at least 10' off the curb area
because of the utility right -of -way.
Total price for Base Bid labor, material and tax: $18,146.00.
Jani McCormick
Ref. 910702 -I
Option A. We will furnish and install one PowerGuard Model UV -10
battery backup power supply. This unit would be mounted in its
own NEMA -3R housing adjacent to the operator. It is a self
contained unit with battery pack, converter /inverter, trickle
charger and logic to recycle the system in case of power failure
and functions as follows. Anytime the power is off for more than
15 second period, this unit will come on line and open the gate.
As soon as the power comes back on, the system would revert back
to the regular power and the gate would be in operation.
Total price for Option A labor, material and tax: $2,313.00.
The prices quoted are valid for one hundred and twenty (120) days
from the date of this proposal. Terms: 1/3 deposit upon
acceptance of contract, progressive billing with balance due upon
completion.
A D certifies that all equipment and material furnished shall
carry a one -year warranty on parts and materials, and further
guarantees to furnish labor and qualified service personnel to
the installation site for a period of one -year from the date of
installation. Damage to equipment or materials caused by
negligence, misuse, vandalism, or acts of God is not covered by
this warranty statement.
To proceed with the outlined proposal, please sign and date the
enclosed Sales Agreement and return the white copy with your
deposit. Upon receipt of same, we will start to process
immediately.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
A D AUTOMATIC GATE CO.
fr
E. M. O'Brien
Sales Manager
EMO /js
Enclosures
July 2, 1991
Page 4
RECEIVED
JAN 17 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
14605 Bougainvillea Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 16, 1991
Dear Sirs:
In regards to the request for site modification SM -91 -008 (APN 503 -62-
017 and 503 -72 -025), we are concerned about the precedent being set by
approving the gating off of a road in the hillsides. The visual impact and
possible safety impact of such gates should be carefully considered. Limiting
access to any hillside road, even for the few minutes it would take for fire or
police vehicles to open the gate could cause additional damage in case of fire or
other disaster. As we live just below the private road section of Tollgate Rd.,
our property could be impacted by such a delay. We assume that there is a way
to quickly open the gate in case of a power outage at the time of a disaster.
The visual impact of private entrance gates, especially in the hillsides,
affects the open space look and feel of the land. As there are many private
roads in the hillsides, the approval of this gate could open the way for more
roads to become closed off. We understand the residents' concerns about
traffic and vandalism on their street, but feel that as the area becomes
completely built the vandalism will decrease and that a means such as a
"Private Road" sign could alleviate the sightseeing traffic problem.
The issue of private entrance gates needs to be thought through, with
standards adopted by the city as to when and where they will be permitted.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Yours truly,
and Ro rt Sprague a d p r
ague
1NG WIDTH
EVATION
DOOR KING Model 810
1/2 hp 120volt. I ph
conthuous duty motor.
adjustable dutch.
permanently sealed bearings.
solid state controller with elec-
tronic self-aciusting limits.
1" xr channel
chain rag track
S'-0" MAX
I GATE HEIGHT
Minimum 6" x 6" x 24"
deep post hole fgkd
wtth concrete
Revision
JAN. 9. 1992 TO PLANNING COMMISION
Revilloon
JULY 29. 1991 ADD WALK GATE
Dote JULY 2. 1991 PROPOSAL
A&D AUTOMATIC GATE COMPANY
2490 Middlefield Road
Redwood City. CA.94063 (415) 365-8828
Project QUAIL RIDGE
location
SARATOGA. CA.
Contractor
Architect
Drown B
L. KERNS
Checked By
Scale NONE
Job No.
sheet
No.
1 OF 1
TEL
SAFETY LOOP
PROPOSED FUTURE
MASONRY COLUMNS $1'-0*
144 GATE OPENING WIDTH
SAFETY LOOP
i
Receiving
Post
PARTIAL PLAN VIEW ig TOLL GATE ROAD
2" x 2" TRACK
RAILS WELD
TO FENCE POSTS
RAILS
I x 2" CHANNEL
4" x 1" BOLLARD
C-0" +1-
CURB
PAC-TEL
BOX
14' FENCE SECTION
5/8" x 5/8" SQ. PICKETS
6" O.C.
2" x T.S. POST
PG&E
METER
BOX
4" x 4" TUBULAR
STEEL POSTS
DOOR KING
Model 1910
Telephone
Entry Housing
I4-0" GATE OPEN
2" x 2" TUBE FRAME
OUTSIDE EL
2" x 2" support
JOHN PAUL HANNA
E. DAVID MARKS
March 24, 1992
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
lacy Viced,o
JOHN PAUL HANNA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 705, PALO ALTO, CA 94301
TELEPHONE (415) 321 -5700
FAX (415) 321 -5639
Attn: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Re: Appeal: SM -91 -008, Quail Ridge Development Gate
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
All of the residents of the McBain and Gibbs Subdivision have requested permission from the
City to construction an electronically operated security gate at the entrance to the private
road which services their subdivision. Their request was heard by the Planning Commission
on January 22, 1992, at a public hearing. The applicants have appealed the Planning
Commission's denial of their request. As far as can be determined from the record, the
Planning Commission's denial was not based upon any alleged violation of the General Plan
or zoning, nor was it based upon any considerations of public health, safety and welfare, nor
was there any showing in the record of any objection to the design or construction of the
proposed gate. The denial was apparently based upon a combination of uncertainty on the
part of the part of the Planning Commission about the proper procedure for approving such a
request, and a concern about the approval being considered as "precedent setting."
The "Staff Analysis" stated that after review by the Staff of the General Plan and the Specific
Plan, as well as the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, the there was no goal, policy or
action program with which the proposed gate would be in conflict, and concluded that the
City's only legitimate concern would be that access is compatible with preservation of the
rural character of the hillsides, and that the City's irreplaceable hillside scenic resources be
protected and preserved. It should be noted that both the Saratoga Fire District and the
Sheriff's Department have reviewed the proposal and the drawings, and have approved them
in writing. This removes any legitimate objection based upon concerns of public safety and
welfare. It should be noted that the gate does not interfere with pedestrian and equestrian
access.
Any concerns about inaccessibility due to the gate remaining locked during a power failure
have been eliminated by the design which includes a back -up battery operated system.
City of Saratoga
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 2
March 24, 1992
With regard to the precedent setting nature of the proposal, there already exists at least two
other precedents (Three Oaks Court and Via Regina), and there possibly are others.
The Council is aware of the fact that the offer to dedicate Toll Gate Road as a public street
made by the original subdivider was rejected by the City and the City has gone on record
stating that the road should be and remain private. The owner(s) of private property has a
legitimate interest in protecting its property from trespass by uninvited intruders, and it
would truly be precedent setting for a city to deny property owners the right to reasonably
restrict public access to the owners' property. It should be noted that the scenic easement
portion of the recorded CC &R's specifically states that public access is neither implied nor
intended. A "scenic easement" means what it says "you can look, but not touch." Should
the City desire in the long run to establish some City wide policy concerning gated private
streets, and adopt a formal ordinance for the regulation thereof, that could possibly be done.
Under present conditions, however, in the absence of any such ordinance, the undersigned
knows of no legitimate governmental interest in prohibiting the proposed gate other than the
one issue of design review approval. I am of the opinion that the denial by a city of the
right of the owner of private property to protect his property by limiting public access, is by
implication requiring him to allow the public to use his property, and this, without just
compensation, is a clear violation of constitutional rights.
I would not deny the City's authority to review and approve the design of the proposed
structure. I submit that the Planning Commission had the design, including all of the
specifications, before it and so far as can be told from the record, did not object to the
design. I further submit that the City Council has before it, or will have before it, the plans
and specifications and can exercise its discretion with respect to review and approval of the
design. It goes without saying that the City in its review of the design must act reasonably
and not arbitrarily or capriciously.
I should add that under an existing recorded agreement the residents are obligated to maintain
the private street and to share equally the cost of such maintenance. In addition, there are
some recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting the property. I have not been
provided with a complete copy of those restrictions for my review, but the portions that were
made available to me indicate that the cost of maintaining the private streets (within the
proposed gate) would be borne by all owners and in the event that anyone fails to pay its
share of the cost of maintenance, any other owner(s) may sue to collect the unpaid share and
collect costs and attorneys' fees in addition thereto. Most certainly the petitioners here would
amend said documents to include sharing the costs of maintenance of the proposed gate. This
in fact could be a condition of approval.
In summary, I believe the City has the following options:
A. Review and approve the design of the proposed gate and adopt the resolution
prepared by Staff (Resolution No. SM -91 -008); or
City of Saratoga
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 3
March 24, 1992
B. Approve the construction of the gate by adopting Resolution No. SM -91 -008,
but amending said Resolution to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission (or any
other City agency or department) for final review and approval of the design.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Very truly yo rs,
John a anna
JPH:vs /m /24saratoga
cc: Quail Ridge Homeowners
c/o Janis McCormick
21424 Toll Gate Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
(f) Site coverage means the .percentage of net site area covered by
impervious surfaces including all structures, open or enclosed, or projections of
structures.
S15-06.630 Slope
"Slope' means the average slope of the gross site area determined by the
following formula, and rounded to the nearest whole percent:
Average .00229 IL
slope A
S15-06.640 Stable
Zoning Regulations S15-06.630
Where: I Contour interval in feet
(at intervals of not more
than five feet)
L Combined length of contour
lines in scale feet
A Gross site area expressed
in acres
"Stable" means any building or structure or portion thereof designed or used
for the housing or feeding of a horse or horses or other livestock.
(a) Boarding stable means any stable or corral where horses are lodged or
fed for remuneration.
(b) Commercial stable means any establishment providing services or
facilities for the keeping or use of horses, other than the keeping for private use,
including, but not limited to, boarding stables and riding schools, but not including
community stables.
(c) Community stable means a private stable or corral designed, owned and
used solely by residents and guests of a particular area, for the keeping or use of
horses in private ownership, for homeowners, private clubs, or riding schools, where
riding lessons are not open to the public and no horses are offered to the public for
remuneration, hire or sale.
S15 -06.650 Storage
"Storage" means the use of a site or structure, or portion thereof, for the
keeping of materials, supplies, inventory, equipment, or other items of personal
property owned by the occupant of the site or structure and kept in connection with
such occupant's use of the premises. "Storage" does not include any area where
merchandise offered for sale is on display or where retail services are otherwise
being rendered, nor does the term include any area generally accessible to persons
other than the occupant who may lawfully come upon the premises.
Supp. #7, 11/87 Page 15 -29
S15 -06.655 Story; multi -story
(a) Story means that portion of a building included between the surface of
any floor and the surface of the floor next above, or if there is no floor above, then
the space between the floor and the ceiling or roof next above.
(b) Multi-story means any building having one or more stories physically
located or projecting above a story, or any portion thereof, constructed and located
beneath the same. Basements shall not be considered a story. "Multi- story"
includes a one and one -half story (split level) structure, having the floor level of the
upper story located at approximately the center height of the lower portion of the
structure.
S15 -06.660 Street
Zoning Regulations 15- 06.655
"Street" means a right -of -way for motor vehicle travel providing a means of
access to two or more sites.
(a) Public street means a street owned and maintained by the City, the
County or the State, including streets offered for dedication which have been
regularly maintained or improved by the City, the County or the State.
(b) Private street means a street in private ownership and used or intended
for motor vehicle travel by the owners of the street and persons having express or
implied permission from the owners to use such street.
(c) Street line means the boundary of a street right -of -way.
(d) Emergency access street. See Section 15- 06.250.
S15 -06.670 Structure
"Structure" means that which is built or constructed which requires a location
on the ground, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially
built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. "Structure"
includes retaining walls, decks, patios, swimming pools, and recreational courts but
does not include a fence or a wall used as a fence not exceeding six feet in height.
(a) Main structure means a structure housing the principal use of a site or
functioning as the principal use.
(b) Accessory structure means a detached structure, the use of which is
subordinate and incidental to, and customarily associated with, the main structure
or the principal use of the site, and which is located on the same site as the main
structure or principal use. The term includes, but is not limited to, detached
garages or carports, cabanas, gazebos, arbors, sheds, and buildings connected to a
main structure by a breezeway.
Supp. #7, 11/87 Page 15 -30
S15- 06.630 Slope
S15 -06.640 Stable
Supp. #7, 11/87 Page 15 -29
Zoning Regulations S15-06.630
(f) Site coverage means the percentage of net site area covered by
impervious surfaces including all structures, open or enclosed, or projections of
structures.
"Slope" means the average slope of the gross site area determined by the
following formula, and rounded to the nearest whole percent:
Average .00229 IL
slope A
Where: I Contour interval in feet
(at intervals of not more
than five feet)
L Combined length of contour
lines in scale feet
A Gross site area expressed
in acres
"Stable" means any building or structure or portion thereof designed or used
for the housing or feeding of a horse or horses or other livestock.
(a) Boarding stable means any stable or corral where horses are lodged or
fed for remuneration.
(b) Commercial stable means any establishment providing services or
facilities for the keeping or use of horses, other than the keeping for private use,
including, but not limited to, boarding stables and riding schools, but not including
community stables.
(c) Community stable means a private stable or corral designed, owned and
used solely by residents and guests of a particular area, for the keeping or use of
horses in private ownership, for homeowners, private clubs, or riding schools, where
riding lessons are not open to the public and no horses are offered to the public for
remuneration, hire or sale.
S15-06.650 Storage
"Storage" means the use of a site or structure, or portion thereof, for the
keeping of materials, supplies, inventory, equipment, or other items of personal
property owned by the occupant of the site or structure and kept in connection with
such occupant's use of the premises. "Storage" does not include any area where
merchandise offered for sale is on display or where retail services are otherwise
being rendered, nor does the term include any area generally accessible to persons
other than the occupant who may lawfully come upon the premises.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 05070
(408) 867.34 38
Recorded at the request of
�L(G�C (./r��
After recordation return to:
HAROLD S. TOPPEL, Esq.
P. 0. Box 279
Mountain View, CA 94042
PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND
STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is intended to comply with California
Civil Code Sections 845 and 1468, and relates to maintenance of
the private roads in the City of Saratoga, California, known as
Toll Gate Road, beginning at an intersection with Saratoga Heights
Road, and extending in a northerly direction approximately eighteen
hundred feet (1,800) to a cul -de -sac and Deer Springs Court,
beginning at its intersection with Toll Gate Road, and extending
in a southeasterly direction approximately two hundred feet (200)
and terminating in a cul -de -sac, together with all storm drain
system appurtenances located therein. Both the described portion
of Toll Gate Road and Deer Springs Court are more particularly
described in the subdivision map referred to hereinafter.
1. The road surface subject to maintenance under this
Agreement shall be the commonly traveled surface only and shall
not include road surfaces extending from the main roadway to main
entrance ways.
2. There are presently twelve (12) parcels subject to
the Agreement, namely, Parcels 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 7
and 8, 15 and 16, and 17 and 18, as shown on the subdivision map
of Subdivision Tract 6628, in the City of Saratoga, California,
which map was recorded in Book 453, pp. 50 and 51, in the Office
of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County. For purposes of
this Agreement each of the following pairs of lots shall be deemed
to be one lot: Lots 7 and 8, 15 and 16, and 17 and 18, and shall
have the same benefits and burdens of each and every other single
lot under this Agreement. The present owners of said twelve (12)
parcels are McBain Gibbs, Inc., a California corporation.
14165034 %;'165034
ii 022 ,.1 596 jU
Fl ED FOR :7: .ORD
J 1
tp
SEP ill
n
maintenance or storm drain system maintenance is required to be
performed under the terms of this Agreement and the parties to
this Agreement fail to cause said road maintenance or storm drain
maintenance to be performed within ninety (90) days from the date
each owner is so notified in writing by the City Engineer, the
parties agree that the City of Saratoga, in its sole discretion,
may elect, through its authorized agents and representatives to
perform the road maintenance or storm drain system maintenance
itself and assign the cost of said road maintenance or storm drain
system maintenance to the owners of each parcel in the same propor-
tion as set forth in this Agreement. The parties further agree that
any charge so incurred and assessed against a parcel owner in the
above manner shall be immediately due and payable to the City of
Saratoga and until such time as it is paid in full will be a lien
and encumbrance on the property of the defaulting parcel owner.
The parties shall have the right to appeal to the City Council the
decision of the City Engineer that such maintenance is required,
provided that the notice of such appeal is submitted to the City
Council within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the
written notification sent by the City Engineer.
7. The foregoing covenant shall bind and inure to the
benefit of the respective parties, their heirs, representatives,
successors, and assigns, and shall run with and be a burden upon
each of the parcels of land as described herein, and shall be
enforceable by any party entitled to the benefit of this covenant.
8. This Agreement is hereby declared to be effective as
of June' 9, 1981, and represents a re- execution of an identical
agreement executed by the undersigned on such date.
Dated:
?•3( 82.
Dated: 8.3
3.
McBAIN GIBBS, INC.,
a Ca�),.ifornia corporation
By
By
H022 •!.c: 59g
ROB •T
r I 4 J4
OBERT A. McBAI Secretary
January 26, 1933
Gentlemen:
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
Community Development
Department of Real Estate
135 Berry Street
San Francisco, CA
truly yours,
o2 Comnunitv Deve lonment
Re: Tract No. 662, Quail Ridge, Saratoga, CA
If '.T 'i.lve questions concerning the City's procedure do
:o contact me.
Th s is to inform you of the normal procedure which the City
.3a atoga follows with regard to all subdivisions witiln
th.e 'it.; and will follow with regard to Tract No. 5629.
At the time the final man is approved, the City rejects all
offers of dedication of streets. After the municipal irir_o'°.-
.ten s have been constructed and maintained for a tiperiod o' ac
least one year after the construction the City then acc',','t3
the offers of dedication.
c of Tract No. 6623 the City of Saratoga :s to
ratoga inten
ck-._: a street only that .portion of To1ig ..te
lies between Lots i am'_ and Lots 2 and 3. The b� i._
e.,' -.oa:i and Deer Spring Road are to remain
Will be accented by the City.
John :iann.a, rui.te 1400, S2S University Ave. Palo
iti e
4391 w/carbon row:
September 3, 1991
Janis and Robert McCormick
21424 Toll Gate Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Saratoga Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept the attached drawing for review and approval
by the Planning Committee. There is total agreement (see attached)
from all homeowners in the Quail Ridge development for the
need for a gate to stop unwanted motor traffic on our private
road.
We have made every effort to ensure that the citizens of
Saratoga will have access to the hillside by way of a gate.
The Fire Department and the Sheriff's Department have reviewed
the project and we have met their requirements for access.
This gate will ensure our security, privacy, and limit damage
done to the roadway, which we are now responsible for the maintenance
thereof.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not
hesitate to call for additional information from me at 741 -5506.
Sincerely,
c li,ti,
Janis K. McCormick
A PPR o ve b SA-2 /4705 A F► Re i� s r_ 9?/3 /i
Cri F CR- ni KA /4 uLe_ 7G bi5PA' C14Q
SAPJ"..17.7)C:A r
i4;:&' S::! s
Sat C ieu 95U70
April 9, 1992
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Fanelli Consulting, Inc.
Land Planning /Property Management
1175 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 7 San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 996 -8188
The property owners in the Quail Ridge Subdivision have
applied for a Site Modification to the Final Map to allow the
construction of a mechanical gate across the private street
serving the subdivision. This request was denied by the Planning
Commission and is now on appeal to you.
On behalf of the property owners, we would like to review
with you their disagreement with the conclusions reached in the
memo to you dated April 8, 1992, from the City Attorney's office
and their concern about the denial. The two issues of
disagreement are first that the city has the right to regulate
this use on private property, especially in absence of any such
policy in the General Plan, Specific Plan or Northwest Hillside
Specific Plan and second that this is an accessory structure and
therefore subject to design review.
You will find attached a letter from John Paul Hanna, an
attorney retained by the homeowners to review this application
process. Mr. Hanna Sites the legitimate interest of private
property owners to protect their property from uninvited
intruders. At the Planning Commission hearing virtually every one
living within the subdivision spoke of the continuous vandalism to
property, the late night parties and acts of trespassing. Yet the
Commission denied the application based on rather broad reasons of
ensuring access and preservation of the rural character of the
hillsides.
As Mr. Hanna points out, at the time of the subdivision
approval, Condition IX H required that a scenic easement be
created including the words that "public access is not implied or
intended The existence of the scenic easement in and of itself
ensures the rural character of the hillsides. The proposed gate
lends itself to the hillsides with its open work design and
careful placement to avoid permanent interference with the
proposed trail.
The tentative and final maps clearly show the roads within
the subdivision as private with each lot going to the center line
of the street. A private road maintenance agreement was recorded
as required on September 15, 1982. This was followed on January
26, 1983, with a letter from the Director of Community Development
stating that the roadway will remain private and will not be
accepted by the City. The definition of a private street, Sec. 15-
06.660 (b),(attached) of the zoning regulations says that a
"private street means a street in private ownership and used or
intended for motor vehicle travel by the owners of the street and
persons having express or implied permission from the owners to
use such a street By denying the request for a gate, the city
is denying the property owners the means to regulate the use of
the property by the public in general.
As to the issue of Design Review, while Mr. Hanna agrees that
the city may have the right for such review, questions arise as to
its appropriateness when viewed in the light of the code sections
siting in the memo from the City attorney's office. Section 15-
06.670(attached) in defining "Structure" specifically excludes a
fence or a wall used as a fence not exceeding six feet in height.
The proposed gate is a maximum of 5' high. The definition of
"Accessory Structure" seems to further exclude this gate as it is
not "subordinate or incidental to, or customarily associated with
the main structure or the principal use of the site, nor located
on the same site as the main structure or principal use." If it is
not a structure then neither the special rules governing accessory
uses apply nor does the condition for design review found in the
subdivision conditions. As part of the Site Modification
application we agree that the city may review the design with
regard to its compliance with existing general and specific plans,
zoning regulations, and policies, but not with the findings in
Sec. 15- 45.080.
We feel that it is important to note that granting this
application would not be setting a precedent. Examples of private
gated streets are the Three Oaks Court which was granted in the
subdivision process and Via Regina. We would certainly agree that
if the city is concerned about the proliferation of gated streets,
it should study the possibility of establishing ordinances or
policies to prohibit such. But since no such prohibitions now
exist, denial of this application would appear to be a violation
of private property rights.
The purpose of this application is not to promote
exclusivity, but to find a means for the homeowners to protect
their property as well as limiting their potential liability.
Both the Saratoga Fire District and the Sheriff's office have
signed the original letter to the city indicating they have no
problem with the gate. We now ask you to vote to uphold the
appeal and grant this application.
Very truly yours,
Vi 1•inia L. Fanelli
CURB
DOOR KING Model 810
1/2 HP, 120 volt, 1 ph
Slide gate Operator
DOOR KING Model 1 810
Telephone Entry System
PROPOSED FUTURE
MASONRY COLUMNS 4' -0'
14' -0" GATE OPENING WIDTH
SAFETY LOOP
TEL
SAFETY LOOP
4' -0
Receiving
Post
PARTIAL PLAN VIEW TOLL GATE ROAD
I" x 2" CHANNEL
RAILS
2" x 2" TRACK
RAILS -WELD
TO FENCE POSTS
4" x 4" BOLLARD
3 -0"
6' -0"
CURB
PAC -TEL
BOX
14' 0" FENCE SECTION
518" x 5/8" SQ PICKETS
@6
2" x 2" T POST
PG&E
M ER
B X
4" x 4" TUBULAR
1 1 11 1 1 1 1
EL POSTS
II IIII
DOOR KING
Model 1810
Telephone
Entry Housing
4" x 4" Steel Post
14' -0" GATE OPENING WIDTH
2" x 2" TUBE FRAME
OUTSIDE ELEVATION
2" x 2" support post
Revision
Project
Conirocior
Architect
Drown By
Checked By
DOOR KING Model 810
1/2 hp 120 volt I ph
continuous duty motor,
adjustable dutch.
permanently sealed bearings.
solid state controller with elec-
tronic self adjusting limits.
1" x 2" channel
drain rail track
Minimum 6" x 6" x 24"
deep post hole filled
with concrete
5' -0" MAX
GATE HEIGHT
JAN. 9. t992 TO PLANNING COMMISION
Revision JULY 29. 1991 ADD WALK GATE
Dote JULY 2, 1991 For PROPOSAL
A &D AUTOMATIC GATE COMPANY
2490 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA.94063 (415) 365 -8828
QUAIL RIDGE
Location SARATOGA, CA.
L. KERNS
Scale
Job No.
NONE
eel
N.
I OF I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 203
3
MEETING DATE: 4/15/92
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Request from San Jose Symphony Auxiliary to erect two (2)
special event signs for the 1992 Showcase Home
Recommended Motion: Approve request for special events signs.
Report Summary: Ms. Ann Hexamer, representing the San Jose Symphony
Auxiliary, has requested the temporary erection of two (2) special event
signs (24 sq. ft. each). The signs are to be located on Saratoga
Avenue, south of Cox Avenue and on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road north of the
Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way. The special event signs are not
permitted as a right and require approval by the City Council per
Section 15- 30.180 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The signs will advertise "Showcase '92 the annual Auxiliary fund
raiser and will be placed on the sites between April 16 June 8, 1992.
Approval of this request is consistent with previous approvals of
Auxiliary special event signs which were located on the Paul Masson
Winery site no longer an option due to demolition activity.
There is no processing or filing fee for this request. Therefore, the
request for waiver of any fees is not applicable in this case.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
1. Letter from San Jose Symphony
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM: 5EI
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Members of Saratoga City Council:
SAN J O S E S Y M P H O N Y A U X I L I A R Y
20367 Glen Brae Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 -4395
April 6, 1992
APR 6 1992
The San Jose Symphony Auxiliary requests permission to erect two
temporary special event signs promoting the organization's fifteenth
annual Designer Showcase Home. We also request the Council to waive
any potential fees.
The Showcase Home is the Auxiliary's primary fund raising activity on
behalf of the San Jose Symphony Orchestra. The Auxiliary is a non-
profit organization, and all proceeds from this activity directly
benefit the Orchestra.
In previous years, the promotional signage was placed on the permanent
Paul Masson Winery sign on Saratoga Avenue. This sign is no longer
available because of the demoliton at the site.
The proposed temporary signs would be placed on the west side of
Saratoga Avenue, south of Cox, on currently vacant land, and on
Saratoga Sunnyvale Road at the old Hubbard Johnson location. The
owners of both properties have given us their permission to use these
sites.
The signs would be erected on, or about, April 16, 1992, and would be
removed on, or about, June 8, 1992. Each sign is 4' x 6' and is pro-
fessionally painted with a blue background with white graphics. They
are to be mounted on two six feet 2" x 4 "s.
The 1992 Showcase Home is located in Los Gatos on Kennedy Road and is
open May 9 through June 7. Traditionally a significant number of
visitors to our homes come from Saratoga, and the presence of our pro-
motional signage has been a major help in attracting these supporters.
Your favorable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
/414
Ann Hexamer
Showcase '92 Co -Chair
criLs
b -up 8 au-» c pa7 5 11 t +m25-29 p a /J fr U 1 a ct Q J
J o --.0
o.16'J77 s!
u/i/J A j ji uQ s W a
1 101
uno.e ahl
c. -)7s
A /3, ,..fod
-fiz p hol bf' 5
DS 12 o °HS'
bra,s-?,..t uQ y d a,s c ti-V5
47
i
Printed on recycled paper.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
Meg Ca (well
Chairp Plannin• Commission
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Commission
DATE: April 7, 1992
SUBJECT: Satellite Dish Antenna Ordinance
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
The Satellite Dish Ordinance was presented to the City Council at
their 2/18/92 meeting. The Council referred the ordinance back to
the Planning Commission for further study and a report back to the
City Council by April 15, 1992.
Due to the complexity of the issue, the need to review materials
from other jurisdictions and to cover legal issues, additional
review time is required. The Planning Commission requests City
Council approval to report back upon completion of the study by
mid- summer. The ordinance will be public noticed again prior to
the Planning Commission and City Council meetings.