Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-20-1987 City Council Agenda packet
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY M SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 20, 1987 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Hakone Donation Recommended Motions Accept donation of $25.00 to purchase a flowering plant (azaela, rhodedendron, etc.) to be planted at Hakone Gardens as a memorial for Mr. Donald McDougall. Report Summary Ms. Dona Frost of Sunnyvale donated $25.00 to purchase a flowering plant for Hakone Gardens as a memorial to her father, Donald McDougall. Fiscal Impact Attachments Letter of acknowledgement to Dona Frost Motion Vote Staff recanmendation 5-0. 1 Agenda Item i D UNTrr- ‘t \e l \„,1, vo% u6 l �d w a 4-LL N k�. \\ft-c\Z-f. -\c\stive j k 1 Pau to the order of l DONA FROST (408) 735 -0637 1465 FLICKER WAY SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 k \3 QD Bank of America De Anza Square Branch 0927 P. 0. Box 2400 Sunnyvale, Ca 94087 Memo (10. )61) 0479 1 :12L0003581:04 79111092 72002228» I 11-35 1 Dollars EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: May 20, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Reprogramming of Previously Allocated HCDA Funds Recommended Motion: Approve Reprogramming of HCDA funds Report Summary: Council is requested to approve the reprogramming of HCDA funds to provide a total HCDA allocation for the Senior Center Addition of $91,000 as previously directed (November 19, 1986). In a separate fund transfer, Council approval is requested for the transfer of $10,000 previously allocated to Housing Re- habilitation to be used for Rehabilitation Administration in FY 1987/1988. The $10,000 will be used to offset staff cost of administering the City's housing rehab program. Fiscal Impacts: Reprogramming of previously allocated funds will facilitate the City's use of these funds in FY 1987/1988. Attachments: Transfer Control Records #5 (86/87) and #1 (87/88) Motion and Vote: Staff reconinendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 47° b AGENDA ITEM 14-&* FROM TO Project /Activity Name Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation Project /Activity Name Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation' Unspecified Local �tion SA 85 -76 Housing Rehab. SA 86 -51 2,302.18. $211,283.58, $(2,302.18) (3,427,82) 0 $207,855.18 Senior Center Addition SA 86 -22 ,$85,270.00 $5,730.00 total) $91,000.00 Jurisdiction /Agency City of Saratoga A. urisdiction/agency has approved the above transfer of funds and submitted necessary documentation to justify the transfer Y/N B. Does transfer require CAC, CC, and B/S approval 1. If yes, B/S approval (Date) 2. If No, transfer approved by project Representative 2. Transfer reflected on CCR and program ledger SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSFER CONTROL RECORD HCD Revised 9/5/85 or county Stab Use Only (Date) (Signature) (Signature) (Date) Date May 20 1987 Program Year 1986 87 Transfer No. 5 (Date) FROM TO Project /Activity Name Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation Project /Activity Name Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation Housing Rehab. SA 86 -51 $207,855.18 (10,000) $197,855.18 Rehab. Admin. SA 87 -52 O $10,000 $10,000 Jurisdiction /Agency City of. Saratoga SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSFER CONTROL RECORD HCD Revised 9/5/85 (F or County Staff Use Only A. urisdiction/agency has approved the above transfer of funds and submitted necessary documentation to justify the transfer Y/N B. Does transfer require CAC, CC, and B/S approval 1. If yes, B/S approval Transfer reflected on CCR and program ledger (Date) 2. If No, transfer approved by project Representative (Date) (Signature) (Signature) Y/N (Date) Date May 20, 1987 Program Year 19 8 7 8 8 Transfer No. (Date) 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL MEETING DATE: May 20, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager ;0 D 2 0 360 SUBJECT: Personnel Resolutions for Fiscal Year 1987/88: Resolution Au ho �z ng Puma -rend Positions in --Eity Service Resolution Setting Management Salaries; and Resolution Adopting Pay Schedules for Temporary Employees Recommended Motion: Approve Resolution No. Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service for Fiscal Year 1987/88 Approve Resolution No. 85 -9.72 Amending Resolution 85 -9.69 Setting Management Salary Ranges for Fiscal Year 1987/88 Approve Resolution No. Adopting Pay Schedule for Part -time Temporary Employees for 1987/88 Summary: The Resolution authorizing permanent positions in the City service ___,ihcludes:the two full time and one half time position authorized in Resolution 85 -9.71 adopted April 15, 1987. The Resolution setting management salaries reflects the results of the job market survey data used in setting ranges which is part of the comprehensive management compensation system adopted in June, 1986. (Resolution 85 -9.69) The Resolution adopting pay schedules for part -time temporary employees covers those part time positions which are filled on a temporary basis and are not part of the regular classifications. Fiscal Impacts: Wage and salary costs are included in the proposed 87/88 budget requests. Attachments: ,G 1. Resolution No.1 i 2. Resolution No. 8579.72 3. Resolution No.Zl) Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING PERMANENT POSITIONS IN CITY SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 The City Council of the City of Saratoga resolves as follows: The full -time and part -time positions listed below are hereby authorized for the fiscal year 1987/88. Department Number of Positions City Manager City Manager /City Clerk 1 Deputy City Clerk 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Administrative Secretary 1 4 Community Services Community Services Director 1 Community Service Officer 2 Receptionist /Switchboard Operator 1.125 4.125 Recreation Recreation Director 1 Recreation Supervisor 1 Volunteer Coordinator .6 Clerk Typist II .75 Clerk Typist III 1 4.35 Finance Finance Director 1 Accountant .5 Account Clerk 2 3.5 Engineering, Inspection City Engineer 1 Chief Building Inspector 1 Assistant Civil Engineer 1 Plans Examiner 1 Senior Engineering Technician 1 Public Works Inspector 1 Building Inspector 3 Secretary 1 Clerk Typist III 1 11 Planning Department Planning Director 1 Associate Planner 2 Assistant Planner 2 Assistant Planner (contract) 1 for one year only Administrative Secretary 1 Clerk Typist I .6 7.6 Maintenance Maintenance Director 1 Parks and Buildings Supervisor 1 Streets Supervisor 1 Japanese Garden Specialist 1 Japanese Garden Caretaker .5 Park Maintenance III 1 Park Maintenance II 2 Park Maintenance I 4 Street Maintenance Leadworker 1 Street Maintenance II 3 Street Maintenance I 3 Secreatry 1 Clerk Typist III 1 Custodian 2 22.5 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 85 -9.69 SETTING MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 WHEREAS, The City Council has adopted a comprehensive management compensation system which sets forth the method by which salary ranges for management staff are determined, the authorized monthly salary ranges effective July 1, 1987, are as follows: The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 20th day of May, 1987, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 85 -9.72 City Manager City Engineer Maintenance Director Planning Director Finance Director Community Services Director Recreation Director Chief Building Inspector Administrative Assistant Parks and Buildings Maintenance Supervisor Street Maintenance Supervisor MAYOR $4547 5911 3735 4856 3396 4414 3.396 4414 3387 4403 3248 4222 2934 3814 3062 3980 2675 3477 2674 3476 2674 3476 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING PAY SCHEDULE FOR PART -TIME TEMPORARY POSITIONS The authorized pay schedule for part -time temporary positions is as follows: HOURLY RATES A B C D Crossing Guard $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 Custodian 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 Hakone Weekend Worker 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 Facility Supervisor 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the 20th day of May, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. MAYOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 5 -11 -87 (5- 20 -87) Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -2 (Annexation) AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL 82,0 -2_° Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt Resolution of Preliminary approval of Engineer's Report. 2. Adopt Resolution of Intention to order the Annexation of Territory to an existing Assessment District and the levy and collection of assessments within said territory pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. This resolution also sets the '.time and place for the public hearing for said district on June 17,1987. Report Summary: At your April 15, 1987 meeting you adopted Resolution No. 2421, a resolution describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1987 -1988 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional council action is required for the district to proceed. The Engineer'sReport is not included because of the following Engineer's Report which contains the total assessment for each zone, rules for spreading assessment, cost estimate for each zone, description of work, assessment roll and assessment diagram. This report is similar in size to existing landscaping and Lighting District Report and will be available on May 20, 1987 for council review. Fiscal Impacts: The cost for the Administration, Maintenance and Servicing Costs are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara Councy Assessor's Office will collect the amount through the taxes and in turn, send to the City. Attachments: 1. Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night. 2. Resolution No. 3. Resolution No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J�0 MEETING DATE: 5 -11 -87 (5- 20 -87) ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing) Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt Resolution -of :prelimina"ry -approval cif-Engineer's Report. 2. .Adopt Resolution of "Intention to order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant fo Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 This resolution also sets the time and place of the public hearing for said district on June 17, 1987. Repoft Summary: At your April 15, 1987 meeting you adopted Resolution No. 2420 a resolution describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal':Year 1987 -1988 for the continuation of Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional council action is required for this district to proceed. The Engineer's Report is not included because of the following: Engineer's Report contains the total assessment for each zone, rules for spreading assessment, cost estimate for each zone, description of work, Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram. This report is made up of 110 pages and will be available on May 20, 1987 for Council Review. Fiscal Impacts: The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's office will collect the amounts through the taxes, in turn, send to the City. Attachments: 1. Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night.' 2. Resolution No. 3. Resolution No. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL 920 2 0 23 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /24 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE May 20, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Fruitvale Avenue Crosswalk at Redwood School Recommended Motion: CITY MGR. APPROVAL Remove crosswalk on Fruitvale Avenue at Redwood School. Removal to be accomplished during summer closing. Fiscal Impacts: $100 to remove stripes. Attachments: 1 Public Safety Commission Report. 2 Staff Report. 3 PTA Request for stop signs. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. 6 70 Report Summary: PTA requested stop signs on Fruitvale Avenue at the crosswalk. Study revealed that a crosswalk should not be placed at this location in that there is a signalized within 600' and the distance between the bus stop and the school entrance is essentially the same if not shorter using the Allendale crossing. Under no circumstance should the request for stop signs be approved. This would create a very hazardous condition. ti April 29, 1987 To: Bob Shook, City Engineer From: Community Services Director Subject: Your referral to the Public Safety Commission; Crosswalk at Fruitvale Avenue in front of Redwood Junior High School This is in response to your memorandum dated March 20, 1987, to the Public Safety Commission which was considered at their regular meeting of April 13, 1987. Your memorandum indicated that the Redwood Junior High School PTA had sent a letter to the City Council requesting the placement of a school crossing guard or stop sign at the crosswalk in front of the school on Fruitvale Avenue. The letter had been referred to you for a staff evaluation and eventual forwarding to the Public Safety Commission for a final recommendation. The Commission was impressed with the staff analysis of the problem contained in your March 12th memorandum, and agreed with your recommendation that the crosswalk in front of the school should be removed so that students wishing to cross Fruitvale would use the signalized intersection and crosswalk located at Fruitvale and Allendale. As your staff report pointed out, the distance from the bus stop to either crosswalk is approximately the same. The only reason that students appear to be inclined to use the crosswalk in front of the school is that it is not signalized, and they are not required to wait for a changing traffic light. The Commission also wanted to recommend that the crosswalk removal occur while the school is out of session during the summer so that such an action would not confuse existing students attending the school and already in the habit of using the crosswalk proposed for removal. The Commission also felt that the letter from the Redwood Junior High School PTA President together with your staff report and the Commission's recommendation should be brought to the attention of the Principal of Redwood Junior High School before such a proposed action is finalized, and that the Principal be advised of the date and time the matter will be considered by the City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions in this matter, or if I can otherwise be of further assistance. M gg 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 cc: Public Safety Commission City Manager LO APR 29 198i COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM RSS /df Public Safety Commission City Engineer Fruitvale Avenue Crosswalk Redwood School Attachments 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 DATE: March 12, 1987 The Redwood School PTA has requested that the City consider a crossing guard or a stop sign at the crosswalk in front of the school on Fruitvale Avenue. These requests have been reviewed and evaluated, resulting in the following discussion: Presently the students attending Redwood Junior High School using the Santa Clara County transit bus system, from the bus stop and lay -over area at West Valley College meander over to the school by way of said crosswalk. This migration is unorganized and the sometimes straggling line of students causes unnecessary delay to the vehicles using Fruitvale Avenue. A crossing -guard might be considered, if there wasn't a signalized intersection =w ±t pedestrian crosswalks and actuation within 600 feet of the crosswalk in question (Fruitvale /Allendale). A stop sign on Fruitvale Avenue for the pedestrian crosswalk could not even be considered, not only because of not being warranted, but also of the hazard and misuse by and of the vehicles traveling on Fruitvale Avenue. The only solution to this situation is to eliminate the present cross- walk in front of the school and advise the administration of Redwood School to instruct their students to use the pedestrian crosswalk facilities at the signalized intersection of Fruitvale Avenue at Allendale Avenue (600 ft. northerly). The walking distance for the present route and the proposed new route is approximately the same. This solution is our recommendation along with the suggestion for strict enforcement by the school and traffic patrol to insure that the students would use the safer route. Attached is a copy of the letter from the PTA along with copies from the Traffic Manual on school area traffic safety and a sketch showing the existing route and the proposed route. 10f-2 10 -1979 10 -03.1 Polity There is a need in each school district to establish an organization concerned with the safety of stu- dents enroute to and from school. Through such an organization the school district can be responsibly involved in processing requests for traffic safety con- trols and for safety programs, and through its action can coordinate activities within and between the community and public agencies. In order to provide a responsible administrative structure for school area protection, each school dis- trict is encouraged to (1) assign student safety re- sponsibilities to a competent staff member and /or (2) organize a school safety advisory committee to serve the needs of each public and /or private school. Each staff member and /or safety advisory commit- tee may serve one or more schools, depending upon the size of the district, geographical locations of schools, the number of governmental jurisdictions involved and the scope or number of student -traffic related problems. When the advisory committee structure is used, the committee should be composed of governmental and school district authorities who have the responsi- bility and authority to intiate and provide programs and projects. Representatives from the city and /or county superintendent of schools office should be the official members. Advisors should include representatives of the local area Safety Council, city and /or county traffic engineers, police authorities and Parent Teachers Association, plus others as needed. 10 03.2 Staff and Committee Responsibility The duties of staff members and /or each commit- tee should be to guide and coordinate all activities connected with the `school traffic safety program, such as: 1. Establish traffic safety policies and procedures. 2. Review and approve the various phases of the school student traffic safety program. 3. Review and process requests and complaints. 4. Recommend priorities for proposed improve- ment projects. 5. Promote good public relations. 6. Notify immediately the responsible agencies of urgent school- pedestrian-traffic related safety problems. 7. County Superintendent of Schools' office should coordinate all safety committees actions in es- tablishing and promoting uniform practices for school pedestrian safety throughout the county. SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Traffic Manual School Safety Advisory Committees 10-03 10-03.3 School Responsibility The principal or designated staff person of every school through twelfth grade should: 1. Develop cooperatively, with local officials a "Suggested Route to School" plan showing all streets, school location and the routes to be used by students enroute to and from school. The plan should be designed to provide a maximum of safety for students .by taking advantage of existing traffic controls. Students should be re- quired to walk somewhat longer distances when necessary in order to use existing crossing con trols. 2. Instruct the students on the use and purpose of the "Suggested Route to School" plan. 3. Make periodic field reviews of the plan to en- sure that the "Suggested Route to School" is being used. Special attention should be given to unsafe activities of the students. Recommenda- tions for alteration or addition of parking, bus loading and traffic controls, and removal of ob- structions along the route should be referred promptly to the responsible government agency. 4. Review the "Suggested Route to School plan annually for any necessary revisions or addi- tions. Problems about school pedestrian safety on the ap- proaches to the school, raised by parents and others, shall be referred to the local principal for review and transmission to the appropriate staff person or to the school safety advisory committee. The school district shall eontact the local public agency directly in those cases where financial participation by the school dis- trict is required. 10 Governmental Traffic Agency Responsibility Responsible traffic authorities shall investigate all locations along the "Suggested Route to School" where substantial school pedestrian- vehicle conflicts may occur and recommend appropriate traffic con- trol measures. Inherent in this analytical process are two fundamental assumptions developed from suc- cessful past experience: 1. The maximum delay to students at an uncon- trolled crossing should be no greater 'than would be experienced if a traffic control signal were in operation at the location. 2. An adequate crossing gap in approaching traffic should occur randomly at an average rate of at least once each minute during the school cross- ing periods. at� As noted in Section 10 -03.4, an adequate crossing gap in approaching traffic should occur randomly at an average rate of at least once each minute during the school crossing periods. SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Adult Crossing 10-08.1 General Adult Crossing Guards are a supplemental tech- nique and not a traffic control device. They may be assigned (CVC 2815) at designated school crossings, to assist elementary school pedestrians at specified hours when going to or from school. The following suggested policy for their assignment applies only to crossings serving elementary school pedestrians on the "Suggested Route to School." An Adult Crossing Guard should be considered when: 1. Special problems exist which make it necessary to assist elementary school pedestrians in cross- ing the street, such as at an unusually complicat- ed intersection with frequent turning move- ments and high vehicular speeds; or 2. A change in the school crossing location is immi- nent but prevailing conditions require school crossing supervision for a limited time and it is infeasible to install another form of control for a temporary period. 10-08.2 Warrants for Adult Crossing Guards Adult Crossing Guards normally are assigned where official supervision of elementary school pedestrians is desirable while they cross a public highway on the "Suggested Route to School and at least 40 elementary school pedestrians for each of any two hours daily use the crossing while going to or from school. Adult crossing guards may be war- ranted under the following conditions: 1. At uncontrolled crossings where there is no al- 10-09.1 General Pedestrian Separation Structures eliminate vehic- ular- pedestrian conflicts but are necessarily limited to selected locations where the safety benefits clearly balance the public investment. Separation structures are supplemental techniques for providing school pedestrian safety and are not traffic control devices. 10 -09.2 Warrants Pedestrian Separation Structures should be consid- Traffic Manual 10 -07.4 Special Conditions A School Safety Patrol shall not be assigned where inadequate stopping sight distance prevails, unless flashing yellow beacons are installed for operation during School Crossing hours. //Ire L Se €f(• j j tiZe 6. 1-o ternate controlled crossing within 600 feet; and a. In urban areas where the vehicular traffic volume exceeds 350 in each of any two daily hours during which 40 or more school pede- strians cross while going to or from school; or b. In rural areas where the vehicular traffic vol- ume exceeds 300 in each of any two daily hours during which 30 or more school pede- strians cross while going to or from school. Whenever the critical approach speed ex- ceeds 40 mph, the warrants for rural areas should be applied. 2. At stop sign controlled crossings: a. Where the vehicular traffic volume on undi- vided highways of four or more lanes exceeds 500 per hour during any period when the school pedestrians are going to or from school. 3. At traffic signal controlled crossings: a. Where the number of vehicular turning movements through the school crosswalk ex- ceeds 300 per hour while school pedestrians are going to or from school. b. Where there are circumstances not nor- mally present at a signalized intersection, such as crosswalks more than 80 feet long with no intermediate refuge, or an abnor- mally high proportion of large commercial vehicles. Guard 10-08 Pedestrian Separation Structures 10-09 ered where the following conditions are fulfilled. 1. The prevailing conditions that require a school pedestrian crossing must be sufficiently perma- nent to justify the separation structure; and 2. The location must be on the "Suggested Route to School" at an uncontrolled intersection or midblock location along a freeway, expressway or major arterial street where the width, traffic speed and volume make it undesirable for pede- strians to cross; and REDWOOD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL Phone: (408)867 -3042 City Council City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Council Members: We are writing this letter as concerned parents whose children attend Redwood School. Currently, Redwood students must cross Fruitvale Avenue, against heavy traffic, in order to reach the transit stop at West Valley College. Many efforts to secure a crossing guard (beginning in September, 1985) have been made to no avail. It would seem most appropriate for the Saratoga City Council to place this concern high on its list of priorities. We are currently faced with a situation that demands your attention. Because of the numbers of students who cross Fruitvale each day, a crossing guard or stop sign at the crosswalk seems quite logical. Your prompt attention to this matter at the next council meeting would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, REDW00D SCHOOL PTA v by Elsie Ward, President /kmb r, NOV 2 5 1986 f° 1Z-17 C 13925 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 November 21, 1986 4ECEfVED DEC 1 1986 NIA NNMTr DEv OIL do1 Cj i n vs rn 0 N MEETING DATE 5/20/87 ORIGINATING DEPT ENGINEERING Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution MV 171 Fiscal Impacts: $150 to intall signs and paint curb. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PARKING LIMITATIONS IN FRONT OF VILLAGE LIBRARY Attachments: Resolution. Staff Report. Memo to Public Safety Commission. Letter from:;Friends of the Saratoga Libraries. Letter. fromA3ook -Go -Round Letter from VITA. Memo fum Public Safety Commission Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. go 3 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /257 AGENDA ITEM 7 e) CITY MGR. APPROVAL limiting parking along frontage of Village Library. Repoft Summary: Request has been made by Friends of the Saratoga Library to change parking limitation along library frontage. There is no longer a need for 15 minute limitation. Increasing to one hour limitation is more in line with current use of library. Lengthening parking prohibition to 37 feet will ease congestion and increase Visi- bility for students crossing at this location. Additionally, VITA has requested elimination of parking restrictions opposite the_ library. This would allow all day parking which would limit access to the library and surrounding business. It is recommended that this request be denied. vote: Oak Street Oak Street AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF OAK STREET AND LIMITING PARKING TO ONE HOUR ON A PORTION OF OAK STREET The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: The following portions of street in the City of Saratoga are hereby declared to be congested areas and the following limits for parking of motor vehicles are hereby established for said portions of said streets: NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Southeasterly side between 37 feet southwesterly of the end of curb return at State Route 9 and 125 feet southwesterly of the end of curb return. PARKING LIMIT Southeast side between the end No Parking of curb return at State Route Anytime 9 and 37 feet southwesterly of the end of curb return. one hour parking 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sundays and Holidays excepted. The within provisions shall, subject to Section 2 hereof, become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed to designate said limited parking. Section 2: The above area is declared to be a tow away zone in accord with Section 9- 15.070 of the Saratoga City Code, and in addi- tion to posting the applicable 'no parking' signs, either as separate signs or in conjunction therewith, the Director of Maintenance Services shall post the necessary signs giving notice of the removal of any motor vehicle parked in violation of the foregoing. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 6th day of May 1987, by the following MAYOR REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED MOTION: BACKGROUND: ANAYLSIS: oaum ©gl hNno SUBJECT: Modify Parking on Oak Street Fronting the Village Library DATE: 5 -6 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 5 -20 -87 Adopt Resolution MV- limiting parking along southeasterly side of Oak Street for 125 feet southwesterly of State Route 9 (Village Library frontage). In May 1986 the Community Service Officer requested this office to review the parking along the Village Library frontage on Oak Street. We made such a review and recommended the existing 'no parking' area at the corner and chang- ingrthe 15 minute parking limitation to one -hour on the balance of the frontage. The recommendation was forwarded to the Public Safety Commission in June. The commission concluded that enforcement to the existing limit was the more appropriate action. Apparently the enforcement has been effective because users of the library have indicated the parking limitation is too restrictive for the current users of the building. Friends of the Library requested that the park ing limitation be changed to one hour on both sides of the street. VITA has requested elimination of parking time limit on the opposite side of Oak Street. The existing limitation of 15 minutes was established when the building was used exclusively as a library and there was a need to turn over that parking. The current use does not require or want that much turnover. Therefore, there is no reason to maintain this limit. However, having one -hour limitation on both sides of the street ensures access to the library for both users. Employee parking is subject to same problem found in all areas of time limited parking, i.e. provide on -site parking or have to park and walk. Allowing all day parking here would discourage community use of both services housed in the library. Other businesses in the area would be impacted also. In addition the provision of 'no parking' near the corner will ease the congestion as related to right turning vehicles and will improve visibility for the students from Oak Street School using this crossing. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Modifying the parking along this library frontage to provide for 37 feet of 'no parking' and 88 feet of one -hour parking will more effectively control the congestion at this location. Resolution MV- will accomplish this. This is a change from our earlier suggestion for a longer 'no parking' area. The shorter length will adequately accommodate the right turn movement. Robert Shook City Engineer RSS /df 5/6/87 Page 2 a. RSS /ED :cd OEU'W '0 MEMORANDUM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408).887 -3438 TO: Public Safety Commission FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: PARKING PROHIBITION. ON A PORTION OF OAK STREET (In front of old library) S. Shook ity Engineer Attachments: Memo from Community Service Officer Sketch of location DATE: 6 -26 -86 g o -r W? %Q- d 6e$0,444 i S X falet tta-ca1n r -414-e+12. l q �-v /ten c��sA►/ rs /o,•w, 1c fo t -7/4/1 PG .�ECE1 VEL AUG 71986 COMMI IM ITY r" t-- It has been brought to our attention that the fifteen (15) minute parking limit along a portion of the southeasterly side of Oak Street in front of the old library is being abused. Also the school crossing guard who works the corner of. Oak Street and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road has complained to the Community Service Officer of the congestion due to vehicles parked at this location and making it hard to see around the corner. We would like to recommend that two (2) parking stalls closest to the corner be completely eliminated and the remaining spaces be changed from fifteen minutes to one (1) hour. This proposal would necessitate the revision of Section 1 of. Ordinance No. 4 -A -9 which was adopted on April 16, 1958 by the City Council. auw 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (4o8) 867- :3.1 :38 Community Service Officer May 8, 1986 MEMO TO: Erman Dorsey, City Traffic Engineer FROM: Rebecca Roldan, CSO SUBJECT: Re- Evaluation of parking limitations on Oak St. Hwy 9. On yesterday's date I was approached by a citizen who lives in the area of Oak St and she stated that the 15 minute parking limitation in front of the bookstore was being abused and should be re- evaluated. I was aware of the abuse and feel she has a valid complaint. The area I believe should have the time element modified. Either by changing the 15 minute zone to 2 hours, or make the entire section on the south side of Oak St follow the rest of the red zone painted along the south west side of the street. I have had a few complaints from the cross guard who works that corner in question, and he says many a times he or the driver was unable to see around the corner because of the parked cars. Also, that is a very congested business area with the Wells Fargo Bank, Cheveron Gas Station and the Gallery all in a 100 foot radius of the corner. Please let me know if any thing can be done on that corner or if you need any further information on the area to saftey factors or further research. Thanks Rebecca P S of the) vt eAceE -o ct.re. teL l o q ticrdarAtz. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles J\ Dear Members: Friends of the Saratoga Libraries Saratoga City Mayor and City Council Members Saratoga City Council Offices Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Sincerely, 1/4: mss Amy June Jorgensen Secretary, Friends of the Saratoga Libraries The Board of the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries would like to express an opinion on the parking restriction zones in front of and across the street from the old Library building on Oak Street, now used to house the Book -Go -Round and Vita. We feel it would be advantageous to our clients to have an hour parking zone on both sides of the street in the above area. We would like to see the hour parking zone across the street from the building kept intact, and the 15 minute zone in front of the building and our shop increased to 1 hour. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. P.O.Box 2642 May 1, 1987 May 4, 1987 Joyce Hlava Mayor, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Mary Jeanne Fenn Manager, Book -Go -Round cc: City Council City Engineer VITA Friends of the Saratoga Libraries Dear Mayor Hlava, The Friends of the Saratoga Libraries requests that the parking on both sides of Oak Street in front of the old library building be fixed at one hour. As it stands now, the 15 minute limit directly in front of the building severely restricts the time visitors may spend in the building and complicates servicing the Book -Go- Round. Having both sides of Oak Street limited to one hour parking will: 1. provide reasonable but limited access for customers of the Book -Go -Round and area businesses 2. allow adequate time for visitors and customers to conduct business; 3, ensure direct access to the front of the building, benefiting customers with large donations or purchases and enabling Book Go -Round volunteers to transfer new stock into the building without undue hardship. The one hour limit for both sides of Oak Street in front of the old library building will keep parking vital and productive. This improvement should positively affect the income of the Book -Go- Round, thereby increasing the funds available for the Saratoga Community Library. We at the Book -Go -Round hope that you will support our efforts to improve library services in Saratoga. GENERAL DIRECTOR Judith Lyn Sutton BOARD OF DIRECTORS Samuel Balton, M.D. William Craycroft Glen A. Drummond Greg Grodhauss William Kamin G.P. Largent, M.D. Daniel E. Leckrone Carol Lohr John F. Mallory Christopher Menkin William F. Morrison David Mosby Charles Newman Pamela Nobel Bob Odineal Bill Peck Ann Peterson Joseph F. Pruss Sue Robert Joanne Gale Rosso Frank Rosso Betty Lou Rowe Virginia Schlomann Karen Scott Janice Sexton Duane Serrano Judith Lyn Sutton Jay M. Supkoff Charles Swan John B. Swartz Michael R. Talley Robert van der Toorren Candi Wozniak Barbara Yamamoto DIRECTOR'S CIRCLE ($1000 Contributors) Samuel Paula Ballon Richard Jeannette Beverly William Julie Craycroft Glen Sandra Drummond Dan JoAnn Erlin W. Donald Head Floyd Jean Kvamme Mr. Mrs. Jerome Lohr Christopher Menkin Mr. Mrs. Donald B. Miller Charles Newman Betty Willys Peck Edward Robert Sue Robert Frank Joanne Rosso Betty Lou Rowe David Karen Scott Perrin Jean Smith Jay Shirley Supkoff John Judith Swartz Charles B.J. Tucker Candi Wozniak W ff, t, v Valley Institute of Theatre Artskid, s April 7, 1987 Joyce Hlava Mayor, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Hlava: Operations Manager cc: Mary Jean Fenn Book -Go -Round P.O. Box 999 Saratoga, California 95071 Tel. (408) 867 -2395 We at VITA would like to request that the City Council vote to remove the one -hour parking restriction from the northwest side of Oak Street in downtown Saratoga. As VITA has grown over the years, we have added to our permanent staff, which now numbers 17 and is still growing as we begin our 1987 season. The parking restriction, apparently a holdover from Village Library days, is no longer applicable and significantly impacts our daily operations. Parking in this area is extremely limited, as you doubtless know, and cars parked across the street from our office for any length of time exceeding an hour are ticketed regularly. This situation is difficult not only for our staff but also for the many community volunteers who give their time to assist in the office, board members donors, and ticket purchasers. With the advent of our summer season approaching rapidly, we ask that this matter be taken under advisement at the earliest opportunity. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any questions we can answer regarding this request. We hope the City Council will assist us in better serving our community. OTVW' cD2 MEMORANDUM Please contact me if you have any questions. jm cc: City Manager Public Safety Commission 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Engineer DATE: May 15, 1987 FROM: Community Services Director SUBJECT: Parking Limitations in front of the Village Library Last Thursday, on May 7, 1987, you verbally requested that I run a report concerning parking limitations in front of the Village Library you had prepared for the City Council by the Public Safety Commission at their May llth meeting. This is to follow up on that request. In your report, you indicated that the Friends of the Library had contacted the City requesting a change in the parking limita- tion along the library frontage road. They had indicated there was no longer a need for the 15 minute parking limitation. They requested increasing the limitation to 1 hour around Oak Street which would be beneficial to the Friends of the Library. You also indicated that the City had been contacted by the Valley Institute of the Theatre Arts (VITA) with a request to eliminate all parking restrictions opposite the library allowing for all day parking. Your report recommended against this particular request on the grounds that it would restrict commerce to the Village Library and adjacent businesses. Your report recommended approving the modification of the parking limitation in front the Village Library as requested by the Friends of the Library. You also recommended lengthening the parking prohibition from the corner on Oak Street by 37 feet to ease congestion and in- crease visibility for students using the crosswalk at that loca- tion. After some deliberation, the Commission decided to support your staff recommendation to the City Council. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /a AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 20, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: RECOMMENDED MOTION REPORT SUMMARY FISCAL IMPACTS None ATTACHMENTS MOTION AND VOTE Staff recommendation 5 -0. 1/ City Manager SUBJECT: Letter from Mr. Mrs. Kirk requesting reimbursement of sidewalk repair Deny the request. Establish that the City will not reimburse property owners for sidewalk, curb and gutter repair undertaken at their own expense either prior to or after July 1, 1986. 1. Memorandum dated 5/14/87 2. Kirk letter Analysis of request for reimbursement of sidewalk repair cost incurred in June, 1985, by the Kirks prior to change in City policy which established repair program as part of 1986 -87 and future years' budgets at no cost to property owners. Examines policy options: 1) No reimbursement policy or 2) Establish policy and determine time limit for reimbursement. Examines potential conse- quences of option two should policy be changed back. Concludes that ex post facto reimbursement could create future policy problems for current and future Councils. Dan Trinidad Engineering Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Trinidad, As per our conversation in April, 1987, I understand the city will be replacing some of the sidewalks on La Paloma free of cost to the homeowner. You also advised the city has always had the option of paying for this expense. You will recall that when I contacted your office during the summer of 1985, I was told the city would not pay for replacement of deteriorated sidewalksbecause it was the "homeowners" responsibility. So due to the poor condition of the sidewalk (from the trees I presume were planted by the city) and the increasing numer of children and elderly, my husband and I spent $750 so that no one would injure themselves.cn the :raised sidewalk. Needless to say, my husband and I do not think it is fair for the city to now authorize sidewalk replacements at our expense as taxpayers, unless we are justifiably reimbursed for the cost we incurred or are credited on the next tax assessment bill. Otherwise we strongly recommend you bill the respective homeowner for what your office previously represented was the homeowners burden. A response from you at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, George E. and Nancy G. Kirk 20270 La Paloma Saratoga, CA 95070 Enclosure cc: Bob Shook M 6, 1987 '/o C FOR el: :0850'0i34530 0L PAY TO THE ORDER OF NANCY G. KIRK GEORGE E. KIRK, JR.. LIC. N3668199 N3667854 20270 LA PALOMA AVE. 867 -7744 RAIOGA -rA. 95070:2.. LLARS' Ca IMPERIAL SAVlI1G SARATOGA OFFICE 20473 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD p T 4 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 .f NANCY G. KIRK GEORGE E. KIRK, JR. LIC. N3668199 N3667854 20270 LA PALOMA AVE. 867 -7744 SARATOGA, CA 95070 IMPERIAL SAVIIIGS SARATOGA OFFICE 20473 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 FOR 4:32L 0180 180 90- 8135/3211- 1 511' G/ ,s a'.S 8; LLARS 0'000004 79 2 5," TV'W' oQ 0 Il�6C� 13777 FRUITVALE (408) 867 -3438 May 14, 1987 To: City Council AVENUE From: City Manager Subject: Letter from Mr. Mrs. Kirk requesting reimbursement of sidewalk repair SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson RECOMENDEDICITION Deny the request. Establish that the City will not reimburse property owners for sidewalk, curb and gutter repair undertaken at their own expense either prior to or after July 1, 1986. BACKGROUND Under the provision of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the owners of private property are legally responsible for maintenance and repair of sidewalks, curbs and gutters adjacent to their property even though they may be located within the City's street right -of- way. Prior to this fiscal year, it was the policy of the City to require property owners to make such repairs. Because of potential liability problems and the difficult public relations problems associated with the policy, the Council directed the staff to determine the annual cost of properly maintaining sidewalks, curbs and gutters and to propose a program of repair for the Council to review at its policy development conference in March of 1986. The conclusions of the report were that annual repair for the entire system of sidewalks, curbs and gutters could be put on a 50 year life cycle at an annualized cost of $60,000 to $70,000. It was the decision of the Council to include such a program in future budgets. Subsequently, the approved 1986- 87 budget contained an allocation of funds, and the City is currently out to bid to do the $64,000 of work approved in the budget. ANALYSIS The Kirk's had their sidewalks replaced in June of 1985, one year before the policy change went into effect. Since the change in policy, the City has assumed the responsibility for such repairs and replacement which, of course, it is within your authority to do. The Kirk's request poses a further policy question for the City Council, should the City establish a reimbursement policy and if so what period of time prior to July 1, 1986? Since the City has taken the responsibility, it seems to be clearly inappropriate for a policy of reimbursement to cover any repairs or replacements undertaken after July 1, 1986. Conversely, to establish a reimbursement policy which would go back to the incorporation of the City To: City Council Page 2 Subject: Letter from Mr. Mrs. Kirk requesting 5/14/87 reimbursement of sidewalk repair would be equally inappropriate for several reasons, depreciated value and lack of knowledge as to whether the City policy has been the same for thirty years are just two which come to mind immediately. Also, the utility users tax which is used for street maintenance did not go into effect until July 1, 1985. This, of course, was after the Kirk's had done their work. Policy choices seem to be as follows: 1. Do not adopt a policy of reimbursement for repair of sidewalks, curbs and gutters undertaken at property owner expense regardless of when the work was done. 2. Adopt such a policy, but limit the time frame for a period of time prior to July 1, 1986. In considering the second option, it is my belief that the time period should not exceed three years and_probably should cover only that time period between July 1, 1986, and July 1, 1985, when the utility users tax took effect. Otherwise, I would find it difficult to justify to others why one property owner was reimbursed and another was not. FUMES AND VIOLS Cities are dynamic places; policies change all the time. Fees for services are constantly going up and down. Inequity is bound to occur when policy decisions are made either by the electorate directly or by their representatives. Tax laws are a classic example where situations change where some people are better off and others worse off depending on their individual circumstances. This policy is a case in point. Many people have probably spent money to repair their sidewalks in this City. Should the economic situation of the City change drastically for the worse, a change in policy could occur once again. As long as the policy exists, property owners will not have the financial responsibility of repairing sidewalks. If it changes, that responsibility will shift back to them. If the City has a reimbursement policy, how does it respond to the property owner whose sidewalk was going to be replaced but a change in policy prevents that from happening? Is that person claim as valid as the Kirk's? In my mind, the answer would be yes. So I would conclude that the City Council adopt policy option number one, do not make reimbursements. If you believe a reimbursement policy is justified, it should be limited to one year before and one year after the policy is adopted or repealed as the case may be. Harry R. -acock jm EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: May 20, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning Zeq SUBJECT: Saratoga Village Plan Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor and City Council, with attachments Motion and Vote: Approved with amendments 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: g.g In September, 1986, the Saratoga Village Task Force gave conceptual approval to the Village Plan document prepared by the Mackay Somps planning consulting firm. The Planning ^Commission reviewed the document at a study session (11/4/86) and two public hearings (1 /28/87 and 2/25/87). Their report and recommendations to the Council on the conceptual Plan were finalized at their 3/25/87 meeting. CITY MGR. APPROVAL -4X/fe-- Recommended Motion: That the City Council conduct the public hearing, receive public testimony, review the recommendations from the Planning Commission and either approve, amend or deny the conceptual Village Plari. If approval or amended approval, direct Staff to prepare the Specific Plan and Implementation Program. Report Summary: vc°; REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Village Plan Background In September, 1986, the Saratoga Village Task Force gave conceptual approval to the Saratoga Village Planning program prepared by Mackay Somps planning consulting firm. The Task Force recommended that the Plan be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and adoption. The Task Force also directed that a complete and detailed implementation program be prepared for adoption along with the Plan. The Planning Commission held a study session on the Village Plan in November, 1986. A summary of the Commission's comments was sent to the consultant, who then responded to the comments at a public hearing, held by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1987. The Commission received significant public input at the hearing and continued their discussion to February 25. The consultant was again asked to respond in writing to several items of discussion raised at the 1/28/87 hearing. At the 2/25/87 meeting, the Commission reviewed the response prepared by the consultant and drafted its comments and recommendations to the City Council. The Commission finalized its comments at the March 25, 1987 meeting. Recommendation Og ©2 0 The Saratoga Village Plan will be adopted as a Specific Plan to help implement the General Plan. The Saratoga Village Planning Program document prepared by Mackay Somps is a preliminary document from which the Specific Plan, with a complete implementation program, will result. At this point the Council should hold a public hearing, receive public testimony, review the recommendations from the Planning Commission, and either approve, amend or deny the conceptual plan. If approved, the Council should then give staff direction on preparation of the DATE: 4/21/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 5/20/87 P Memorandum to Mayor City Council Re: Village Plan 4/21/87 Page 2 Specific Plan. Staff will then prepare the document and schedule it at a later date for public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. It is anticipated that concurrent hearings on the adoption of the Plan, along with the required general plan and zoning text amendments, design review guidelines and other necessary implementation measures, will occur in September of this year. Planning Commission Recommendations The organization of the Commission's recommendations follows the format of the Village plan document. I. Land Use /Zoning a. Commission agrees that two zoning districts, C -H -1 and C- H-2, are necessary. b. Commission recommends that the height of structures on Big Basin Way be limited to two(2) stories. Three(3) stories could be permitted on the rear of properties which slope down to the creek on the north side of Big Basin Way, but all parking impacts associated with 3- story structures should be assessed in detail. c. Commission recommends that a use permit be required and for office uses and that such uses be located either above ground level or at ground level but behind another commercial use. The Commission further recommends, in relation to non conforming office uses that will result from the proposal, that the City enforce its regulations on time limits for the elimination of non conforming uses (Section 15- 65.110 of the City Code). d. Corrections to map errors the Commission concurs with the consultant's recommendation on two map errors. 1) The parcel owned by Morrison on 5th Street between Big Basin Way and Oak Street should not be split by two districts in the proposed rezoning. It should all be rezoned to the C -H -1 designation. 2) The parcel owned by Fitzsimmons at the west end of Big Basin Way (near the proposed turnaround location) is shown on the "Existing Zoning" map as C -V. The lot is actually zoned R -M- 4,000. The Commission concurs with the consultant's recommendation that the lot be rezoned to the C -H -2 designation. Memorandum to Mayor City Council Re: Village Plan II. Circulation and Parking a. The Commission recommends that the issue of employee and proprietor long -term parking be addressed and enforced. b. The Commission is in favor of researching the use of in- lieu fees as a funding mechanism for parking districts. c. The Commission believes a parking "structure" is a long range possibility and should be considered only as a conceptual tool at this point in time. d. There is strong support and Commission consensus for a detailed traffic study of the Village Area. The traffic study should assess all aspects of the proposed circulation plan, including: impact on reduction of on- street parking spaces turnaround at west end of Big Basin Way left -turn lanes Parking District #3 traffic signals /stop signs pedestrian crossings limited (time restricted) parking on Big Basin III. Design Guidelines 4/21/87 Page 3 a. The Commission supports a mini -plaza on the south side of Big Basin Way in or near the "Buy Save" parking lot. b. The Commission supports the development of design guidelines specific to the Village. The guidelines should address items such as signage, decorative parking materials, landscaping, street furniture, lightposts, awnings and other building materials, and should be as detailed as possible to provide adequate direction to the general public and City staff /commissions /Council. c. The Commission recommends that decision making authority on land use and design review applications for Village properties rest with the Commission, not a separate Village Committee. A separate committee could only be supported if it was advisory in nature. Memorandum to Mayor City Council Re: Village Plan IV. Implementation N 7- B:vp 4/21/87 Page 4 The Commission generally supports the Plan, but believes that the cost estimates for the public improvements need to be studied and refined. They also recommend that the entire implementation program needs to be prioritized and, once adopted, strictly enforced. Yu ek Hsia Planning Director Attachments: Planning Commission minutes 3/25/87, 2/25/87, 1/28/87 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 MARCH 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 10. DR -87 -018 Coffey, request for design review approval of plans to construct four (4) DR -87 -020 new 3,929 sq.ft. one -story single family homes at 20449 Miljevich Dr., DR -87 -022 13264, 13286 and 13263 Glasgow Ct. in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district per DR -87 -025 Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker questioned in DR -87 -020 why there was no statement prohibiting two story structures; Consensus that two -story structures were allowed on interior lots 5 and 6. Commissioner Pines complimented the developer for presenting larger houses which did not unduly impact the neighborhood. TUCKER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -87 -018, 020, 022, AND 025. Passed 6 -0. 11. A -990.1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Sturla, request for a modification to a condition to allow applicant to enter into a deferred improvement agreement rather than underground utilities prior to occupancy for a professional office building located at 19100 Cox. Ave. in the P -A zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, dated March 25, 1987; Staff amended Recommendations to read, "1. Prior to final inspection of the office building now under construction at 19100 Cox Ave., applicant shall enter into a deferred improvement agreement to underground overhead utilities, and 2. Applicant to underground overhead utilities prior to final inspection of future building on an adjacent parcel to the south or by March 25, 1992, whichever comes first." Chairwoman Burger noted on land use visit that overhead utilities were extremely unintrusive. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:25 P.M. SIEGFRIED /GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:26 P.M. Passed 6 -0. PINES /GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF A -900.1 WITH THE ADDITION OF TWO CONDITIONS AS STATED. Passed 6 -0. 12. Saratoga Village Plan Consider preliminary public input on draft Saratoga Village Planning Program. Planning Director Hsia reviewed the actions of the Planning Commission and presented a draft of the Commission's comments. Land Use/Zoning: b., Commissioner Pines suggested a statement addressing possible parking impact from additional usage due to third story space. Circulation and Parking: c., Consensus reached to delete the word "very" to read, "The Commission believes a parking "structure" is a long -range possibility..." In d., Consensus reached that a Traffic Study asses the best location for pedestrian crosswalks. Commissioner Tucker suggested the use of limited parking (15 -20 minute) on Big Basis Way; Consensus reached that the Traffic Study consider this recommendation. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED ADOPTION OF THE SARATOGA VILLAGE PLAN DRAFT. Passed 6 -0. 13. City of Saratoga, consider report and recommendation to the City Council regarding alternative uses for school sites. Continued to April 22, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PIJBLIC HEARINGS: 8. Saratoga Village Plan Consider preliminary public input on draft Saratoga Village Planning Program Planning Director Hsia reviewed the status of the Saratoga Village Plan and asked the Planning Commission to direct Staff to prepare a draft; he noted a change in the existing Zoning Map. The Public Hearing was opened 7:35 P.M. Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Merchants Association Task Force, made the following comments: Parking District 6; he asked for further consideration of this proposal by the Commission In -lieu Fee; asked for consideration of this issue Favored only one zoning district in the Village No three story buildings in the Village Existing office use; he suggested consideration of a time limit for inappropriate uses Businesses with intensive uses, i.e., real estate or phone sales offices; possible creation of a separate standard for intensive office use verses general office use? Requested clarification of the number of parking spaces gained from parking districts Design guidelines were too general; he asked that a "flavor" for the Village be agreed upon Enforcement of guidelines Col. E.T. Barco concurred with the comments made by Mr. Rankin. Mr. Dennis Aldridge, 14607 Aloha Ave., Saratoga, questioned whether the Saratoga Village Plan was related to the extension of the Village boundary 500 ft. to include Bed and Breakfast establishments; Chairwoman Burger reviewed the decision of the Commission on this issue. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0. The Planning Commission reviewed and commented upon the Report from Stephen Lafer, Consultant, dated February 5, 1987, as follows: Land Use and Zoning: Comment 1: Commissioner Tucker asked that a Traffic Study by done. Commissioners Siegfried and Pines favored the retention of two zoning districts and noted differences in the two districts. Consensus reached by the Commission in favor of retaining C -H -1 and C -H -2. Comment 2: Consensus reached to prohibit the third story on street; however, a third story to the rear of the building would be allowed. Parking needs to be addressed. Comment 3: Commissioner Harris noted there was no testimony that would change the plan to phase out office use at street level; she favored the use of a time limit. The City Attorney stated that a time period was already specified; he noted the distinction between a non conforming use and a non conforming structure. The question was whether the City would enforce the removal of a non conforming use for which the time had expired. A non conforming office use at ground level could be legitimized through a use permit and subject to conditions imposed by the Commission He confirmed that the devise was already in place as the Code presently existed. Request made that the report state any applicable Codes; the Commission wished to see the Code enforced as outlined by the City Attorney. Comment 4: The City Attomey stated that the Code defined various types of services; these definitions were consistent with comments made by the Consultant. Comment 5: No additional comment made by the Commission. Vehicular Circulation: Comment 6: No additional comment made by the Commission. Comment 7: No comment necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Design Guidelines; Comment 1: Commissioner Siegfried noted the unspecific nature of design guidelines. Consensus reached to support the proposed mini -plaza on the south side of the Village. Comment 2: Design review guidelines need to be specific for the Village. Comment 3: As above Comment 4: No additional comment. Comment 5: No additional comment. Comment 6: Commissioner Harris asked that a limitation regarding size and non moving images be placed on neon signs. Chairwoman Burger favored a ban on all neon signs. Consensus reached that neon signs not be banned, however design and size to be severely restricted; Chairwoman Burger dissenting. Comment 7: Commissioner Harris cited comments made at Study Session; consensus that Sign Ordinance already in place be enforced. Comment 8: Details to be addressed in Design Review guidelines. Comment 9: Details to be addressed in Design Review guidelines, concurrence with Consultant's comment. Comment 10: Concurrence with Consultant's comment. Comment 11: Concurrence with Consultant's comment that "all awnings should be canvas." parkin Comment 1: Commissioner Siegfried asked that long term parking requirements be met and enforced. Consensus that employee and proprietor long term parking be provided and enforced; in addition a Traffic Study was requested. Comment 2: Commissioners were favorable to in -lieu fees but asked how other cities handled similar parking situations. Consensus in favor of in -lieu fees for every parking district. Comment 3: No comment save that a parking structure was considered a long range issue. Comment 4: No recommendation at this time; requested a Traffic Study for further information Commissioner Siegfried questioned the effects of intensification of office use (less square footage per user) in the Village as well as in Saratoga. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's comment, the City Attorney stated that the Ordinance did not address this issue specifically; however, the use permit could regulate intensity of use. Commissioner Harris noted that a turn around was already being used; a Traffic and parking study could address the issue. Consensus reached in favor of the turn around; Chairwoman Burger and Commissioner Siegfried dissented. The Commission requested a detailed study. Consideration of the establishment of a Design Review Committee as a decision making body; consensus reached that the Commission wished to retain decision making power in regard to the Village. However, consideration would be given to the establishment of a design review committee as an advisory body. 9. DR -86 -028 -1 Wayne Miller Investment Co., request for design review approval of 15,400 sq.ft. retail Center on 1.42 acres of vacant property in the C -N zone, located east of Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. approximately 300 ft. south of Cox Ave. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, February 25, 1987, and noted the revised Condition 16. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JANUARY 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued TUCKER/GUCH MOVED TO DENY UP -86 -006 ON THE GROUNDS THAT FINDING 1. COULD NOT BE MADE. Failed 3 -4, Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Siegfried, Pines, Callans opposed. Commissioner Pines asked that the location of the sign for Building 4 be stated and suggested that the sign be located further northeast, toward Cox Ave. /Saratoga Ave. intersection. The Applicant was agreeable to placing the sign further north along Saratoga Ave. closer to the inset of the building. The sign will be moved approximately 60 ft., with the base of the sign is to be on the back of the berm, 6 inches below the crown of the hill. PINES /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE UP -86 -006, AMENDING THE RESOLUTION TO READ, THE SIGN FOR BUILDING 4 TO BE MOVED 60 FT. IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION WITH THE BASE OF THE SIGN TO BE PLACED ON THE BACK OF THE BERM, 6 INCHES BELOW THE CROWN OF THE HILL. Passed 4 -3, Commissioners Hams, Guch, Tucker opposed. 12. Saratoga Village Plan Consider preliminary public input on draft Saratoga Village Planning Program Planner Young presented the Memorandum on the Saratoga Village Planning Program, dated January 22, 1987. Mr. Lafer, Consultant, reviewed the Summary of the Planning Commission, study session of November 4, 1986, adding the following comments: Chapter II. Land Use and Zoning: 1. Height He concurred that 3 story buildings on Big Basin Way could be visually intrusive on a narrow street and was agreeable to eliminating the reference to 40 ft. height allowance. He suggested the wording, "Three story structures could be developed either on the rear half of the property or the rear half of the linear length of the buildings, not on the frontage of buildings." 2. New zoning districts Additional comment not required. 3. Parldng He noted the need for additional parking studies. As stated in the Report, parking in small lots with obscure entrances on the north side of Big Basin Way were inadequately used. He suggested that, rather then looking at other communities to determine their parking requirements, parking studies be based upon direct observation of the Village area due to the terrain, dead end streets and other unique characteristics of the Village. Solutions lie in improved pedestrian access to parking, consolidation of lots and better lighting of parking areas. "Automobile- oriented business," such as automobile upholstery or auto parts shops, are undesirable and should be excluded; such operations occupy space, are unattractive and attract automobiles. Perhaps drive -in restaurants and similar retail uses should also be excluded. Business in the Village should be pedestrian intensive. 4. Office and professional uses permitted to the rear or second story of buildings so as to not interrupt pedestrian traffic flow. Chapter III. Vehicular Circulation., 1. Left turn lanes each left turn lane would remove a minimum of three on- street parking spaces; however, these lanes are needed especially for aftemoon traffic and should be considered after the first phase of parking improvements are completed. 2. General he concurred that additional studies are needed. The turn around has been proposed for an optimal location; however, it could also be located further west if necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JANUARY 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 3. Parking if a parking structure were needed, the best place for it would be out of sight of Big Basin Way. Chapter IV. Design Guidelines 1. Design Review Board design review will require a significant amount of time and work, reviewing proposed building designs as well as working with Staff to coordinate details of public improvements. The Consultants suggested a separate design review committee. 2. Street trees he commented on the method of calculating cost figures submitted. 3. Public plaza he felt that the proposed location was acceptable and suggested that a smaller space could be considered, which would still create a significant visual impact on the street view. He noted that leasing land from private parties was often done in the east; any legal concerns could be worked out by the City Attorney. 4. Signage Consultants noted that signs which are too large destroy the architecture of the buildings and dominate the visual environment. 5. Historic Overlay Consultants felt that as the Historic Preservation Commission continued the work, there may be new proposals and mechanisms; a historic preservation overlay might not be precisely contiguous with the commercial development downtown but might extend over the residential district. This would not be possible if it were all incorporated in a commercial zoning district. Secondly, if such a district were created it might incorporate special incentives for saving buildings of historic value, for example, reduced property taxes or special building code applications. If so, it would be better to have these items in a special overlay zone so that if there were a challenge or litigation, the whole commercial zoning district doesn't end up in the courts. Chapter V. Implementation: No additional comments. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Merchants Association Task Force, stated his personal comments on the above: 3 story buildings on Big Basin Way would create excessive traffic, would not relieve the parking shortage, and were not in keeping with the Village plan. Questioned the differential in Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the commercial district in density, site coverage and setbacks. He favored one continuous shopping area. Parking District 6; he suggested that the turn around area is placed on 6th street. In -lieu fees to replace on -site parking requirements for property which had no parking and no parking district existed, a property owner could pay an in -lieu of fee allowing development of the property to take place, increased square footage could be built and money would be in place for future parking districts. Questioned the concept of placing retail stores along Big Basin Way and asked what would happen to a service business already located on Big Basin Way. Questioned the plans in front of Buy and Save He presented a letter from the Village Association, stating that the Board of Directors would approve in concept a plan whereby the developer paid fees in advance and could then proceed with development. Mr. Bill Carlson, Bella Mia Restaurant, favored the proposed plan and asked that the Sign Ordinance include provisions prohibiting use of neon signs. He recommended that replicas of old fashioned street lamps and park benches be used on 5th and 6th streets. Mr. McKenzie, 14554 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, discouraged removal of any parking spaces. He concurred with the idea of in -lieu fees suggested above and was favorable to two story parking ramps. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JANUARY 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dave Morrison, Saratoga, asked specific questions regarding property he owned, asking that this property be rezoned for commercial use. Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, addressed the issue of the Public Hearing to be held on March 4, 1987, on the proposed Bed and Breakfast Ordinance; she is opposed to extending the Village boundary to allow a Bed and Breakfast establishment in a residential area. Mr. John Christian, 19022 Brookhaven Dr., Saratoga, stated that he has the same concern; since the Planning Commission voted to deny the application, why was the issue part of the Consultant's recommendations? The City Attorney stated that the Consultant was responding to the Commission's question whether the heritage overlay was a zoning classification; it was noted in comments made that it was not necessary to tie the two together, the Heritage Commission may have different boundary lines. Ms. Jackie Welch, Chairwoman of the Beautification Committee, proposed the following: Plan to repair sidewalks for both safety and appearance, asking that sidewalks be uniform throughout the Village Sidewalk between 4th Street and Wildwood Park to connect the Park and the Village Unauthorized use of on- street parking by proprietors and employees; she suggested provision for free proprietor and employee parking to eliminate the problem Specifying type of awnings, use of canvas awnings only Guidelines regarding temporary signage Telephones and benches to be located near bus stops Use of specified type of cobblestones Restriction of parking lots from abutting sidewalks; only retail and commercial use should abutt sidewalks Questioned parking formulas and asked whether such would give flexibility for uses such as outdoor dining and historic buildings. Mr. John De Manto, San Jose Construction Co., owners of the former Security Pacific Bank Building, commented on the following: Noted in Parking District 5, that Bank property and Village Shopping Center parking had a differential grade level and questioned whether these two lots were to be combined Concern with left tum lanes on 3th and 4th Streets and the resulting loss of parking Provision for doubling office space at the Bank Building, which he wished to preserve Favored a turn around to the south of the Village Monitoring employee parking Questioned the street name, Turkey Track Lane Questioned the cost of building the proposed parking garage Questioned a proposal which would not allow any additional banks; he wished to protect his investment in the former Bank Building Procedures to be followed during the review of the Village Plan proposal with prospective tenants Use of "maintainable" materials in construction or beautifying the Village Mr. Frank Behnke, President, Saratoga Village Association, stated that the proposed Village Plan did not provide any information not already known. He noted that retailers are leaving the Village and asked that the Village be supported and that parking space be increased. He favored the proposed Parking District. The Public Hearing Continued to February 25, 1987. Chairwoman Burger recessed the Meeting from 9:23 9:40 P.M. 13. DR -86 -054 Krajeska, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new two-story single family home at 13943 Pierce Rd. (Vista Regina) in the NUR zoning district. Chairwoman Burger reported on the site visit. May 20, 1987 Saratoga City Council Y 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Council members, On April 7, 1987, the Saratoga Village Association voted to endorse the concepts in the proposed Village Plan, with the exception that the zoning regulations should be the same throughout the Village commercial area along Big Basin Way. We also believe the height limitations should be the same. We previously voted to approve an in -lieu parking charge rather than providing on -site parking for any new development where there is no existing parking district. We also voted that all neon signs in the Village are to be removed that are up with out a permit. All previous approved neon signs should be removed within one year of the effective date of the new Village Plan. Thank you, THE SARATOGA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION Frank Behnke, President P i 5. 66 1 ,./ve--LeJ—at& --714- a PQ Box 725 Sarato0a,CA.95071 0